Copyright Again
March 16th, 2005 | by Todd W |My brother forwarded an article from Newsweek on copyrights, knowing that this is a particular Hot Button for me. Since I needed something to rail about, here goes.
First, I must display my content icon. 
Click here for an explanation.
The thrust of the Newsweek article is concerned with the Creative Commons license, familiar to many other bloggers, particularly those who use Moveable Type. I use it myself on this site, and I think it is a great step in the evolution of copyright as a concept. I’m all for a graduated system of artists rights, with some crucial reservations.
Primarily, any copyright scheme must contain the current US Copyright law as the most restrictive form of protection. In my mind, no other system does a better job of preserving creativity as a compensated activity. While many may produce art just for the sake of producing art, it seems self-evident to me that artists do better work when they are free of the financial concerns of everyday life. It’s hard to carve out a sculpture during your lunch hour at the factory, as it is difficult to write that novel in the late evening hours after work. In the past, before artistic work was widely compensated by general consumption for fee, we had a patron system of wealthy individuals, willing to subsidize the artist so they can focus on their work. Today, serious artists can expect to be paid for the enjoyment of their work, and I think that is a reasonable expectation.
Therefore, the current copyright law, while not perfect, does an admirable job of protecting artistic works from inappropriate use. The creative content, despite being incarnated in digital form, still belongs to the artist. Such an assertion drive the file-sharing crowd insane, but I won’t be budged from it.
File sharing is theft. The assertion can not be reasonably argued against. While many will argue that file sharing promotes music, or helps artists by word of mouth, these arguments do not deal with the fundamental tenant of ownership: it isn’t yours to take. I can’t break into someone’s bank account and refinance their house at a better rate. Victim benefit is a novel legal concept, and I have the feeling we will be seeing more of it in the future.
Should an artist choose to make his work available for free, then that is his right. Perhaps one day a model will emerge to permit adequate compensation through free distribution. Until then, the traditional copyright system should be left alone.
From a consumer perspective, the publishing house, record labels, and movie studios provide a valuable function. Many artistic endeavors are unable to penetrate the traditional publication route for very good reason: poor quality. While taste is subjective, I can rely on a labeled work meeting a minimum standard of quality even to make it on the shelf/rack/screen. After spending some time on the free music sites, I can’t say the same. The labor/benefit factor is much to large for my taste, as I don’t enjoy spending hours to find even one acceptable track. I’m certain that many music lovers will rail about how they find dozens of worthy bands, or they will rant about the homogenizing effect of mass publication. Those are fine arguments, but they run against something that will probably cause a lot of discomfort: art is business. It always had been, on some level. If you really wish to decouple the homogenizing effect of mass markets, you need to address the pricing structure, and devaluing the price of the art is not the answer.
Basic economics dictate that a publishing arm will embrace what the market wants. Therefore, iterations of the Da Vinci Code are all over the place. Personally, I prefer less popular works, and it is becoming difficult to find good quality books. Why should a publisher embrace a quality work that might sell very few copies, when the price is essentially fixed as equivalent to a work like the Da Vinci Code? The short answer is in the consumer’s willingness to compensate the art he wishes to consume. If a connoisseur of eclectic work is willing to pay double or triple for a single volume, then that market will get more service. Unfortunately, I don’t think most are willing to do that, so instead they rant and rave about not finding good works, and blame the publishers and book sellers for being in business.
Uncommon tastes have an uncommon cost. This is an economic force that levels the continuum of artistic taste. Mass market is mass for a reason.
Yet in the face of the simple economic reality of compensated labor, a fringe segment of looters seek to devalue the price of good art. How long will a much loved artist work while living out of a van? The transient poverty of the starving artists is called ‘paying your dues’ with the implied reward of wealth and comfort at some point in the future. Giving away free music is a step on the road to recognition, but at some point payment will be expected.
To assume that the free art model will cast aside the pay for play model is naive at best. At worst, it threatens to destroy part of the incentive that keeps artists going. Sure, many will continue to produce while living in near poverty, and many more aren’t in it for the Gulf stream jet, but a sufficient number of artists would at least like to live comfortably off of the fruit of their labor. While record labels or publishing houses may have an unequal hold on the royalty equation, there are better means of reform. Stripping copyright protection is a bad way to start that process. Folks like Lawrence Lessig are more concerned about ‘public domain’ than the welfare of the artist.
UPDATE - added link to the Newsweek article. D’oh.
