guff

Don’t Steal This Blog

Copyright is not an issue of discussion many would think of tackling in a humorous way. So let’s do that, shall we? First, I hate when columnists hold off their views on a matter at hand until somewhere near the end. I assume they do it to improve the illusion of a logical, dispassionate discovery method of composition reaching a definitive and correct conclusion — which also happens to be where they stood to begin with. Or maybe they enjoy emulating Sherlock Holmes. Well I hate mysteries, so let’s straight off put to rest my position on copyright: I’m in favor of it as it stands, but I’m also certain it’s in need of a major overhaul.

You were aware that Ambiguity is a sweaty mistress in jackboots and tie-dye Phish pullover, weren’t you? She’s also a real looker, no doubt about that.

Clarity! I’m for copyright because it still works reasonably well at providing legal protection to the originator of a work, in as much as something three hundred years past its meager origins can be expected to function. What those rights and protections are continue to be modified, varying depending when or where on the planet one exists. But it does its job when it’s allowed to. Why does an “author” require such protection? Why do we have laws to deal with kids jumping in Honda Preludes they don’t own to take them for a spin? A creative work, whatever medium it’s placed in, is rarely produced for the sheer joy of the muses. True that the inventive process is often riding gunshot, but there is also an underlying force which follows the same lines of a paid vocation or desire to exact riches (earned or not). They say we must work for our supper, and I’ve yet to stumble over a political system that disagrees with this.

On the other hand, copyright theft, piracy, borrowing, whatever you prefer to call it, has vastly changed from the image of a back alley sleaze it was once thought to be, thanks in total to how easy our technology makes it for the general public to copy and redistribute another’s work. This is what keeps the question of copyright dropping on the hot button. A book can be scanned, run through character-recognition software, receive a little manual cleanup, and it’s ready for a Web site. Artwork is even easier; no text to read. Music probably receives the most press, good and bad. There’s a tech love oozing from the mp3 format. As for programs and other bits of computer code, it’s already a digital beast. All this is to say that the world around us changed, and in some small way has changed us along with it. When you copy a song off the newest 2 Live Crew CD and send it off to a bunch of friends, are you considering the finer details of copyright law? Forget how low a state you must be in to rip 2 Live Crew.

To badly mangle Plato, laws are made in the interest of those in or with control, with the side benefit of punishment to those who do not abide by them. As our representatives would have us believe (I guess to some degree it’s true) they also protect ourselves from ourselves. Plato felt disobedience of a law one believes to be unjust is fine and dandy, and most would be hard pressed to come up with a good argument to the old Athenian these days. However, to call copyright law unjust is stretching things, since there are few components to it which can be seen to infringe upon the rights of an individual. How is being unable to e-mail Stephen King’s new twelve-hundred page tome an encroachment on your rights? But they can definitely be seen as out of step with the times, and to ignore this loses site of a goal behind legal protections like those of copyright, at least as stated in the US Constitution (Article I, 8.8): “…to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts…” So we can thank laws like those of copyright for the tools that now challenge it more than ever. Ah, sweet Irony. She’s as hot as Ambiguity, only more confusing to talk to.

I’ve said before (not here, but around) that I’m not a lawyer, but I play one when this topic comes up. I play it badly but definitely in earnest by entertaining enough layman’s interest to reach an opinion based on an informed understanding. Wish we could work that way in all things. But enough! No more on my jurisprudential depths when it comes to copyright. I’m in deep enough, let’s leave it at that.