Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Copyright Lobby Out of Touch
Ontheright writes "The BBC is featuring a story on
how the U.S. copyright lobby is increasingly out of touch with the rest of the world. The article focuses on a recent report designed to highlight the inadequacies of IP protection around the world by arguing for a global expansion of the DMCA and elimination of copyright exceptions. Michael Geist penned the article, which specifically calls out the United States for expecting the world at large to adopt its non-standard standards for copyright law."
The U.S. copyright lobby exists for one purpose: to give distributors sole custody of intellectual property "rights." In the past, pre-copyright, there was no intellectual property -- there was only marketing material that provided an artist or creator access to the market so they could sell their true product: live productions of that marketing material. Shakespeare wrote for acclaim, but it was his live performances that produced his income. He was also paid by wealthy patrons of the arts who wanted to see more from him. For centuries, this is why art was created. Those who didn't want acclaim but still wanted to produce art would do what we all do for incomes -- they got jobs in creating something for someone else.
For 200 years, copyright was considered the only way to protect your creations, but what came out of copyright is the worst-case scenario for amateur artists: instead of copyright protecting your creations, it only protected the monopoly networks of distribution, what I would call distribution cartels.
Now, 200 years later, we have a majority of opinion that believes that people wouldn't create if their intellectual property wasn't protected. But this isn't true. I created the Global Unanimocracy Network"> of blogs and forums in order to prove that you could generate an income for your talents without the need for copyright. All my writings are now public domain -- I freely encourage others to copy my writings and posts and repost them under their own name, on their own sites, for their own income. Why? Because it generates interest in the niche topics I cover, and eventually people find their way to my site. I make a decent income through advertising and individual support for my future writings. People pay me so that I will write more in the future. Even better, my network of blogs has also gotten me writing gigs for other sites that pay me to write content for them in a "ghost writing" type of deal.
If you are a musician, you have two options: record a record and use it as marketing to get people to your shows (as my brother's band Maps & Atlases has done), or go and get a job as a studio musician creating music for commercial ventures (movies, TV shows, muzak, etc). The idea that you can spend 2 weeks or 2 years creating one record and then reap 70 years of income is ridiculous. Does a plumber go to school for 2 years to learn how to fix toilets only to get paid for 70 years whenever you flush that toilet? No, they continue to work. Does an architect spend 2 years designing plans only to get paid forever by those who live or use the building that came forth from the plans? No, they keep designing. Artists are no different -- they should continue their labors in order to continue to reap incomes.
Right now, copyright has placed in the hands of powerful mercantilists the monopoly of distribution. The FCC decides who can transmit over public airwaves, and this blocks amateurs from the airwaves. Yet those days are coming to an end as the airwaves are growing less important as the Internet is available in more and more places (for example, I have a consistent WiFi connection to the net in my car at about 200kbps via T-Mobile's EDGE network). As the Internet finds its way to more parts of the country and the world, the public airwaves will be less utilized and way less efficient. The copyright lobby knows this, and they're trying hard to restrict future growth in "piracy" and non-licensed distributors. Yet for amateur artists, the non-licensed distributors are the best way to get the word out about their real product: continued labor to make new and unique art.
A friend's band, 38 Acres, now tells their audience and online visitors to freely copy their albums for friends. They make a decent income selling unique performances, and they also make an income selling their T-shirts and hats and posters. People who "pirated" t
Wrong.
EMI, Warner, Sony, the RIAA, and the other components of the music and recording industry are shielded from certain anti-trust provisions by 17 USC 114(e)(1). That makes them different, and they should be held to a different standard on their pricing and behavior. Otherwise, the exemption should be removed.
If you purchase a song, a book, a bit of art, or a software product, you understand you are purchasing it for your use under certain conditions of the sale.
Again, this requires full disclosure, which is not always in existence. Sony did not disclose that it was putting auto-installing software on CDs to prevent copying, so that decision could not be made. They got caught, and paid a financial price for it, but that behavior is not acceptable. It is the same reason that some shiny discs that operate in CD players are not technially CDs, because they do not meet the standards of the format. (That is disclosed because they cannot place the "Compact Disc" logo on the package). Software licenses and not being able to read them before opening a package are also an issue that has made it to the courts because it produces an imbalance of information and ability to make good decisions.
You have the right to NOT enter into an agreement with the owner of the work, simply don't purchase.
That is true, and it is why I only purchase music on CD.
However, let's look at this from a slightly wider perspective. The contract society originally entered into with copyrights was to provide a monopoly to the owner (either the creator or an assignee), for a limited time. There are items that balance out that monopoly power:
- In 17 USC 109, which codified the doctrine of first sale. This allows me to resell a book without the permission of the copyright holder
- In 17 USC 107, fair use
- In the expiration of copyrights
What licensing attempts to do - and what DRM enforces - is leveraging technology to impose a contract which curtails my rights which are part of the social contract enshrined in Title 17 (Copyrights). My issues with the limitations imposed by today's DRM systems are that:
- DRM strips me of my rights under 17 USC 109 (they should not be able to claim copying digital bits is a violation of their copyright while avoiding the ability of me to transfer that copy legally under 17 USC 109(a))
- DRM strips me of any fair use rights under 17 USC 107
- DRM strips me of any ability to have the work beyond the copyright period (since there are no provisions for removing DRM)
DRM today eliminates my rights by leveraging the monopoly granted to them by the copyright act. As far as I'm concerned, that's a violation of the social contract in the copyright act, and if they wish to use DRM, then they should be able to do so, but their work should no longer be protected by the US Copyright Act or the Berne Convention. If any party is capable of subverting the limitations imposed on them when society came to agreement on the terms, then they should also lose the benefits.