Is it just me, or is there a need for a new debate about copyright? The Copyright Act that is on the statute book at the moment was passed in 1978 and has been updated several times since then. But in essence, we are dealing with a piece of legislation that was passed when the like of Microsoft and Adobe were mere start-up companies. Heck, the PC hadn’t been released. Though the Copyright Act was amended to deal with computer programs, the Act doesn’t deal with digital content effectively, in my opinion. For example in the “fair dealing” provisions the Copyright Act states that you are allowed to create a copy of a computer program for backup purposes only. However, the Copyright Act does not explicitly allow you to rip a CD to MP3. As far as I am concerned, this has become a human right. In effect, I have paid for the CD so why should I have to obtain another licence in order to rip the CD to MP3 and put it on my iPod, as some copyright lawyers would have me do. I’m not selling the music so what’s the problem?
If anything, the example of music highlights how there needs to be a fair balance between the rights of the musician and that of the consumer who has purchased the CD or download (for example). The problem though is that the music industry seems to be trying to stop music piracy, but the horse has long bolted. Tactics applied by the music industry include suing people who download considerable amounts of music from (mostly illegal) download or torrent sites. The music industry has in several cases obtained damages running to millions of dollars against students, for example. Let’s be honest, which student has a couple of million dollars lying around to pay a fine? Unless the music industry is prepared to accept Zim dollars …
The music industry is trying to use the old logic to solve the problem. The problem is that the old logic no longer works. We need a new logic to deal with copyright to make sure that the rights of all interested stakeholders are protected. For example, why not follow the iTunes model and make individual tracks available for download for a reasonable sum of money? Also, why add digital-rights management and treat people like criminals if they want to distribute the music to a few friends? Provided that you aren’t going to be making the music available to all and sundry, what’s the problem? I understand that there is the issue that the musicians will lose some royalties, but isn’t the point that the record labels and musicians need to be thinking with the new music paradigm (that already exists) in mind?
At the same time, while music needs to be treated in one way, computer software, for example, needs to be treated in another. When it comes to computer software there are a variety of free downloads these days if you don’t want to use Microsoft Office, for example. In such cases, you shouldn’t be allowed to distribute a copy or two of Microsoft Office to a few friends under any new fair-dealing provisions. How come? Simply because there are other options available that don’t exist in the music industry, for example. In essence, if you want to drive a Rolls Royce, you have to pay Rolls Royce prices. But this also highlights how we need to look at the different kinds of copyrighted works to determine what form of protection and fair dealing would be appropriate for each form of copyrighted work.
Yes, this means treating copyrighted works differently, but that’s the whole point of any new debate about copyright. However, the one thing that should not, under any circumstances, be tolerated is piracy. So what is needed then is a culture of responsible sharing since it is arguable that Gen Y is far more inclined to a culture of sharing than Gen X or the baby-boomer generations who make up the majority of most music label boards. The internet has irrevocably changed the way that we interact with copyrighted works and our legislation needs to start reflecting this change otherwise we will be left behind in the digital Stone Age.
thought provoking
The music industry has been repetitive about copying music for decades now. The same fears they invoke about file sharing echoes their fears when recordable tapes were released. As a teenager I copied friends tapes and expanded my music collection the same way I do via online sources. I still buy as much music as I would have before but have access to more than I can buy. I also purchase music from artists I like to support.
“Intellectual Property” is bunk, and needs to be done away with. Some reading material:
http://web.archive.org/web/20010919015101/http://www.insightmag.com/archive/200105229.shtml
http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella2.1.1.html
Very well said.
Come to LinkedIn and join the World Copyright Summit. I have been chatting there with Paul Sweazey, the chair of an IEEE study group trying to come up with a digital protection standard to address concerns like yours and mine. We could use your input.
Best regards from Canada.
I agree wholeheartedly, Warren. Software programs have been awkwardly shoe-horned into a regime they do not easily belong in. Music, when integrated into the soundtrack of a film, suddenly changes its character to become proctectable as part of the film with no account of the form of the film (digital or otherwise). The Act still distinguishes between broadcasting and diffusion systems (cable distribution) ignoring the content that is being distributed and creating different protection regimes depending on whether identical content is being sent over the net or over the airwaves. That is just daft.
My personal view is that a copyright system which focuses its efforts on creating different protection regimes depending on the manner in which the work is to be transmitted or the form of the work is more likely to be successful than our present system which seeks to classify a work as a book, painting, piece of music etc.
A digital file should be protected in a particular way regardless of its content. A piece of paper or canvas should be protected in an identical way whether it contains words or a Van Gogh masterpiece.
The Americans, and Jerome Reichman and James Boyle at Duke in particular, have been looking at the collapse of the copyright patent dichotomy in the digital age and are advocating the creation of entirely new regimes as the solution.
Bring on the copyright revolution in South Africa, I say.
The current copyright system renders a few musicians superstar status, but most of them un(der)employed.
The internet has made “record companies” potentially redundant and smart musicians have started benefiting – by publishing their own music on a donations-only basis, they have massively increased their live audiences.
I suppose the discussion is the difference between copyRIGHT and copyWRONG.
As long as the technology to copy anything is freely available, people will copy it. People photstat artwork, but cannot duplicate texture. We didn’t copy records, pre-tape era, because we couldn’t, but I’m sure there were a heap of musicians out there who played by ear and didn’t buy the original sheet music. In the digital age, more that legal changes are necessary; the teckniks need to consider protecting product better.
Warren – you know quite well that a seperate license to rip a CD onto your iPod is not required – just because the Copyright Act does not permit it doesn’t make it prohibited. Record companies have never attempted to sue people for this practice. There is certainly the need for debate in this area, but such examples are red herrings, and muddy the waters of the debate. As you point out (but don’t elaborate), piracy cannot be condoned. Thousands of musicians and singers are unable to secure record deals or obtain resources to promote their albums because of the millions of Rands loss that filesharing has caused. So where to draw the line? The music and film industry in South Africa don’t stand a chance if copyright protection becomes a dirty word. Rational debate is needed to create a framework that caters for the expanded uses that digital technology affords, while supported the expansion of businesses that legitimately distribute content on new platforms.
Please ask Warren to email us via hi@fox.co.za
We agree with many of his issues
speaking of copy right this is the emails we got sent at work:
Hi everyone
Please note that all outgoing emails internal and external will be blocked if containing the following phrases:
2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa
• 2010 FIFA World Cup
• FIFA World Cup
• World Cup
• 2010 World Cup
• World Cup 2010
• South Africa 2010
- SA 2010
- ZA 2010
• 2010 South Africa
• Football World Cup
• Soccer World Cup
This is being done to ensure we keep ourselves within the laws/rules issued by FIFA as FIFA has the right to subpoena documents and emails to check that there are no transgressions.
Please do not mail Mail Marshal asking for blocked outgoing emails of this nature to be released, as it is STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
HECTIC HEY!