Congress is finally reviewing copyright as it stands in the USA.\u00a0 But, according to the latest news, they are not including creators in the process.\u00a0 Oh, they’re involving copyright holders, yes.\u00a0 The ginormous companies that have inherited, bought, or had signed over the copyright to thousands upon thousands of creative works will have their say, but I doubt that these companies and agencies accurately represent the opinions and beliefs of the creators who make the products in the first place.<\/p>\n
I’m not examining big business’ dealings with copyright; that is not my rant.\u00a0 At the risk of stepping into shoes way too big, I’d rather offer myself up as representative of creator and user.\u00a0 Ever since I started studying copyright to expand my professional skills I have become exponentially more interested in how the initial purpose of copyright has found a home within my urges to create and my drive to consume.<\/p>\n
First of all, copyright is all about creation.\u00a0 It is meant to give creators enough credit and remuneration to encourage continued creativity, and it is meant to provide the public with enough access to copyrighted materials to encourage more widespread creativity.\u00a0 That is it, just two parties, the creator and the user, and the law.\u00a0 Third parties are introduced when managing copyright over a work becomes something the creator wants to farm out, and yet third parties are all we ever hear about these days.<\/p>\n
I come from an age of pirates and I work in library services that function in very narrowly defined exceptions to copyright.\u00a0 I know that sharing an mp3 of the “Happy Birthday” song is actually making a copy of the digital file, not lending your CD and then getting it back from your friend (i.e. no copy made).\u00a0\u00a0 And that copy, in the traditional print media language of US copyright law, is a violation because it has taken away the right of the creator to make money on the sale of the copy…in theory.<\/p>\n
What I see in how I use and offer up creative products is that copyright law is completely inapplicable to a digital world.\u00a0 More than that, it is inapplicable to a world were easy duplication of a thing is possible for any member of the public.\u00a0 Copyright law is ill suited to any world with copy machines, scanners, printers, or cameras.\u00a0 Copyright law was formulated for a world where a town’s three rival printers\/publishers fought for authors whose names would sell copy.\u00a0 It was created to curtail businesses from reproducing and selling work printed by a rival business, and it’s power was placed in the hands of the author.\u00a0 Somewhere along the line the power was turned over from the author, the creator, to the business.\u00a0 This is the heart of the whole problem.\u00a0 When power migrated to the businesses, businesses stepped between creator and user.<\/p>\n
Creators want to get their work out there.\u00a0 You can see this in every art blog and online fiction site.\u00a0 Artists and writers regularly offer up their creations to search engines, lurkers, and devoted fans online.\u00a0 Creation is an act of communication between the artist and the world.\u00a0 Without a waiting world, there could be no communication.\u00a0 The most common issue I have ever seen raised by a creator on the internet about their work (or digital copies thereof) being linked, shared, transported, used, and copied by others has been in regard to attribution whether or not they have specifically adopted a rights statement that says so.\u00a0 I share this feeling.\u00a0 In fact, the only way people can find you, the artist, in the pixel polluted world of the internet is if people share your stuff and talk about you.\u00a0 And still the reason why I love the internet is because, should I become well known, it is the users who have chosen me.\u00a0 The only way the same amount of people could find me without the internet is if a publisher or agent took a liking to me and pushed my goods.<\/p>\n
As a user, I want to make sure the creators whose stuff I love and use are encouraged to do more.\u00a0 I want to spread the word about how awesome they are and encourage other people to follow their progress as well.\u00a0 And when they sell a printed volume of stuff I have seen in excess online I want to buy it, because I am greedy, and because I want them to know that I want more out of them.\u00a0 I will give them money, directly, just to ensure they complete that next project (which is why we have sites like kickstarter), and I care less whether they are published through a reputable publisher.<\/p>\n
There are people out there who abuse the openness of creativity, who take advantage of a creator’s proffered communication to the user.\u00a0 There always have been.\u00a0 This is why copyright law was created, not to regulate the interaction between creator and user but to regulate the business who plans to co-opt a creation and sell it, without the creator’s involvement or sanction, in order to compete with its business rival.<\/p>\n
How topsy turvy are we then, that the businesses are helping our government decide how we, as creators and users, interact with each other?<\/p>\n
Select articles:<\/p>\n
EFF’s:\u00a0 “Real Copyright Reform Starts With Listening to Users, Not Just the Usual Suspects”<\/a><\/p>\n Tech Dirt’s:\u00a0 “Next Two Congressional Hearings On Copyright Reform Show The Exact Wrong Approach”<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"