ELT News Think Tank

This Month's Think Tank Panel

Marc Helgesen

Peter Viney

Chris Hunt

Panelists: Peter | Marc | Chris
Date: September 2004

Topic: "Copyright - The Right to Copy"

Copyright? Copywrong? Copyleft!

Chris Hunt

Happy Birthday to you!
Happy birthday to you!
Hap

I'd better stop. I may already be contravening copyright, perhaps I should add a fair use disclaimer?

I used to think that it was Paul McCartney who owned the rights to the birthday song. Can you hear the melody in your head? I wouldn't be too surprised if in the not so distant future individuals are charged for thinking thoughts copyrighted by others. There will probably be surgical implants that do it. Everyone in the free world will be tagged and gagged. We will be eating patented food and perhaps patented water and who knows, maybe even patented air.

“I think that authors should receive a fair return for the effort and sacrifice they make...but I seriously wonder if copyright and its companions, patents and trademarks are the way to do it”

As it stand now, copyright is banditry, copyright is crippling and copyright kills.

"Me thinks the laddie doth protest too much."

Don't get me completely wrong. I do have sympathy with Peter's position. I think that authors should receive a fair return for the effort and sacrifice they make. I do question the ethics of mass copying. I do wonder how to encourage the sharing of ideas and the increase of knowledge, but I seriously wonder if copyright and its companions, patents and trademarks are the way to do it. I think at the heart the real problem is the economic structure we use. The real problem is capitalism. But before looking at this, allow me to add some substantiation to the charges I made above.

Copyright kills? Patents do. Surely the protection of patents on drugs is both immoral and criminal? If by denying access to information I contribute to the death of someone, am I not at the very least guilty of manslaughter? Patents have been used to block the distribution of generic drugs to help AIDS victims. In agriculture, seed monopolies are being created and seed prices are rising, which has contributed to the suicide of thousands of farmers in India. Also in India, four companies ceased production of a cancer drug after Novartis was given an exclusive marketing right. The price of the drug has risen twenty times.

In its defence the Pharmaceutical Industry argues that without patents research and development into new drugs would be eroded. But it is also interesting to note that often marketing budgets for drugs far exceed research and development budgets (on average by two to one). Also, in some instances the Industry has gained control over drugs that they did nothing to develop. The direct relationship between patents and research and development is questionable.

Copyright is crippling? Looming larger and larger on the horizon is the dark shroud of Digital Rights Management (DRM). This is not just about the management of digital rights, but rather the digital management of all rights. Its reach could extend into all areas of life and not just the digital world. The idea is to extend control over "intellectual property". It should be clear that unless one has control over something it is difficult to profit from it. In the past the cost of publishing gave publishers control as reproduction was beyond the means of the majority. Technological changes have threatened the control of publishers, noticeably peer to peer file-sharing programs, and they have reacted strongly. But as one commentator wrote, "They want to use copyright to make their business model illegal to challenge. It's like the people who used to sell whale oil for lamps trying to step in and say electricity's illegal."

End User Licence agreements, copy protection technology and changes to copyright laws are actually threatening to place the whole of twentieth century culture under lock and key. Artists borrow, artists steal. Material is reused, reshaped, repolished, recast. Innovation often springs from imitation. But it's going to get increasingly difficult. For example, early Hip-hop music developed using amounts of sampling it would be cost-prohibitive to repeat today. Some may argue this is a good thing, but it is still an example of inhibition. Or take the case of writer and scholar Alice Randall. It was necessary to go to court before she could win the right to publish her book The Wind Done Gone that attacked the romanticisation of slave-holding. Her book didn't use a single complete sentence from Margaret Mitchell's book but her publisher was still sued. In another case Fox nearly sued itself. Fox News became incensed by a fake news ticker that appeared in The Simpsons and threatened to sue. But The Simpsons is also owned by Fox. The upshot was no suit, but the fake news crawls were dropped.

The Fox story raises an important point. Copyright control of material may be used to block use for political or other reasons. Fox News sought to prevent the publication of Al Franken's book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right. Fox claimed that the title violated their copyright of the phrase "fair and balanced". The claim was rejected, but the fact that it could even be pursued at all is pause for thought.

Copyright is banditry? At what point does pursuit of profit become unreasonable? Should Disney be able to prevent people from making and selling their own drawings of Mickey Mouse? The creator is long dead and his family have their fortune. Should royalties really be payable on performances of "Happy Birthday to You" - the two kindergarten teachers (and sisters) who began it all died without heirs. Should Elvis Presley Enterprises really be able to prevent a hotel from being called The Heartbreak Hotel (through the use of a trademark)? What is reasonable about current copyright longevity? The life of the author plus 75 years protects whom and for what?

Peter suggests that prices of text books would fall if there were less illegal copying. I have my doubts, and if prices have factored in illegal copying, conversely, what's the problem?

Page 1 | Page 2 | Links/Creative Commons

Panelists: Peter | Marc | Chris

<<Back Number | Top | Recent Issue>>