7/03: Eldred V. Ashcroft is an important challenge to the latest extension of copyright protections that was accepted for argument by the US Supreme Court. The fact both lower courts rejected the challenge suggests there is some hope the lawsuit's arguments will get a receptive hearing. The lawsuit argues that (1) "limited times" doesn't mean copyrights of close to a hundred years in length and (2) "promotion of the useful arts" doesn't mean extending current lenghty copyright terms even longer without even asking the copyright owners to help preserve or further promote their work (putting it on the internet or more secure medium for instance). The article supplied discusses the case and many of the points I discuss below. [A ruling upholding this rule was handed down, which is not surprising, but still troubling]
A Compromise: Limiting Copyrights (author supports Napster decision)
Napster and music downloads in general are but one part of the overall ongoing revolution in the concept of the copyright. The origins of copyright in modern times was the revolution in publishing brought on by the printing press and the intellectual revolution, which made the publication and consumption of books and pamphlets much more widespread. This brought a need to protect the author's ownership of his/her product, both to retain some control over the content and to be properly compensated for it. The costs to publish and distribute also required some means to assure compensation for such services, which in the long run would benefit society at large with increased and easy to access of useful and beneficial publications. An underground market that ignored such legal protections of course existed, but was no match for the overall success of legally distributed works.*
The US Constitution honors the spirit of traditional copyright law, but does so by giving Congress power to give only a limited monopoly [and a monopoly with all the negative implications such a special right raised to Jefferson and others, is how many understood it to be] to writers, copyrights for limited periods of time. Furthermore, though the term was never really (if it could be) fully defined, only "useful arts" are to be given such protection. Nonetheless, current law stretches "limited" to a point where the word really does not have any meaning, except maybe in cosmic terms (a thousand years is "limited" after all). The law currently protects works for seventy years after the death of the author (or owner of the work), and recently this period was expanded. A limitation that in the long run burdened the "useful arts" more than promoting them.
This resulted in the allowance of the son of the long dead author of "Lolita" to sue an Italian author who wanted to use the story and tell it through the eyes of the teen girl. (After blocking the publication in the US for awhile, a solution was reached, and the son wrote a prologue to the book.) Not only does this make an "original" interpretation of older works a copyright infringement, it does so long after the author is dead! [A similiar controversy rose with a new interpretation of the even older "Gone With The Wind."]
How this furthers art instead of serving as a limit to it is unclear to me. Compare this to the original truly "limited" guidelines of fourteen and twenty-eight years (both renewable once). This protects authors, but not so much that important and enjoyable artistic works are held hostage for over a hundred years. And if we are stuck with such ridiculous laws, let's define "original works" broadly enough that parodies, new interpretations of older works, and stock situations/characters are protected from copyright infringement suits. The alternative is to protect works such as Disney (a company who adapted many of its famous movies from old fairy tales) for as long as a hundred years.
Not only does the control of copyrighted works last so long, but a large number of them are no longer in the control of the individual authors or their families. This is the case for much music purchased today, which makes Napster uses not very sympathetic to concerns of artistic integrity. The more important thing seems to be money, money that in many cases does not promote "useful arts," which is supposedly the reason for copyright protection, not Columbia Records' pocketbook. This is especially the case when individual artists are not well compensated, special tracks of music are stuck with the same old stuff providing a neat way to force people to buy stuff they have already, and major distributors (including radio stations and music shows) do not provide an easy way to listen to some new and not so mainstream artists.
Furthermore, concern for the demand for easy to access material of all tastes as shown by Napster is important since the distribution of copyrighted works has become much simpler. Let it be known that music and book stores (and online/mail order offshoots) still are doing good business, and not just for the privilege of having CD jewel cases or book jackets. In otherr words, free downloads, peer to peer transfer, and so on is still in its infancy, and copyright is far from dead. Nonetheless, the revolution has begun, and should be recognized. A major way this can be done is a subscription site (partly funded by ads, like many online press sites are, or perhaps other means such as merchandise sales, special events, etc) that provides a broad range of content, plus a forum for new artists to put their material for promotion. Also, the greatly reduced price of production and distribution (cd burners alone show this) must lead to a serious reduction of price, just as the computer revolution cut down the price of computers.
I do not want my qualified support of free music downloads to mean that I totally agree with the "copyright is dead" school. It is true that technology has and continues to supply alternatives to often overpriced books and music. For instance, online magazines provide me much information that I once had to consume in libraries or by purchasing magazines/newspapers. This has to be faced by those who produce such media, so people will continue to feel there is a reason to purchase them. For instance, movie prices are somewhat high, but people still go to get out of the house, to see the film on a big screen, and for the overall movie experience. Also, some films can only be seen at the movies. Nonetheless, television, cable, and video/dvd greatly changed the movie industry. They had to change, but the goods are still copyrighted and provided with some charge, even if it is only commercial time on free tv.
Some "copyright should be dead" people really are saying copyright is too expensive or controlled by corporations in such a way that useful arts and the general spread of knowledge is harmed. Fair enough. Nonetheless, people still have to be paid (things may be cheaper these days, but production of art still costs something), so let us not think more reasonable fees means free. Also knowledge is a good thing, and the cheaper it can be spread the better, but it is asking a lot of your favorite writer or singer to spend their time and not get paid for it. On the other hand, society can as a whole state that words, music, and art is too important to cost too much. Furthermore, though creativity should be recognized and compensated, the justice of a life time plus monopoly does not follow. This surely is the case when the creator is recognized and compensated, and the monopoly will needlessly limit creativity [e.g. online fan fiction that often provides a special twist]. Such concerns are not well handed by just suing the Napsters of the world, but litigation rarely is the best way of doing things.
* I think a good new 21st century business would be a provider of cheaply made packaging for freely downloaded content. For instance, you want a "Best of Blink 182" CD, but also want nice packaging to go along with it? Or maybe you like books, but not the price of them? Well, the new provider will give you the latest John Grisham novel in actual novel form, for little more than the price of production. Web publishing programs can make rather nice looking CD packaging to provide your bootleg copy a nice look, perhaps even nicer than some in stores. And how about the added value of downloaded music without the fuss of waiting the dl time or worrying about viruses? Nice business for a teenager near you.