MESSAGE
| DATE | 2010-04-14 |
| FROM | Ruben Safir
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] The Economist on Copyright
|
Leaders
Protecting creativity Copyright and wrong Why the rules on copyright
need to return to their roots
Apr 8th 2010 | From The Economist print edition
WHEN Parliament decided, in 1709, to create a law that would protect
books from piracy, the London-based publishers and booksellers who
had been pushing for such protection were overjoyed. When Queen
Anne gave her assent on April 10th the following yearâ300 years
ago this weekâto âAn act for the encouragement of learningâ they
were less enthused. Parliament had given them rights, but it had
set a time limit on them: 21 years for books already in print and
14 years for new ones, with an additional 14 years if the author
was still alive when the first term ran out. After that, the material
would enter the public domain so that anyone could reproduce it.
The lawmakers intended thus to balance the incentive to create with
the interest that society has in free access to knowledge and art.
The Statute of Anne thus helped nurture and channel the spate of
inventiveness that Enlightenment society and its successors have
since enjoyed.
Over the past 50 years, however, that balance has shifted. Largely
thanks to the entertainment industryâs lawyers and lobbyists,
copyrightâs scope and duration have vastly increased. In America,
copyright holders get 95 yearsâ protection as a result of an
extension granted in 1998, derided by critics as the âMickey Mouse
Protection Actâ. They are now calling for even greater protection,
and there have been efforts to introduce similar terms in Europe.
Such arguments should be resisted: it is time to tip the balance
back. Annie get your gun
Lengthy protection, it is argued, increases the incentive to create.
Digital technology seems to strengthen the argument: by making
copying easier, it seems to demand greater protection in return.
The idea of extending copyright also has a moral appeal. Intellectual
property can seem very like real property, especially when it is
yours, and not some faceless corporationâs. As a result people feel
that once they own itâespecially if they have made itâthey should
go on owning it, much as they would a house that they could pass
on to their descendants. On this reading, protection should be
perpetual. Ratcheting up the time limit on a regular basis becomes
a reasonable way of approximating that perpetuity.
The notion that lengthening copyright increases creativity is
questionable, however. Authors and artists do not generally consult
the statute books before deciding whether or not to pick up pen or
paintbrush. And overlong copyrights often limit, rather than
encourage, a workâs dissemination, impact and influence. It can be
difficult to locate copyright holders to obtain the rights to reuse
old material. As a result, much content ends up in legal limbo (and
in the case of old movies and sound recordings, is left to
deteriorateâcopying them in order to preserve them may constitute
an act of infringement). The penalties even for inadvertent
infringement are so punishing that creators routinely have to
self-censor their work. Nor does the advent of digital technology
strengthen the case for extending the period of protection. Copyright
protection is needed partly to cover the costs of creating and
distributing works in physical form. Digital technology slashes
such costs, and thus reduces the argument for protection.
The moral case, although easy to sympathise with, is a way of trying
to have oneâs cake and eat it. Copyright was originally the grant
of a temporary government-supported monopoly on copying a work,
not a property right. From 1710 onwards, it has involved a deal in
which the creator or publisher gives up any natural and perpetual
claim in order to have the state protect an artificial and limited
one. So it remains.
The question is how such a deal can be made equitably. At the
moment, the terms of trade favour publishers too much. A return to
the 28-year copyrights of the Statute of Anne would be in many ways
arbitrary, but not unreasonable. If there is a case for longer
terms, they should be on a renewal basis, so that content is not
locked up automatically. The value society places on creativity
means that fair use needs to be expanded and inadvertent infringement
should be minimally penalised. None of this should get in the way
of the enforcement of copyright, which remains a vital tool in the
encouragement of learning. But tools are not ends in themselves.
|
|
