Critique of Imagining A World Without Copyright
Yet the essay Imagining a World Without Copyright, written by Marieke van Schijndel and Joost Smiers, dares us to ponder the implications of a copyright-less world. It does not necessarily mean a total eradication of intellectual property rights, but the introduction of an alternative means of protecting ones work, one that would prove effective in this era of online downloads and free live streaming over the Internet.
This essay will critique van Schijndel and Smiers essay, treating the issue of copyright with focus on the arts (fine arts and music), whose copyright infringements include (for fine arts) usage of someone elses original artwork to create ones original work, copying an original artwork and distributing it without the permission of the artist, and editing an original artwork without permission (for music) duplication and reproduction of any recorded content, illegal downloading of recorded materials over the Internet, and actual copying of a recorded songs entire or partial melody andor lyrics.
1. Observations
Van Schijndel and Smiers essay starts out with their observations on how copyright really works between artists and the cultural corporations, and the disadvantages and loopholes of the current set of copyright laws. The authors note that the current Western copyright is not so beneficial for the average, starting-out artist, but is advantageous for the famous ones and their affiliated companies. It has become merely a method to retain control of the vast reaches of the works distribution.
The authors also point out that few artists pay any attention to copyright breaches, seeing as it rarely benefits them. Artists merely create art, but leave the paperwork for their producers to handle. Copyright issues are battled in court by the producers, and the monetary compensation for the lawsuit is rarely discussed, and most likely ends up in the producers pockets (Stokes, 2001).
It is also a given that this era of Internet access and digitization is making it harder to keep track of copyright infringements being made. Online piracy touching just about every aspect and medium of art, is rampant and running unchecked in most cases. Thousands, even millions, of illegal downloading and unauthorized releases of copyrighted materials happen over the World Wide Web everyday, and remain untracked.
An interesting observation to note was that the foundation of the current copyright laws happens to be the absolute originality of an artists creation, which is not exactly realistic, seeing as artists often draw inspiration from other artists works, taking what they need and modifying or adding to it their own creativity. Nothing is purely ones own, which means majority of the works produced by artists in this current decade could be just a rip-off of someone elses work last decade or further back. Hence it could be taken into question as to whether the copyright protects the artists entire work, or just the artists modification or addition to a pre-existing creation.
With that in mind, the authors introduced what they called the market and temporary protected usufruct. At first glance, it seems to be merely a slight alteration to the current Western copyright laws, but could apparently prove to have a very different result once applied to todays copyright breaches.
2. Viability of existing solutions
Many have offered solutions to the present copyright issues that are baffling lawmakers. Examples of these solutions include the General Public License, the Creative Commons license, and the concept of collective intellectual ownership. Van Schijndel and Smiers essay extensively discussed the Creative Commons and collective intellectual ownership approaches, citing their effects on the way intellectual property is treated.
Based on its efficiency and pragmatic way of resolving the copyright issues regarding online works, this author would like to commend the Creative Commons approach as one of the more outstanding approaches to modern copyright solutions.
The Creative Commons license happens to be the most used license in dealing with Internet-related copyright issues, but is not often used elsewhere. The Creative Commons non-profit organization offers a series of licenses that protect the artists original work when its posted online, but at the same time giving permission for others to use the work, as long as it falls within the artists terms of use (which may or may not include profit derived from the usage). The terms of use vary depending on the kind of license the artist registered under.
For example, a photo posted in Flickr.com, an online photo-sharing community licensed under the Creative Commons, can be used by another artist to supplement his own work (e.g., use it as a background for a digital scrapbook, or as an image in a PowerPoint presentation, etc.) for as long as the borrower credits the original photographer for the image, and does not use the end result for any commercial purpose and derives no profit from using the said photo. This condition falls under the Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike license, one of the six types of license conditions offered by the Creative Commons (CreativeCommons.org).
This author believes that Creative Commons licenses are more effective than the old copyright laws since it does not totally prohibit the use of someones original creation, but merely limits the way it is being used.
The other alternative is the collective intellectual ownership, where the copyright policies are collectively held and observed by communities based on the form of art they engage in. These communities formulate their terms of use for their art, and are responsible for protecting the works of the community members.
However, as van Schijndel and Smiers pointed out in their essay, this alternative may be sound in theory, but has a lot of potential loopholes when applied in reality. This is not as feasible as the Creative Commons license.
3. van Schijndel and Smiers Alternative
Van Schijndel and Smiers presented their own alternative to the present copyright system in their essay. The alternative called for a different viewpoint than what is usually held regarding artists and their copyright policies. In van Schijndel and Smiers earlier observations the artist seemed like employees of their affiliated companies, whose work earns the aforementioned companies profit through copyright and the proceeds of selling the work. The artist gets paid for what his work is worth, but not for the actual price his work fetched from the market.
In the new viewpoint, however, the artists themselves are the entrepreneurs, not the employees. They are cultural entrepreneurs, or artist-entrepreneurs. The artists do not merely create work out of sheer impulse, but also out of a desire to earn from their efforts.
The authors explored the three reasons artists create work in a commercial sense. First, artists work when commissioned to second, when the artists are working on a collaboration with other artists third, the artist and a producer has a binding contract for an artistic venture.
Van Schijndel and Smiers named their proposed alternative the market and temporary protected usufruct. The authors based their alternative on the new viewpoint expounded on the above paragraph. The alternative has three proposed options Cultural entrepreneurship, temporary protected usufruct, and subsidies.
The first one deals with the competitive advantage of these artist-entrepreneurs in marketing their original product. They have an edge for being the first, and therefore would be unimpeded by copyright tangles. The second deals with the risks involved in artistic ventures, especially when said ventures have a big probability of not panning out. The alternative would include a temporary reassurance in case of market failure. The third option involves granting subsidies to artists whose creations require a lot of financial resources to produce, bearing in mind that some feasible artistic creations never see the light of day due to the heavy expenses to be incurred for its production.
This author dissected the options one at a time, and has come to the following conclusions. The first option of competitive advantage is a good point to make. It is an outstanding solution to an artist hoping to market an original creation (as opposed to a mere slightly-modified version of a preexisting product). Being the first to market ones work would ensure the originality of the work, and therefore fetch a higher worth. The artist has primary advantage, called a lead-time, over an unexplored niche in the market, and can keep that edge until another artist(s) comes along to modify his work (Towse, 2001). An example would be the market for a new genre of music, perhaps a hybrid of two preexisting genre. The musician who can produce the first single in that genre would be the first to tap an untapped market.
And yet the proponents (van Schijndel and Smiers) themselves admitted to the realistically small margin of lead-time guaranteed by the present era of digitization, when another music artist can easily record a song using the new genre, and can topple the original one before the latter could firmly establish itself in the hit charts. This observation could very well destroy the essence of the first option, seeing as the lead-time does not offer much advantage to the original artist. This author would suggest strengthening the guaranteed lead-time before this option is marketed to the artist-entrepreneurs.
The second option more important to the producers, than to the artists concerned (if the artist is hypothetically a sole artist as opposed to an artist-entrepreneur). A cushion in case of market failure is attractive to potential producers, allowing them to invest in a risky venture by giving them a reassurance that would soften the blow when the venture goes wrong (Towse, 2001). When painters discovered that coffee could be a substitute for acrylic paint, art patrons were both enthusiastic and hesitant. Many questions arose from the potential buyers. Would the coffee-paint last, or would it fade easily Is the asking price too high Would it be worth investing in The second option would have allayed their doubts.
A counter-argument for the second option, however, would be the amount or percentage of the temporary protected usufruct. How high should it be in order to lure investors without making them wary of the usufructs ability to actually pay How low should it be that the government would not find itself spread thin in paying for it But other than those questions, this author believes this option is a good deal for both parties.
The third option, that of the subsidies, is important to inventors and artists involved in creation of solid works. It would make artistic ventures easier to finance. Artists using their personal resources to finance their art often find themselves in deep waters when their produced work fails to take off well in the market. A state subsidy would give them incentive to continue producing original work, at less risk to their personal resources.
Yet to repeat the question asked to counter-argue the second option, how low should it be that the government would not find itself spread thin in paying for it How would the government assess the needs of the artist, in order for it to appropriate an amount as subsidy This was not clearly expounded in the proponents essay, understandably due to the theoretical nature of the work. Nevertheless, it would be good to look into this question before taking on the third option.
As van Schijndel and Smiers mentioned in the first option, the alternative is a form of hollow or empty copyright. What they are offering is a prevention of future copyright infringement, instead of a solution to the present rampant one. It is another way of looking at the copyright situation, using a less-used viewpoint.
4. Results
The first option would level the playing field, to use the proponents own words. The industry would shift from being in the hands of cultural conglomeratesto the hands of the artist-entrepreneurs, individuals who could market their own creations and who would receive the most profit from its market price.
The second option would increase investment in the artists creation, without burdening the investors with high risk and uncertain returns. It is a win-win situation, and would encourage investors and producers to play a larger role in the market for arts and music (as we are using this context for the discussion).
The third option increases the number of work an artist can produce, without the artist having to exhaust personal resources in order to do so. It also paves the way for the creation of costly but outstanding, even necessary, projects that the artist might otherwise not produce on his own. The governments subsidy would also allow more artists to come forth and put into reality their plans.
On the other hand, the government has to allot much, in order this alternative to function as desired. It might prove costly and risky for the economy to spend so much in this endeavor, in the long run.
5. Conclusion
A world devoid of copyright is hard to imagine. But using the alternative presented by van Schijndel and Smiers, a modification of the out-dated copyright laws would resolve the copyright issues plaguing the arts and music industry, preventing further infringement from taking place. It is good to note, however, that it may be only a temporary solution, seeing as technology is evolving and users are constantly finding new ways to evade the intellectual property rights. The laws must keep up with the fast-paced developments, and must look far ahead in order to cover all bases of copyright infringement.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment