Entertainment Industry Gets Social Media Inheritance Bill Amended To Exempt Copyrighted Material


HB1455, introduced by Rep. Ben Hanson, does two things.

First, it prevents employers from asking employees for access to their online/social media accounts. As I’ve noted previously, this makes me a little uncomfortable. I don’t like the idea of employers asking for that sort of information, but I really don’t like the government putting the employer/employee relationship in a box like this.

Second, it allows for people to make decisions about their social media accounts in their wills. Want all your online data destroyed when you die? You can do that. Want it all left to your friends and/or loved ones? You can do that too, which is important in this day and age when we live so much of our lives online. Family pictures, videos, and writings are important mementos, but they’re not stored in boxes up in the attic any more. Now they’re stored online.

But something interesting happened during the committee process for the bill. Lobbyists for the entertainment industry got the bill amended to exclude copyrighted material from the inheritance section. Here’s the floor debate, with Rep. Thomas Beadle noting the amendment:

I respect copyrights, but I’m not sure I like this amendment, because the entertainment industry is invoking rights they don’t already have.

Here’s an example: If your uncle died 20 years ago he might have left you a box full of copyrighted pictures, movies and books he’d purchased. You could have kept, and used, all those things without breaking the law.

But under this law if your uncle died and left you a Dropbox account full of copyrighted pictures, movies and books he’d purchased you wouldn’t be allowed to access them.

In other words, the entertainment industry is creating a higher standard for copyrights for digital media than previously existed for older sorts of media.

Piracy is obviously a concern, but in this day and age when more and more people are buying e-books, digital music and movie downloads many citizens may be building up large, valuable and perfectly legal collections of digital content. This amendment would seem to put the right of citizens to pass on digital property to their heirs very much in question.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters.

Related posts

  • Andrea Toman

    I’m thinking of the extra work this creates… Let’s say I leave my laptop and it’s contents to my sister. She would probably back up the data, reformat, and use the thing. But later, when she would want to go back through the files, she would have to (or pay someone else to?) go through and delete every copywrited item. That’s a lot of (legally purchased) music, movies, books, etc. Some of them are consolidated under iTunes, but certainly not all. A person could start a business cleaning drm stuff off of deceased person’s computers. What kind of a cost is that going to be to for compliance?
    If someone said you had to burn all your deceased aunt’s books after she died, what would you think?

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      Keep in mind to that the trend in a lot of digital media is away from DRM.

  • Matthew Hawkins

    That is not what they are after here.

    If I write an episode of a hit series, I am paid a royalty because I own the copyright which I license to the producers of the show. If I die, they don’t want to pay my heirs.

    This is. Not about family photos.

    • Matthew Hawkins

      Actually I might be wrong. This might be about whether you own any media you get online or whether you license it only for personal use. The entertainment industry might be arguing they are only giving a license which is not transferable upon death.

      This license language is in the agreement online that nobody ever reads.

      • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

        They clearly want the heirs to buy the content too, and I’m sure you’re right about the EULA’s in many instances, but the ammendment makes no distinctions. It.just says copyrighted content, which would include content not subject ti any sort of a license.

        • Matthew Hawkins

          They want their cake and to eat it too.

        • Andrea Toman

          The idea that they want the heirs to purchase it as well may be valid in some cases… But in others, that content may no longer be available. Publishers come and go, as do artists and recording studios, etc.