On Copyright and Digital Distribution
Apr. 10th, 2006 07:59 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chrystallineThis is just a perfect example of what I see as the problem with our current copyright system. I'm all for creators being able to profit from their works - after all, I'm looking forward to being able to do the same thing - but this is downright ridiculous. There needs to be a limit on the life and breadth of a copyright. I look back at the age of traveling minstrels and folk tales and I wonder if we haven't lost too much already. We don't have folk songs anymore - we have a cartel, a coalition of big companies and unions clamping down on schools and camps and hospitals if someone so much as sings Happy Birthday. Modern cultural references are almost all copyrighted - is it any wonder there's a backlash against big corporations? Culture brings us together, uniting us in common history and entertainment, but when people cannot gather around a campfire to sing their favorite songs or relate their favorite stories without worrying about lawyers from the Big Media companies, we have a problem.
I don't agree with piracy, either, but this lawsuit is another symptom of the same thing. Yes, P2P software can be, and frequently is, used to pirate movies/music/software, but the method is not responsible for the use. Are the kitchen knife manufacturers responsible for crimes of passion? Are baseball bat makers to be sued when mobs use their products to bash in windows and attack police? The sad thing is that people will probably do just that, if it hasn't been done already, despite the fact that anyone with a lick of sense can see that it's stupid.
The Piracy Party in Sweden has a point when they say "copyright PREVENTS a lot of new culture" - just look at the current atmosphere of fanfiction, fanvids, fanfilms, mashups, and the like. Culture has always been about incorporating new things and making them part of the whole, and the current setup is definitely inhibiting that. Fan creations invariably include a disclaimer of some kind, because the fans are well aware of the Big Media propensity for lawsuits. These disclaimers are not really worth anything, though, and when the Big Media lawyers decide to pursue something, the fans always lose, usually capitulating to avoid a costly court battle they can't afford anyway, even if they were making any money off of the work.
However, I think they may go a little too far in their goals of crippling copyright. Like most things, I think the reasonable answer lies somewhere in the middle. I know I wouldn't want to be limited to five years of profitability on my creations, but I don't see the point in chaining the use of them for 70 years after I die, either. Even if I eventually marry and have children, I don't think that makes a lot of sense - other industries don't have that kind of staying power, so why should film/book/music creation be any different?
Another facet of the problem is this: copyright law differs from one country to another, and as long as we remain unable to agree on it, there are going to be issues like The Pirate Bay. A huge percentage of the audiovisual entertainment media is created here in the US, and the US companies take our tight copyright laws eagerly to heart and pursue all who put action to belief regarding the ridiculous nature of our copyright restrictions. Trouble is, the copyright laws in other countries differ, which is why the aforementioned Pirate Bay has not only not been shut down, but has become notorious for mocking the (usually US) companies that send C&Ds.
It's also ignorant to think that P2P is going to go away. Even if the Big Media lawyers manage to kill one, another will spring up to replace it. Napster, anyone? Followed by Kazaa, BitTorrent, eDonkey/eMule, BearShare, and who knows how many others? Frankly, iTunes is the first indication that the media conglomerates are learning anything. That and a handful of pay-to-download-movies sites are making the transition slowly and painfully into the Digital Age. The biggest problem I see is that they do not truly understand the nature of the internet: geeks may be a minority in the real world, but they rule the web. Cater to the geeks, distribute online, and develop a fiercely loyal audience. That's the key, but I don't think they're going to get it.
I don't agree with piracy, either, but this lawsuit is another symptom of the same thing. Yes, P2P software can be, and frequently is, used to pirate movies/music/software, but the method is not responsible for the use. Are the kitchen knife manufacturers responsible for crimes of passion? Are baseball bat makers to be sued when mobs use their products to bash in windows and attack police? The sad thing is that people will probably do just that, if it hasn't been done already, despite the fact that anyone with a lick of sense can see that it's stupid.
The Piracy Party in Sweden has a point when they say "copyright PREVENTS a lot of new culture" - just look at the current atmosphere of fanfiction, fanvids, fanfilms, mashups, and the like. Culture has always been about incorporating new things and making them part of the whole, and the current setup is definitely inhibiting that. Fan creations invariably include a disclaimer of some kind, because the fans are well aware of the Big Media propensity for lawsuits. These disclaimers are not really worth anything, though, and when the Big Media lawyers decide to pursue something, the fans always lose, usually capitulating to avoid a costly court battle they can't afford anyway, even if they were making any money off of the work.
However, I think they may go a little too far in their goals of crippling copyright. Like most things, I think the reasonable answer lies somewhere in the middle. I know I wouldn't want to be limited to five years of profitability on my creations, but I don't see the point in chaining the use of them for 70 years after I die, either. Even if I eventually marry and have children, I don't think that makes a lot of sense - other industries don't have that kind of staying power, so why should film/book/music creation be any different?
Another facet of the problem is this: copyright law differs from one country to another, and as long as we remain unable to agree on it, there are going to be issues like The Pirate Bay. A huge percentage of the audiovisual entertainment media is created here in the US, and the US companies take our tight copyright laws eagerly to heart and pursue all who put action to belief regarding the ridiculous nature of our copyright restrictions. Trouble is, the copyright laws in other countries differ, which is why the aforementioned Pirate Bay has not only not been shut down, but has become notorious for mocking the (usually US) companies that send C&Ds.
It's also ignorant to think that P2P is going to go away. Even if the Big Media lawyers manage to kill one, another will spring up to replace it. Napster, anyone? Followed by Kazaa, BitTorrent, eDonkey/eMule, BearShare, and who knows how many others? Frankly, iTunes is the first indication that the media conglomerates are learning anything. That and a handful of pay-to-download-movies sites are making the transition slowly and painfully into the Digital Age. The biggest problem I see is that they do not truly understand the nature of the internet: geeks may be a minority in the real world, but they rule the web. Cater to the geeks, distribute online, and develop a fiercely loyal audience. That's the key, but I don't think they're going to get it.