[“Artist”,
“creator”, and “writer” are interchangeable terms throughout
this post.]
I
would like to begin by saying simply that the copyright is here
to stay. It will not change. We cannot even end daylight savings
time, we will not end copyright law, which many artists support, not
to mention many lawyers and politicians. This blog post is not
in response to a fear that we may lose our copyrights, but to the
illogical position of those who say we should.
This debate is too large
to cover in its entirety here, so I will not attempt to do so. I'm
open to change, but find most of the arguments lacking.
I believe in a free and fair society, but don't feel copyright law
will effect the outcome of that ideal.
My
biggest argument against ending copyright is the issue of plagiarism.
If there are no copyrights, are there going to be plagiarism laws?
Why would there be? Under our
current system, plagiarism is guarded against by our copyright laws.
Would this issue be addressed? To listen to those arguing against
copyright laws, it doesn't seem as if it would be.
I
am also at odds with the idea that copyright harms
creativity—the opposite of this is actually the case—and that if
something can be easily duplicated, it should be free for anyone to
use. This is a weak justification for theft, that because the
original product is unharmed, it's okay to copy a song, a story, or
movie.
I
do not feel that copyright laws should be limited to seven or
fourteen years, as some have suggested. As an artist, I would like to
own my work for my lifetime, so that when I'm older I can continue to
have exclusive rights to sell it.
Piracy
concerns me. I feel that if someone creates an idea, they have the
right to own it. Just as someone has the right to own something they
buy. But I am firmly against SOPA/PIPA and ACTA. None of these
bills would have addressed the real issue behind piracy, and would
have smothered the internet, possibly destroying it as we know it
today.
Something
I've noticed, but am not sure if it's true “generally”, or only
for those I have spoken with, is that most of the pirates I've met
(some I call friends), are not usually artists. They do not write,
paint, make music. They are consumers of art, of entertainment, and
do not seem to empathize with the plight of the “starving”
artist.
~~~
Pirates
focus their arguments on corporations, on book publishers, the music
industry, and Hollywood, as well as drug manufacturers and other
technology sectors. These industries push the pirates, and the
pirates push back.
Caught
in the middle are people like me, and many artists far more
successful than I am, yet aren't “rich” enough to not be
personally effected by theft or the loss of their copyrights.
Writers
write (and painters paint, and singers sing) for many reasons, but
there are two reasons that stand out. It is fun, and there is always
a sliver of hope that we can do this for a living.
Let's
say an author spends two years writing a novel. She's invested
hundreds of hours into this project. She's woken up early, stayed up
late, missed dates with friends, spent less time with her children,
sacrificed her health. She does this because she know it's her work,
and will always be.
Introduce the seven year copyright. After seven years,
anyone can steal use her story, which she's spent so
much time on, and sell it for their own personal profit. The author
would get nothing from them, and her own sales would have to compete
against theirs.
If
Simon and Schuster liked her story and published it without her, she
would not be able to compete with their marketing department, or with
the investment they could put behind her novel—their book.
Pirates
make the argument that corporations are ruining the world, ruining
creativity, stopping the free flow of ideas, and yet they don't
realize they would give corporations the legal right to steal
use a creator's work, be it art, writing, or music, and sell it.
The
irony is that corporations will benefit the most from no or limited
copyright laws, for they will have the most resources to take
advantage of the situation.
Some
see freedom in this. I see anarchy.
Apply
this philosophy to physical objects. You would no longer be able to
tell someone they cannot enter your home, drive your car, or sleep
with your wife. Nice world we would live in without ownership, isn't
it?
But
what difference is there between physical objects and abstract ideas?
In my opinion there is none in the context of copyright laws and
piracy, because both objects and ideas have the same impact upon the
world we live in. Both ought to be protected.
When
a pirate argues against copyright laws, what I really hear is that
artists don't have the right to be paid for what they create.
Apply
this logic to the real world. What destroys creativity, hard work,
and fulfillment more, the right to ownership or the freedom to take?
In
this dystopia, an auto worker has the right to a job, and even the
right to payment. But he has no exclusive right to his income.
He can work 40 or 50 hours a week, but then anyone can sweet-talk the
boss and take his paycheck.
If
the auto worker lost most of his paycheck to people who didn't do the
work, would he work as hard? No. He'd slack off. The auto industry
would suffer, consumers would suffer.
Yet
that's exactly what pirates are suggesting artists do. We creators
should give up our work to people who aren't creative, but who have
enough business savvy to come in, take our creations, and sell them
for their own personal profit.
~~~
Those
at the top want to keep what they have, and those at the bottom want
what's at the top.
I
believe those at the top have every right to keep what they've
earned, and those at the bottom have every right to work to get what
they want.
I
don't believe people at the top should use their money and
power to dictate to governments, to prohibit freedom of speech
and expression for everyone just because a few are stealing
something from them. Nor do I believe the people at the bottom should be lazy and take what is at the top instead of
creating their own ideas, their own products, their own
future.
I
seek the Middle Way, and the system we have now is that way.
Copyright
law is far from a black and white issue, and having freedom and
having laws are not mutually exclusive in this context. Those who
believe copyright laws limit us should take a look at Wikipedia and
Linux, and remind themselves that people are opting out of their
right to copyright what they create, benefiting society, and that
those who do not choose to opt out, and instead sell their ideas, are
also benefiting society.
Copyright
is not saying that “Because I wrote a book, you cannot write a
book.” It's saying “You cannot sell my book as your own.”
There's a difference there, an important distinction. Copyright does
not destroy creativity, collaboration, shared ideas, or freedom. It
fosters and nurtures these ideals.
Posts
Each of the following were drawn and colored by Camille Pedraja. She's a fantastic pencil artist, as you can see! I think having the ch...
