I want us to continue with the other discussions but thought that something less overtly political might be worth discussing. This story asks the question of whether the extension of copyright laws (in particular the length that copyright lasts) is putting a brake on creativity. Copyright law was originally conceived as a way of protecting intellectual property and certainly seemed to support creativity in the sense that it stopped people from slavishly copying and reproducing. It also offered the inventive an incentive to invest in creative pursuits because they knew that they couldn't be ripped off by someone copying the material and selling on at a knock-down price. Exactly the same principle applies to patents in that both copyright law and patent law ensure a scarcity value on intellectual property and thereby make the intellectual work behind creative acts profitable.
Copyright and patent law are about making what would be public goods into private goods. As rational choice theory teaches us, where something is indivisible, there's no point in investing in it because you can't profit from what you put into it and other people will 'free ride' on all your effort. Divide it up - be it property, the oceans or intellectual property - and because it is yours, you have the sole right to profit from it.
Copyright laws have gradually extended in length so that now for many works it extends to the life of the artist, writer etc plus 70 years. The unintended consequence is that it's lucrative business for companies to sell on the copyright terms to other companies of long dead artists. For the companies that buy these copyrights it's much easier and cheaper to milk the money that can be obtained from those who pay to reproduce the copyrighted material than it is to invest the money in new talent. And so, creativity is thwarted...
I think that this discussion is also related to the issue of patent law and popular issues like drug development, but I know little about this debate and perhaps that can be left for the comments. For now I want to think about how we deal with the issue raised in the Telegraph article. One response, which the author of that article seems to favour is reducing the length of the copyright period. But we are still left, in practice, with the fact that the internet has made a lot of copyright law redundant whether it lasts for 7 years or 70 years. I'd be very unhappy to see instigation of illiberal laws in order to crack down on such illegal activity.
Perhaps, then, we should consider abolishing copyright law altogether. What happens to that incentive to invest time and energy into creative activity if there's not likely to be a payback, though? A few years ago I seem to remember Radiohead implicitly accepting the de facto death of copyright law due to internet downloading by bunging the band's latest album on the internet, free for anyone to download, copy or (hopefully) ignore. The band relied on the altruistic sentiment for donations. It is instructive that the band's next album was marketed and sold in the more familiar manner and the current album is for sale on the band's website for electronic download at £6-9 depending on format . As rational choice theorists could have told our mate 'Thom', both logically and empirically, there's little support for altruism as a strategy for supporting a business.
I still want to run with the idea that abolishing copyright law could ensure and even enhance creativity even if the idealistic principle of altruism won't bring home the bacon for the artists. I'm no arts, media or music buff but my understanding of these areas is that faced with declining revenues due to internet copying, live performances have become an increasingly important source of revenue. It seems to me like a perfect solution to the problem. Radiohead cannot be perfectly replicated and neither can 'Thom's' irritating facial expressions. Punters will pay for the original artifact and not some fake, middle class, whining band that may superficially sound and look the same. So maybe we can repeal the anti-creative 70 year copyright law entirely. It would instantly stop the lazy and unimaginative sale of old songs for easy cash and because live performances seem to be a productive way of supporting talented artists, the impetus for creativity is still safe. I'm not convinced entirely, though.
PS I thought that Joey Deacon had the copyright on this behaviour: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-w_G48Jb_Ig
ReplyDeleteI agree that copyright law is no longer a desirable or enforceable means of protecting intellectual property. The digital age and the internet in particular are bringing an end to this method of regulation. Sopme commentators have arguied for the adoption of a new business model for music sales in which cost per unit is reduced to the point where individual purchases are negligible and profit comes from a massive increase in the volume of sales, i.e. if albumns are available to download at 10p a go, rather than £7.99, then purchasers are likely to be much more promiscuous in what they buy and are unlikely to bother with pirated goods. This may also lead to increased innovation, because punters will be more willing to try something new if it doesn't cost much.
ReplyDeleteHowever, even if the conservative music business has the nerve/foresight to adopt this model I doubt that it will lead to great creative flowering, because creativity is often a response to economic and social dynamism which we currently lacking. The golden age of popular music ran roughly from 1955 to 1975, i.e. it coincided with the post-war boom which put money in the pockets of young people, and also a radical challenge to prevailing social norms and institutional arrangements. Take the music of Bob Dylan; at his creative peak Bob could draw upon the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement and changing attitudes to sex and relationships (arguably attributable to the Pill). All of these factors added up to a very powerful sense of impending social change, which inspired a tremendous creative flowering. Today's artists seem dull by comparison because it is hard to feel inspired by the internet or Mr Dyson's wonderous vacuum cleaner. To borrow from Bob, the problem is that The times they are (not) a changin'.