Loading ...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
(Report abuse)