RSSStill Not Convinced
May 31st, 2008 | By Eric Hoefler | Category: Writing/Media/GenreI keep trying to understand the position of the “copyright abolitionists,” but so far, I’m still not convinced. Here are a few points I’m stuck on … and there are probably others as well. I think this is an extremely important issue, though, so I’ll continue to learn and think about it.
Freely Sharing Ideas
Thomas Jefferson is often quoted in the copyright debates, particularly this quote:
He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.
I understand this quote, but I don’t understand how some people use it as an attack on copyright. Copyright law already recognizes that ideas cannot be protected. What copyright protects is the fixed expression of an idea. So, my idea for a story about a couple trapped in a house and terrorized by strangers cannot be protected. The specific expression of that idea, on the other hand, can, whether it’s the film Funny Games or the film The Strangers.
Copyright is Unethical
I’m still struggling with this one. If this is supposed to mean “preventing people from sharing ideas is unethical,” then I agree. But what people mean when they say this, whether they realize it or not, is usually that “preventing people from freely distributing copies of a fixed expression of an idea is unethical” … which doesn’t make any sense to me.
Usually, this argument is closely linked to the argument that “the cost of reproduction is effectively zero.” In other words, since it doesn’t really cost anyone anything to copy a fixed expression, it’s therefore ethical to make those copies without paying anyone anything.
Both cases ignore what I see as a vital part of the equation: namely, the efforts of the creator in creating that fixed expression, his/her right to maintain control and ownership over his/her creations, and the ethical principle of trade. Specifically: this guy spent time doing X … time he didn’t spend doing other things to provide for his basic needs (food, shelter, etc.). Therefore, since I enjoy and/or benefit from X, if I want him to continue doing more things like X, I need to help him provide for his basic needs.
Put differently, I don’t see why people have a problem with the idea of paying some reasonable amount of money to the creators of things they enjoy. I don’t see what’s unethical about a law that requires this to happen.
Before the rebuttals begin, let me say that I understand and agree that current copyright law says more than that and is, in many ways, corrupt. I’m in favor of copyright reform. What I’m addressing is the idea that no sort of copyright should exist at all.
Other Business Models
I think other business models are definitely necessary, but not ones that rely on something other than the original creation to generate the income.
I often hear the argument that musicians can make money from concerts and merchandise. Well, that’s fine if the musician wants to tour and sell T-shirts. But primarily what the musician does is create music. The music itself should be the basis of whatever money is generated. If it’s not, then the musician is forced to become something other than a musician … which kinda defeats the point.
Still Thinking
At any rate, I’ve still got a lot of thinking and reading to do on all this. I don’t have answers, and I’m pretty sure I don’t even have all the right questions yet.
Any recommendations on authoritative books, articles, or studies are definitely welcome.
Related posts (auto-generated):
- Copyright, Confusion, and Cooperation I've been collecting posts, videos, etc. related to the copyright controversy in my Del.icio.us account, tagged copyright. As a writer, English teacher, lover of film...
- Gnuosphere on File Sharing Peter Rock has been graciously helping me continue to think about copyright over on his blog. It started with his post "sharing denies nothing" in...
- Plugging Our Ears This morning, Doug Noon shared a post entitled "The Fiction of Intellectual Property." The post and the comments are thoughtful, but ultimately frustrating. What follows...
- Free Fiction Paul Krugman has an op-ed piece entitled "Bits, Bands, and Books" in The New York Times today about the influence of digital content on existing...
- Copyright and the Control of Information Neil W. Netanel defines the problem newspapers face in the digital age: Newspapers thus suffer from the classic public goods problem. Producers of quality journalism...
Could you link to some of these abolitionists you speak of? Do they even have a significant voice? I’m not sure I’ve even had a conversation with someone who believes no copyright should exist at all. Surely that movement has little significance.
“preventing people from freely distributing copies of a fixed expression of an idea is unethical” … which doesn’t make any sense to me.”
It makes sense to me. It is unethical to prevent people from sharing their copies of cultural or practical works under copyright. However, I think it is entirely ethical to prevent others from claiming authorship and, for a limited time, selling copies. As well, for certain works, derivation rights are ethical to reserve. What doesn’t make sense to me is the idea that once an author sells (or gives) a copy to a citizen, then that author has a moral right to stop that citizen from sharing copies with others. It is not a moral right nor should it even be a privilege under copyright law.
“The music itself should be the basis of whatever money is generated. If it’s not, then the musician is forced to become something other than a musician”
So a musician who does live performance has been “forced” into being something other than a musician? I’m not understanding why “the music itself should be the basis of whatever money is generated”. If the music is well received, then it will generate income in a variety of ways - in a sense it IS the basis. Why must *sales of copies* be the primary source? As well, allowing sharing doesn’t mean musicians won’t sell copies anyway. Allowing sharing doesn’t deny musicians this right. I sense you fear that sharing will lead to wiping out income from sales.
Could you link to some of these abolitionists…
A few links I’ve been tracking during the last week or so spurred this post. It started with Michael Arrington’s TechCrunch post “It’s Time To Rethink Copyright Law.” From there, I followed the comments of Crosbie Fitch and a few links he left. I also followed some trackbacks to TechDirt and Why does everything suck?. If not in the posts themselves, there are certainly comments for these posts that explicitly or implicitly have an abolitionist agenda. I have no idea how wide-spread the movement is, but it’s out there.
I sense you fear that sharing will lead to wiping out income from sales.
Yes, I think that’s a part of my concern. Still, I’m not wed to any particular business model (in theory or principle), I just believe we need to carefully preserve a genuine economic incentive for creators. Granted, the creation must, for whatever reason, appeal to a wide audience to generate any real income, but that possibility must exist. Otherwise, we risk eliminating one of the major incentives for creators to share their creations. (Another incentive, it seems to me, is the assurance that a creator who does share his/her creations will not “lose all control” of that creation … )
Incidentally, a comment on Arrington’s post references the NMPA’s “The Engine of Free Expression: Copyright on the Internet” which offers this quote:
The breakdown of the copyright system in post-Soviet Russia, a nation with a rich history of creative accomplishment, can teach us all a lesson. Just as the strictures of totalitarianism were being removed from the lives of Russian creators, the traditions of copyright protection and enforcement were abandoned. The result has been the utter dissipation of Russia’s creative community. Some creators have fled to the West. Others have been forced to abandon their craft. Either way, the output of creative works has nearly ceased, a sad result for a great culture.
I’d be curious to know the validity of this statement (causality is a tricky beast to cage) and if there are other, similar findings out there. Back to the research …
“the creation must, for whatever reason, appeal to a wide audience to generate any real income, but that possibility must exist.”
Are you saying that if sharing is allowed then that possibility can’t exist? Certainly restricting sharing doesn’t lead to more appeal. If sharing is restricted then you better hope you have some lots of money to advertise because restricting sharing is counterproductive to generating appeal. This is the business model that needs to go. It serves the recording industry, not artists.
The NMPA article you linked to is about as biased as it gets. It’s hard to take it seriously. I’d like to believe the debate has at least matured enough to go beyond that garbage.
I agree with your first point. At any rate, it seems difficult to imagine any effective, non-totalitarian way to prevent such sharing.
As to the article, I linked to it not as a good source, but to raise the question about the case it cites. Do we have real-world examples that we can study to gain a better sense of what the effects of various changes to current copyright law will or will not have?