Copyright is based on a philosophical view that sees knowledge as being spontaneously generated and as not having a past. It acknowledges only one moment of authorship. In this view, an idea is autonomous, magically springing into the mind of the "genius". But we all know that ideas don't come from nowhere, for example, the Rolling Stones owe their success to Black American Rhythm and Blues music, generated by a culture, not an individual. Western society valorises the role of the individual to a high degree, attributing significant social and cultural change to "the Great Man". Fordism is a good example here. While history tends to attribute the 'discovery' of a production line method of factory organisation (as well as an entire cultural shift) to Henry Ford , this efficient method had long been employed in many contexts, from the medieval village farming system to the large Victorian kitchen. In this way, originality is a dubious concept, shored up by legislation.
If ideas are not simply the product of the individual, should they be owned by the individual? Attributing a work or idea to one author only, excludes and denies the contributions made by countless others to its generation. This is a way of commodifing ideas for the ultimate benefit of parasitic middlemen in the industries that mediate between artists and audience. The result of this is a competitive environment that stifles creativity by encouraging us to jealously guard our ideas, and leaves us at the mercy of these middlemen and of the courts to protect our rights.
Without this stultification of the creative process, ideas can be far more fertile and generative, benefitting us all. Using copyright legislation involves "staking one's claim" on an idea, encoding in a physical delimited form the 'master copy' or quintessential embodiment; as something concrete to possess. Ideas are shephereded into pens, branded and milked; mastered, much as the Western urge is to conquer all intangibles, such as nature. The diversity and usefulness of ideas rely upon their freedom from monopoly, their ability to cross-fertilise; like the bio-diversity of the rainforest which can be drawn upon indefinitely if sustained.
For all the above reasons, I would argue that copyright is an illegitimate and even immoral idea. Supposing you haven't found these arguments convincing, I want to now show how copyright is also unworkable and of no use for any of us but the most powerful. There are three main elements to the copyright rationale. These are that it,
i ) encourages the artist by protecting their work and rewarding them for it.
ii ) benefits culture in turn.
iii ) protects the interests of the reproducer, such as the publisher, record company, etc.
The first point is perhaps the most persuasive in generating consent for copyright legislation, yet it is also the most fallacious. Copyright protection exists only through the legal system. It has no ethical influence. As we know, the legal system only protects those able to pay for its services. At the same time, use of this system requires knowledge of the law, and trust in its just execution. So, while a survey of recent copyright cases may throw up a number of examples in the Madonna Inc. versus Michael Jackson Pty. Ltd. vein, cases where individuals sue large companies are rare. Success is even more elusive. Only in the Bible does David kill Goliath.
On top of this, the way that present legislation is drafted does not take into consideration the needs of many indigenous cultures which utilise oral or performance media. In many cases, works do not exist in material form, only in their enactment through story, dance or other impermanent forms. The copyright rationale also ignores group or tribal contributions to the work, and its protective period of 50 years is unsuited to longstanding cultural artefacts. Indigenous cultures are particularly susceptible to artistic exploitation by commercial interests as they are often outside mainstream society and its benefits, such as financial security or knowledge of welfare and legal services. At the same time, the perception of this "exotic" outsider perspective is part of what constitutes the value of their artworks.
Evidently, the protection of copyright extends to only a small portion of producers of art and ideas. How could this state of affairs possibly benefit the wider culture? It can't. Where a small pool of powerful individuals have the resources to appropriate and then control art and ideas, the tendency is towards monoculture. In its own way, copyright contributes towards censorship through an atmosphere of fear around the quoting, critique and subversion of ideas and works. The expense of royalty payments can mean that alternative treatments of a work such as a play or pop song are impossible. Artist/audience dialogue is significantly impaired by this, and the whole process of art as an ongoing endeavour, open and responsive to society and 'life' is impoverished.
John Perry Barlow, lyricist for the band the Grateful Dead and founder of the Electronic Frontiers Federation negotiates the issues of copyright with regard to his band by allowing pirate recordings of concerts to be made openly, sometimes assisting by providing direct connections to the sound system. He argues that this does not diminish the commercial viability of the official band recordings, merely supplying another, additional version of their performance. He publishes his books electronically, free of charge, but maintains income from sales of the paper version. He argues that the added exposure provided by the online publishing only enhances his sales.
So who does copyright really benefit? The authorised reproducer, mentioned in point iii ) of the copyright rationale. Clearly, this rationale, and the accompanying legislation needs to be abandoned. Instead, artists should adopt an ethical stance where they acknowledge their sources and allow others to make use of their own work in the name of creativity. Artists can foster this process by indicating in their work that copyright does not apply and that quoting for non exploitative purposes is encouraged. This acknowledgement of source on substantial quotes or borrowings can go a long way towards producing an atmosphere of trust and co-operation amongst artists. Only in such an environment can our ideas truly run free.
"If creativity is the field, copyright is the fence." John Oswald
NB . Artists may include writers of all sorts, fictional, news reportage and graffiti, students, critics, cooks & people in all fields where ideas are generated (everyone!).
John Jacobs 3/96, with contributions from many sources especially Suzanne Fraser and Kathy Grattan
