I’m getting a little tired of hearing all the same old sad, irrelevant arguments brought to bear in the defense of piracy.
-
Piracy isn’t really stealing, because the so-called victim of the piracy never loses anything.
-
Piracy isn’t a violation of copyright law, because you’re making a copy for your own personal use, and that’s legal.
-
Copyright law was never intended to protect the artists, it was intended to protect the printers.
-
The only people rooting for the preservation of copyright law are the big corporations, because all it does is perpetuate their profit model.
-
Copyright law is immoral because a worker who creates an original work for an employer never holds the copyright to it.
-
Copyright law is immoral because so-called “content” is information and information should be free because it is in the best interest of the common good.
-
Since the incremental cost of digital distribution is near zero, the price of digital work should be near zero.
-
Artists will always produce art, whether they get paid for it or not, because it is in their blood.
-
It is immoral for any artist to make more off their art than I declare reasonable.
-
Blah blah blah blah blah …
But rule number one, life’s Standing Order Number One, is “Always identify the problem.”
The problem here is very simple, and it has nothing at all to do with the fairness or validity or history or purpose or origins of copyright law.
It’s the piracy, stupid!
In actual point of fact, none of the arguments above, and most of the arguments I haven’t listed, have anything at all to do with the problem, which is that we seem to have raised an entire generation who want something for nothing. Yes, I know. That’s a generalization, and it’s as unfair as any such statement, but it has become increasingly obvious that there is a generational divide in operation here.
Want to know where the ducks are? Look to where the shotguns are pointed. And in the battle over piracy, the guns are pointed squarely at copyright law. Why? Because it’s the one thing standing between the pirates and their victims. And what does that mean? That we, as artists, as creators of intellectual property, must protect the existing copyright law. It may not be perfect. It may not be what it was intended to be. It may not exist for the reasons we think it should, but the fact of the matter is that, as it stands now, copyright law is an impediment to the progress of the pirates.
Of course copyright law protects the printers, when they are the copyright holders.
Of course copyright law prevents information from being free. Your social security number, bank account number, and current bank balance are information. Are you going to make it free?
Of course artists will always produce art, but will you ever get to see it?
The only way to guarantee the continued production of any art, whether it is fiction, painting, drawing, or hand-decorated mud pies, is to see to it that the creator is granted full protection under law from the theft of that art. If the artist chooses to transfer that copyright, as part of some contract, to a printer, publisher, or other third party, that is their right.
Stop talking about whether piracy is theft or not.
Stop talking about whether copyright is moral or not.
Start asking yourself this:
What is a world without any art going to look like?
Related posts:
- Further Thoughts on Copyright – A Response to Luke Bergeron
- National Punctuation Day
- Character Truth Versus Narrative Truth
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Levi,
Certainly I agree with all of your points as to the legal matters—and moral matters—of protecting the commercial aspect of art that is produced to be commercial (commercial art is not bad and non-commercial art is not a ‘given good’). And certainly I know that these are ‘rants’, but I did want to chime in that a differentiation needs to be made on a few points: if an artist wishes to combine his or her art with commercial endeavor—if an artist wishes to try to earn a living based on their art—certainly there are laws in place and these should be protected (as your parallel about social security numbers etc. says). But, the vast majority of artists do not produce art to make a living, and principally there is no connection between the commercial success of one piece of writing and the ability of an artist to produce another. The arguments in favor of piracy are tedious and silly and grating, yes, but do remember that piracy only has to do with the business angle of art and it really has to be reinforced that this is only one aspect of art. Art not only predates art-as-commerce but the world could get all post-apocalyptic and art will continue. There isn’t going to be a world without art. However, I am in full support of your statements that an artist who does (and rightfully does, I don’t disparage it) want to pursue commercial avenues or combine their financial well being with their art should be able to, under the full and vast protection of the law, and should not be at the mercy of the opinions of artists who do not want to—it is silly for an artist who doesn’t care about copyright law to even talk about why copyright law doesn’t matter, they should just not copyright their work and let you copyright yours—they go your way, you go yours.
Cheers.
Pablo,
First, a minor aside: one doesn’t copyright or not copyright a work of art. Under current law, a work of art is copyright the moment it becomes a tangible item, that is, a book, a script, a painting, a poem written or printed on paper, etc. One may choose whether to protect that copyright or not, but not whether to copyright it or not.
On to the major point: yes, it is, of course, hyperbolic to say that we are headed to a “world without any art.” Yes, there will, of course, always be art. If, as I have postulated elsewhere, art is any distinct and deliberate attempt to create an aesthetic impact upon the observer or listener, then among any dozen people, half of them will produce art at least sporadically, and one or two will produce art frequently. There will be art.
What there will not be, in a world without any means to protect the ownership of intellectual property, is art that is produced by people who have dedicated their lives to its production, and which is distributed in any meaningful way to any meaningful portion of the people on Earth. Art will become less accessible, not more so.
Which seems to be a bit at odds with what seems to be the favorite argument among the pro-piracy crowd: that art should be freely available to everyone.
Totally agree with what you’re saying, especially about art becoming less accessible instead of more. We’ll have a lot of crap on youtube and publishing would become like the Lulu store. A VERY few gems in there, but most people don’t care enough to put that much effort in since they can’t make money. People act like blending money and art is evil but we don’t live in a hippie culture where everything is free. Things cost money and all the energy I have to spend doing stuff that isn’t writing I want to do, is less energy I would have to produce the writing I want to create, and if I couldn’t make money off it, I sure as hell wouldn’t be polishing it for reader consumption. I’d keep it all to myself. I think a lot of writers feel similar.
Luckily however, too many industries rely on the written word and the ability to profit from it. Advertising messages tied in with trademarks (which would come under fire if copyright did), for example.
The pirates who want to do away with copyright are speaking out their posterior regions. It will never happen. The business world would fall into anarchy and we would have a massive economic crumble. There are also way too many corporations and individuals who would revolt and create such a fuss that copyright would have to be reinstated for polite civilization to move forward. I know I’d be there ranting and raving and picketing.
Imagining a world without copyright protection is like imagining a world without government. It will never happen. The second copyright was done away with, just like government, a new similar system would be set up to protect authors. There is power in numbers and force is the only way some power is kept. That’s how the law works, by intimidation and force. I have no reason to believe it would be any diff with copyright.
I agree that the younger generation has a strong sense of entitlement. They act as if artists are their slaves. And it’s because they don’t comprehend or appreciate the hard work that goes into creating something for their entertainment. ALL workers in every other field are compensated, no one is profited off of without fair compensation, but in the art world, many want to change that.
Zoe, it’s interesting that you tied trademark to copyright. Very valid point, and possibly crucial in that it will bring some deep pockets in on the pro-copyright side.
Levi