Copyright Love Fest
I posted this in response to Well Comm’s post, but I thought I’d repeat it here…
…it’s important to make clear that most people who are critical of the current intellectual property regime (myself included) are not anti-copyright. In fact, most–including Larry Lessig–are staunch defenders of copyright. The devil is in the details.
Most, for example, argue that the current term of copyright is out of whack. If you protect a copyright for 21 years–the original term of the Statute of Anne–that’s plenty if you are trying to encourage creativity. It means that if you write a book, you should probably write and publish another one sometime in the next two decades. People still get to protect a temporary monopoly, with out it getting (Happy Birthday, Mickey Mouse) stupid.
Likewise, when a kid on YouTube does a funny dance because a Prince song comes on, it shouldn’t result in the artist suing the parents. Again: that’s stupid.
And you shouldn’t be issuing patents for how to swing on a swing, or how to click on a link. Stupid.
And you shouldn’t sue teachers who show movies in a class, or artists who create new music based on old.
So, the battle here is not whether copyright should exist. Creative Commons REQUIRES copyright if it is to exist at all! The issue is getting rid of the stupid parts. To suggest that we can either have intellectual property the way it is today or not at all is disingenuous.
November 29th, 2009 at 9:17 am
We’re getting into some sticky but necessary issues here – plus it’s fun!
I doubt anyone can patent behavior: you can’t patent or control *how* someone uses a playground swing set, any more than you can enforce how light bulbs are used.
Yet I fear this is where we’re going. Big Corp and Big Govt want to control the means of IP distribution (how we communicate over the net); if they succeed in controlling the process of communicating, they can later control the content by deciding what can or cannot be distributed.
They are trying to enforce this by punishing the end users.
Copyright “in perpetuity” needs to be addressed.
November 29th, 2009 at 9:21 am
But not only can you…
Method of swinging on a swing, US Patent 6368227
November 30th, 2009 at 10:10 am
Is a “process” and a “method” the same thing, at least as far as copyright/trademark/patents are concerned?
Where is the distinction between protecting the original creator and the end user?
Can “behavior” by the end user be regulated? RIAA is the obvious example of punishing end users with brute corporate force, to make “examples” of end users with sheer financial power backed by govt laws.
To paraphrase John Marshall: “Let them enforce it.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia
November 30th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
The only thing I disagree with is (especially in regards to music) is letting people use old to create new. Re-mixing someone else’s material is NOT being creative, and doesn’t require any special abilities. It’s basically recycling. If someone has any creative talent, they should be able to write their OWN material.
November 30th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
This is a lot harder than it sounds. I assume you mean samples, and I think that the creative use of samples is fine. But beyond this, there is a long tradition in music, particularly folk music, of recycling earlier artists work. Usually this occurs with explicit or implicit reference to the earlier artists.
Remember, the idea that you would get paid by a *mass* audience is a relatively recent one, and I suspect one that will fade into our past. The peak of the mass audience is over, and with it, legal protections that enforce the idea of Superstar.
And yet, even if he never sold another album, Tom Waits can walk into any bar in America and walk away with five figures for the night.