Copyrights as patents
p2p news / p2pnet:- Copyright infringement is the basis on which many people in the USA have been sued. This situation has caused untold misery on some of the people who have settled with the Media Cartels. So why is copyright causing such a ruckus today?
The reason is the way in which copyright operates in that it can make “criminals” out of innocent people. But let’s look at why copyright exists in the first place.
Copyright is for the protection of an artist, poet, journalist, author, musician and other creative types. It came about from the exploitation of these very people and was designed to protect them in a financial sense and to combat plagiarism. This is understandable. The laws have a complex and long history, but I believe without them, Hemingway would have perhaps been copied and his works could have been disputed. For this reason copyright protection is a vital asset to creative arts and media.
But, of course with money and greed comes corruption. The corporations have taken over every facet of the media – print, music, film, art and other forms of media. Creativity is under the control of conglomerates, who have no other desire to see the promulgation of creative works, but to make money off these creative works. Bean counters run the corporations and they have the final say, this of course is due to the fact that shareholders are involved, and company boards are responsible to shareholders. This is of course how it is supposed to work, but never does!
For this particular reason the recent offerings of films and music have been poor and paltry, with the accountants looking at the bottom line – the profit. An exciting musical talent does not stand a chance today. Imagine Bob Dylan being discovered by John Hammond today? The discussion would go like this:
John Hammond: Guys I have found an incredible talent!
Bean Counters: Who is he?
John Hammond: Bob Dylan!
Bean Counters: Who??!!!
John Hammond: He is not the greatest singer, but boy, what an incredible wordsmith!
Bean Counters: Not a great singer? Forget it. He doesn’t have the right sound!!!
This is, of course, what happens every day in record companies around the world. Take the Spice Girl phenomenon – pure marketing genius, pitched at a certain market segment made them household names, never mind the fact that musically they were poor…
But on to how copyright does serve a purpose:
I work in the television industry and have worked on many productions in the twelve years that I have slaved away. Sport is the main consumption of the masses and huge amounts of money are poured in the various sporting codes. This is understandable, as sport has a widespread appeal, so it makes sense to spend a lot of money of productions. Television facilities, satellite time and crew are a small investment into the vast amounts of money that sport brings into the television companies. I think that copyright does play a role here – the television company takes the risk and crew make money from the production. Sport pays a lot of people’s mortgages. However, where I believe that copyright does play a huge role is in television series. The risks are enormous. The production can be an outright flop. Advertising revenue is the big supplier of money to commercial stations and it can be fatal for television stations to lose out of advertising. (Advertising revenue is on a downward trend, but that is a topic for another day.) A good example of a risk that has paid off is Battlestar Galactica. The producers have a lot of money to spend, supplied of course by the Scifi Channel, but they employed a lot of unknown actors and actresses to make this show a financial success. It has worked and I believe that copyright protection deserves to applied to this situation.
Copyright should be respected by the masses. DVD boxsets should be bought, because this will keep the show going for a long while. We don’t need massive copyright infringement of this show – in other words, if you download the show and enjoy it, buy the DVDs. But, in the same breathe, unfortunately, the cost of the DVDs will be exorbitant. That’s the catch, I’m afraid to say. This of course comes back to our lovely bean counter friends at the media conglomerate.
However, there are creative solutions to the problem of cost, especially if…. (and I won’t go any further than that). I’ve been around enough television productions to understand the tough reality of television and the standard to whihc television has plunged, whihc is why I encourage you readers to support copyright in the correct manner.
Copyright could be compared to patents. Now this is where I believe that the world needs to move in the direction that will bring about a just and fair situation. Take a drug company: when it designs a drug, it spends a lot of money in research and development, going through many phases of testing until considered effective and most importantly, safe for people to use. There are a good many drugs out there that have made people’s lives a lot more comfortable. However, a drug company that has developed a drug receives a patent it has to apply for. This patent is valid for only a number of years – in most cases 20 years or so. Once that patent runs out, drug companies can’t stop other companies from making generic brands which are usually a lot cheaper and of course just as effective. The original brand comes down in price to maintain competition and thus people can get the drugs at affordable prices. Unfortunately during the patent period, drug companies get hugely inflated profits off the drugs that they manufacture, and this screws with everybody. But the patent is only there for a predetermined time. So, where does lead to you may ask?
I believe copyright for music, film, books and other creative works should be considered in the same frame of mind as patents. I think a film company, a record company or a publishing house should get a return on their investment.
Marketing plays a huge role in the world today and those who are well marketed make lots of money. But what happens to artists who are no longer the flavour of the year/month/week? A copyright should expire, and then be passed onto a public administrator of creative works. So say after 10 years, a record company would lose the right to make vast sums of money off an artist. The royalties would be paid to artists. The artists would then be responsible for their own money. They would have to promote their music, and sell it. The public would benefit from this, especially from older artists from previous decades. An example would be the Beatles. You can’t download a Beatles track anywhere. Why? Because of the legal wranglings.
I also think that this situation would prevent people from buying works, such as Michael Jackson owning the Beatles’ work. When an artist died, the royalties would be paid into the estate of the artist, but this would prevent exploitation of both the artist and the public. The songs would be worth less than an artist alive, or perhaps not. Elvis Presley is an example here. His estate is worth more than when he was alive!
This public domain scenario would allow people to buy music cheaply and would ensure that artists around the world would be paid their dues. I think that this is just something to contemplate and perhaps someone who has the ability to change the status quo might read this and bring pressure to change things.
Yes, there are flaws in my thinking, but I want to stimulate debate and get people to think about copyright.
Craig Lester – p2pnet
(Lester is a TV engineer who hails originally from Johannesburg, South Africa. He says he loves all things IT and has spent many hours of his life happily tinkering with his PC. He’s also a keen amateur photographer who follows Chelsea FC (well, someone has to ; ) and the Natal Sharks Rugby when he’s not taking pix.)
=====================
Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win
- Mohandas Gandhi
Tired of being treated like a criminal? They depend on you, not the other way around. Don’t buy their ‘product’. Do bug your local political representatives. Use emails, snail-mail, phone calls, faxes, IM, stop them in the street, blog. And if you’re into organizing, organize petitions, organize demonstrations and then turn up on your local political rep’s doorstep, making sure you’ve contacted your local tv/radio station/newspaper in advance.
October 14th, 2005 at 4:34 pm
Copyrights were intended to encourage creative works. An artist/actor has a right to see some financial gain from there works without the world copying there idea before they can make a buck. However, I mean a reasonable financial gain. The current copyright laws need to be adjusted to that reflect that. Most people would pay a reasonable amount for a DVD or music CD, but they are not willing to pay the outrages inflated prices that the Music and Movie companies have to offer. This has lead society to use P2P networks to get copyrighted materials. Congress should recognize that artists are making far more than reasonable compensation with the current laws. They should recognize that current law criminalizes thousands if not millions of people in the US who would prefer to obtain copyrighted materials leagally but dont support the outrages prices. The copyright laws need to be adjusted to balance the needs of the artists with the needs of the society, while promoting creativity. The current scheme has the scale tilted against normal citizens and gives far more than reasable compensation to the artist. The MPAA and IRAA love the current tilt in the scale and are fighting to the death to keep that tilt. The government should not take the same approach as the IRAA and MPAA of fighting against thousands/millions US citizens.
Open your eyes congress, the american people have a need. Stop dancing to the tune of the MPAA’s and IRAA’s flute. Make things balanced again.
October 14th, 2005 at 6:10 pm
What we really need is to ABOLISH both the copyright and the patent system at ALL. They outlived their purpose and now are just an excuse to install a worlwide fascist plutocratic dictatorship.
Anarchy now !
October 14th, 2005 at 8:10 pm
and the goverment is seeing some of this money by way of lobby groups and taxes…so why would they want to change it??
October 15th, 2005 at 12:44 pm
“Congress should recognize that artists are making far more than reasonable compensation with the current laws.”
Not so my friend. A few artists are making millions, far more than they deserve while many, far more talented are not making any money and are dying in poverty.
Just ask the composers and heris of my country, Puerto Rico or of Cuba. These died peniless while the ganster American publishers made millios off the back of the composers. A good article about the fate of Cuban composers can be read here: Writers of Buena Vista Hits Were Paid With a Few Pesos and Rum – http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/5-10-2005-69765.asp
and here:
http://rafa_venegas.web.prdigital.com/cubaandpeer.htm
My father was to many the greatest popular song compose, but never many any mmoney off his songs. Just visit my page.
There are about 75 records in the market with his songs and no one has paid us heirs a single cent in royalties in the past 12 yeas since my father died. RIAA’s Sony alone has 16 of these records.
The system is a huge fraud that is destroying creativity and the American congress (that passes laws that run my country) gives a damn. The American courts care even less.
In a few words, artists get the shaft, in America.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
October 15th, 2005 at 4:56 pm
Another thought: When a book, record, or movie goes “out of print” (the distributor has decided not to sell (or make) any more copies) then the copyright (if held by anyone other than the original author or composer) automatically expires. In this case, the rights would typically belong a corporation or an estate that has decided that the work is not commercially viable and there is no further revenue to be derived from it. The public should be allowed to freely copy, trade, and (especially) creative derivative works from the works that the rights holders deem to be ‘worthless’.
–TG
October 15th, 2005 at 5:11 pm
This suggestion takes two very narrow issues, a more limited term and the need for registration, and then compares copyright to patents. Copyright is an exclusive right to do certain things (produce, reproduce, distribute, communicate to the public, perform, etc) with an expression of an idea.
Patents are extremely different — they aren’t a right to do something, but a right to stop someone else from doing something. If a given invention includes 50 patented methods then everyone (including the inventor) must get the permission of all of those patent holders in order to manufacture the invention.
While I agree that copyright should require registration (after possibly a short term of automatic protection), and should have a far smaller copyright term. There have also been suggestions that different types of works should have different terms.
October 15th, 2005 at 6:31 pm
I absolutely agree that a patent to protect creative work is a dangerous suggestion. What I was trying to get across, was that a patent has a limited lifespan – in certain circumstances, and that once that patent has expired there is no longer protection to the original creator….
Copyright is an essential mechanism to protecting creative works, but it has definitely been manipulated to ensure that the copyright holder maintains an indefinite hold over the income generated from their works. There is nothing wrong in an artist making money, just the fact that it has become a license to print money.
The point of my article is stimulate thinking. I don’t want it to be seen as a dogmatic standpoint.