 | |||||
|
| DownUnder | October 2002 |
|
Copyright Becomes A Tool of The Cartels Professor Lawrence Lessig of the Stanford Law School has a big problem with the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, which has extended both existing copyrights and future copyrights by an additional 20 years. He feels that copyright, which is a legal mechanism originally designed to grant a limited monopoly to a creator, is being abused by the copyright cartels, such as the music and film industries. He believes that these cartels have a vested interest in extending the term of copyright to retain and extend profits artificially; an interest he believes is a breach of the First Amendment, an impediment to progress and creativity, and an abuse of the public interest. Is Lessig right? Many believe the Sonny Bono legislation is the direct result of intensive lobbying to the US Congress by the copyright cartels, such as Disney, Time Warner and the music industry. Disney's Michael Eisner, for instance, has been a regular figure in Congress, crying poor and arguing for both increasingly draconian copyright extensions and government-mandated copy protection for all digital devices. The makers of personal computers, DVD and portable music players are now under increasing pressure to incorporate technology that prevents the hardware from playing copyrighted material, if it is illegally downloaded or played from a homemade compact disc. This "war" between the film and music industries on one side, and software and hi-tech equipment makers on the other, will result in extensive changes to the way we use our personal computers, and what we can and cannot use them for. It is also ushering in an era of "anti-privacy", where it will be virtually impossible to use our PCs in an anonymous manner, as most of the new software tools designed to appease the content industries will increasingly report back to corporate headquarters. Even Windows is being extended with Palladium to report back to "big brother" and confirm your legitimacy with content services, software developers and Microsoft. Unfortunately, there are a few problems with the scenario being forced upon consumers by these business cartels - our freedoms are disappearing in the name of corporate profits. And increasingly, the US Congress is being viewed as a tool of big business, not an institution for serving the public interest, as it was designed to be. At no point in the important debate over copyrights and the public interest has the public been consulted. Naturally enough, if the public has not been consulted, it has also not been represented, which is ultimately the purpose of a democratic government. Lessig believes, as do many academics and historians, that this is an erosion of the "public domain", an incentive that promotes progress and provides for derivative creation, by allowing previously copyrighted work to become freely accessible to all users after the author's monopoly has expired. He also believes that copyright in the digital age has become over-regulated, and is now merely a tool for big business, instead of protecting the interests of the authors, artists and creators it was designed to serve. The Sonny Bono Act, which extends copyright to 120 years, has gone beyond the reasonable, in my opinion, and now protects a copyrighted work well beyond the "life span" of an average creator, which is about the longest period of time that I would consider morally arguable. This extension increasingly benefits only large corporations, most of whom no longer pay or provide jobs for the original creators, but end up "owning" a money-making property that the US Constitution states should pass to the public within a reasonable time frame. Lessig also believes that the Copyright Term Extension Act exceeds Congress's power under the Copyright Clause of the Constitution. I recently took time out to view one of the slide shows from Lessig's speaking campaign. After viewing the content of this presentation, I was left with the feeling that the Michael Eisner's of this world are attempting to pull the wool over our eyes. Mickey Mouse, probably the most famous of Disney's "creations", was not an original creation at all, but a "send-up" of a Buster Keaton movie of the time, Steamboat Bill. And most of the stories from Disney's most successful animations were "borrowed" from the public domain, in the form of the stories of the Brothers Grimm, and modified by Disney. If Disney tried the same tricks to start a company today, it would be knee-deep in litigation! In lobbying to extend the duration of copyright, to protect Mickey Mouse and the various characters derived from the Grimm stories, which were all "borrowed" from the robust public domain of the time, Disney's actions are blatantly hypocritical and represent corporate profiteering at its absolute worst. To see exactly what I mean, pull up a chair, grab a cup of coffee, and view one of the Professor's lectures. View "Free Culture" - 8.4MB Flash file Professor Lessig has given me permission to serve his lecture on "Free Culture", and I would like to present it today to all the readers of NetNacs! I found it entertaining and illuminating, and it will give readers a bird's eye view of the role of copyright in controlling and maintaining profits for both the film and music industries. Lessig's lecture is a Flash file of about 8.4MB and will take a little while to download and play. The Flash file is 800 x 600 pixels in size, so open up your browser window, OK? Enjoy :) Professor Lessig has currently ended his speaking campaign on "Free Culture" to concentrate on the Eldred v. Ashcroft (Sonny Bono) case being argued in the US Supreme Court. I wish the Professor all the best, in his efforts to challenge the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. I, for one, hope that he succeeds. Further Reading See you all in the next issue! Ian McPherson |
