Key Messages
Exploring The Dark Side Of Copyright Laws: How Copyright Has Limited Creativity And Innovation
In our modern-day world, it’s no secret that copyright laws and regulations are changing the landscape of our culture.
And these changes have had far reaching implications – from journalists to musicians, the creative industry is suffering due to the tightening of these laws.
But why should you care? Well, in Free Culture we look into the history of copyrights and explore how today’s laws and regulations aren’t aligning with what was originally intended.
We learn about how Hollywood was born from piracy, why student Jesse Jordan lost his life savings and ultimately, how current copyright laws are causing a tangible reduction in creativity and innovation within our culture.
It’s time for us to understand that copyright infringements do not necessarily mean bad news – in fact, they can provide new opportunities for creativity if we recognize their potential.
We must open up our minds to this knowledge; only then will we be able to curate a legal system that supports rather than stifles the expression of our artistic talents.
With The Introduction Of Copyright Limitations, Publishers In Britain And The United States Began To Protest And Try To Extend Exclusive Rights
Eighteenth-century English copyright laws were put in place with the intent of preventing publishers from monopolizing books and keeping the knowledge that was contained within them.
To achieve this, a number of regulations were enacted to limit the amount of time that exclusive rights over works could be held.
The Statute of Anne, for example, set copyrights terms for newly published works to 14 years or the life of the author, whichever was longer.
For existing works prior to 1710, it limited their copyrights to 21 years.
The purpose behind these new limits was twofold; it aimed to foster competition in publishing by limiting the rights of existing publishers and spreading valuable knowledge when a copyright expired by minimizing big publisher’s control over books once lawfully obtained by them.
This opened up possibilities for lesser known authors as well as better deals for readers as prices could not remain artificially high due to a reduced monopoly on materials.
It also allowed citizens access to more sources than just those owned by large corporations, leveling out what had been an unequal playing field in its favor.
The Unchecked Powers Of Congress Put Our Creative Property At Risk Of Perpetual Copyright Monopolies
The United States’ version of English copyright law clashes with the ideals set out in the Constitution.
The Fifth Amendment states that individuals are entitled to just compensation when their property is taken, while at the same time Congress is given the power to grant rights over creative property.
Through these laws, Congress has continuously extended copyright terms and made them essentially never-ending.
This means that works may never be entered into public domain, a move which stands in stark contrast to the American understanding of property as stated in the Constitution.
It is clear that the unchecked powers of Congress over copyright law are opposed to what it seeks to promote — progress.
The Digital Revolution Has Brought Unprecedented Challenges To Copyrights And Their Enforcement
It’s clear that the internet has changed the way we create and access information, particularly when it comes to creative property.
We no longer rely on physical copies to enjoy our favorite music or movies; we simply download or stream them online.
But despite this shift in the way we consume content, the law still sees digital downloading of copyrighted material as a form of infringement.
This kind of rigid regulation can limit our access and usage of the internet.
Just ask Jesse Jordan: after designing a search engine to index files on his university’s network, he was sued for willful copyright violation and faced financial ruin when faced with a $250,000 lawsuit.
This kind of situation could have been avoided if legal standards took into account new technological advances and greater access to information.
After all, downloading music is not equivalent to outright taking or stealing a physical CD—it doesn’t deplete its availability from store shelves in any way.
The law should understand how it can better work hand-in-hand with technology in order to provide better protection for creators while also allowing for more innovation and creativity in our digital space.
Piracy Gave Birth To All Of Today’S Big Media Industries
The truth is, all of today’s major media industries started out as a form of copyright violation.
Take the motion picture industry for example – it was founded by copying camera and filming technology without permission.
Thomas Edison formed the Motion Picture Patents Company to monopolize these technologies.
Those who refused to comply were subjected to threatening action such as mysterious “accidents”.
As result, they fled to California with Edison’s inventions until ultimately the copyright law caught up with them once Edison’s patents expired.
In the record industry however, things were different.
Copyright centered around composers and performers and when Henri Fourneaux and Edison invented the phonograph, composers had control over their music in terms of copies and performances.
However, once people were able to record themselves singing at home with no obligations or payment needed, U.S Congress had to intervene in 1909 changing the law requiring recording artists to get permission from composers as well as pay them a set fee- this allowed performers gain more publicity while also granting audiences access to a wider range of music.
Similarly, radio broadcast stations and cable television industries are also products of some form of piracy that has changed our media landscape drastically- so much so that now if you want access to any copyrighted material you must first pay for it or seek permission from the artist/creator beforehand otherwise you are legally liable for copyright infringement.
Thus it can be said that almost all major media industries today originated from some form of copyright violation—whether legal or illegal—making piracy nothing new after all!
Is It Ever Good To Take Something That Isn’T Yours? The Legality Of Taking Cultural Goods For The Benefit Of Society
When it comes to taking something that isn’t yours, most people will say no.
And for the most part, that’s good advice.
But in some cases, taking copyrighted material without paying for it can actually be beneficial to society.
Take Cory Doctorow, who released his first book Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom as a free download before publishing it in print.
The strategy was to give readers a chance to sample the story and hopefully they would like it enough to purchase the actual product afterward.
It worked—Doctorow’s book was a success!
Sometimes, you may also find yourself wanting to take something that can theoretically be bought but isn’t available anywhere on the market.
Since this material is still under copyright protection, taking it without permission would be illegal.
However, this type of sharing can be beneficial if it helps spread cultural goods that are otherwise hard to obtain.
In fact, if done purely out of curiosity and appreciation for a particular artist’s work rather than financial gains, then this could even be seen as a positive form of expression—the artist isn’t profiting from this particular work anyway!
Understanding The Benefits And Drawbacks Of Downloading Copyrighted Content
When it comes to pirating, there are two main types: downloading copyright-protected material that would otherwise be unattainable and downloading Rihanna’s newest single or the latest episode of Game of Thrones.
When it comes to the first type, although it’s still illegal, it can offer many benefits – both to creators and society at large.
In fact, some people use file-sharing in order to sample music and other copyrighted materials before purchasing them.
This is usually done via peer-to-peer (P2P) sharing, which is when files are shared among users through an open network.
Although we may not see it this way, P2P piracy acts as a form of advertising for certain products or content, whether someone buys them afterwards or not.
The second type of piracy is where people actually download the copyrighted content instead of buying it – and this is clearly harmful, since it takes away any potential profits from the artist(s).
Interestingly enough, however, most studies have shown that CD downloads do not have a direct correlation with drops in sales revenue for industries such as recording.
It seems like there’s more than just technology involved here.
The Consequences Of An Oligopoly: How Big Media Companies Use Their Power To Squash Competition
Large, powerful corporations will often use the law to protect their market domination and stifle competition.
This was evidenced in the story of Michael Robertson’s MP3.com – which wasn’t even sharing anyone else’s files, just the music that people bought on CDs – when it was sued by five of the largest record labels in a copyright infringement lawsuit.
The defendants ended up settling for $118 million and, as a result, Vivendi Universal purchased MP3.com and then followed up with a malpractice suit against the lawyers who had advised them that they were not infringing on any copyrights.
It doesn’t end there either – these giants are also well known to buy out smaller entrepreneurs like eMusic who could represent a potential threat to their power.
eMusic actively advocated new models of music distribution before being taken over.
Afterward, they changed their stance completely against more modern forms of distribution.
At the end of the day, large corporations have huge resources at their disposal to suppress competition and maintain their stranglehold over culture.
The Wealthy Benefit From Copyright Uncertainty At The Cost Of Creative Opportunities For Society
The current copyrighting process is inefficient, unfair and a burden for anyone but the rich and powerful.
It’s no wonder that most people don’t bother to use someone else’s work even if it would benefit their project.
The laws are simply too complex and require too much effort in terms of research, asking for permission, and money to pay everyone involved.
Before 1992, if you wanted to use something with a copyright Ⓒ on it, you could easily check the government’s registry of copyright owners in order to make sure the property was still under copyright.
However, now that requirement has been removed which means finding the owner can be difficult or even impossible.
Even if you do go through all that trouble it’s still possible you’ll miss something important or be at risk of getting hit with a big legal penalty.
Given this level of complexity combined with the cost of lawyers and other related costs only those with considerable financial resources can afford to take advantage of existing creative property without fear.
Small-time creators and individuals just can’t compete on this playing field thus creating an unfair system that undermines any attempts at creativity by non-monied parties.
Finding A Balance Between Copyright Protection And Open Access To Knowledge For Creativeexpression
We need copyright laws that can both protect the owner’s rights and encourage creativity.
To do that, we need to start by reforming the copyrighting process, beginning with restoring the registration, renewal and marking formalities for copyrighted works that was removed in 1992.
This would make it easier to ask for permission when needed.
Additionally, the services of the Copyright Office should be handled more efficiently, making it simpler and less of a hassle to obtain copyrights.
The Office doesn’t necessarily need to be administered by the government; they just must be approved by them.
A customer experience like that found on Amazon is possible when bureaucracy is managed right!
On top of copyright laws, there’s also understanding that free culture shouldn’t compete with commercial interest- we’ve seen enough evidence over time to know this is true!
Take law journals for example; providing students with free access familiarizes them with their services until they become professionals able to fully pay for such services.
There are even open source software options available which give users an opportunity to continue developing someone else’s work without harming the owner.
IBM uses Linux OS as an example of successful open source software.
Creative Commons further simplifies copyrights and makes them understandable at large scale.
Co-founded by the author himself, Creative Commons helps owners protect themselves while giving other creators opportunities explore and build on someone else’s work in a creative way.
In conclusion, society needs to understand that free culture doesn’t mean zero profit- rather it gives us room for creativity, development and security all at once!
Wrap Up
Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity is a book about the copyright laws in the United States and how they need to change to accommodate for the new creative possibilities technology presents.
The author, Lawrence Lessig, argues that powerful media corporations use copyright laws to their advantage at the expense of creativity and expression.
The book’s final summary makes it clear that copyright law in the U.S needs to be updated to keep up with technological advances, or else creators will continue to be shut out from creating new works due to lack of representation in this field.
It also highlights a point of view rarely seen before: access to cultural works should be made freely available so that everyone can benefit from them without fear of infringement or legal repercussions.
By doing this, a more vibrant culture and expression will be enabled.
