Qotw3 "SHOULD WE HAVE COPYRIGHT OR NOT?"

The world is pre-occupied with protecting copyrights nowadays. Content creators or owners, like Sony BMG, Warner Bros, Walt Disney, are lobbying very hard to protect their Intellectual Property (IP). The world may have forgotten about why we have copyright in the first place. According to the constitution law, Copyright laws’ main purpose is to ultimately benefit the public by promoting "the progress of science and useful arts;" that is, learning and knowledge (Ovalle,2005 ). Nowadays, however, especially with the backing of Hollywood big boys and other content creators, lobby groups like MPAA are tilting the balance in their favor. “To ultimately benefit the public” is too far away from their mind.





The world may have forgotten that some of those in favor of stronger copyrights law were actually copycats themselves. Mickey Mouse was first born in 1928 in a silent flop called Plane Crazy. Walt Disney then have a second try with Steamboat Willie, the world’s first synchronized cartoon with sound starring Mickey Mouse. This is smashing success. Little did we know today that Steamboat Willie was actually a parody of Steamboat Bill, Jr., a masterpiece by Buster Keaton and the sound effect was actually copied from the Jazz Singer. Are we allowed to do so? Chances are we have to find Buster Keaton and look for the Jazz Singer’s producer to pay them royalty. Otherwise, when our version of movie released, expensive compensation package will arrive at our doorstep, making all our efforts wasted. To add on, A whole catalog of Disney work was actually drawn from works of others, e.g. Snow White (1937), Pinocchio (1940), Peter Pan (1953), Mulan (1998), Treasure Planet (2003).

Am i promoting piracy here?No, stealing from a shop is outright wrong. The same case applied with unauthorized used of other people works; it is similar to stealing except that there is no physical loss. Disney was able to legally create those movies by ripping, mixing and burning the content because those content were already in the public domain. Most of the content from the nineteenth century was free for anyone to use and build upon regardless of your status; rich or poor, connected or not. On the other hand, "copyrights nowadays lasts 50 years at least and is extendable". (Cipro,2003) This means the next Disney or Charlotte’s Picture would need to wait a generation later before the work is released.



In the book called, Free Culture, Lawrence Lessig argues "how big media uses technology and the law to lock down culture and control creativity." Lessig argues that "if "piracy" means using the creative property of others without their permission…then the history of the content industry is a history of piracy" (Lessig,2004). He showed how film, recorded music, radio, and cable TV went to many tribulations and oppositions throughout their developments. Certain group of copyright holders would feel threatened by the emergence of new technology. Yet, as pointed out by Lessig, in most of these cases, the law has always been striking a good balance in ensuring that authors and content industries get their deserved rewards while letting the new technology develop to its full potential. In most of these cases, "common sense" prevails.




One of the biggest havens for pirates is China ; CD that may costs us S$30-40 was actually sold there for an equivalent of S$0.50. This shocks me during my visit to China . However, if you step back and think are those Chinese able to buy these CD if it was priced like the way it is here, S$30-40. Chances are they won’t even bother to. Hence, the general public would be benefited here, and the content creators are not really at disadvantage, because those are sales that would not be made after all. In fact, the CDs were acting as marketing tools for the singers or actors such that when the singers come for a gig or concert they would have already know who they are and would be dying to go to the concerts. (I went to China on 1998)



What about pirated software? Would Microsoft be able to gain such a strong foothold in China if there is no piracy? The Chinese are now so used to the Microsoft world that they would dread learning other operating system. Without piracy, the Chinese would have used Linux instead. True, Microsoft lost prospective revenue. But, on the other hand, they gain life long Microsoft users, who might think of purchasing the original software as they get economically stronger.




The P2P software is incurring the wrath of the media big boys. Certainly, by stealing content online they are wrong. But are all file-sharing network users are illegal users? Yes, some people that I know of preferred to download freely than purchase. However, there are also people who use the P2P network to download copyrighted contents or songs that are not available in the market. Isn’t it great to get our grandparents’ favorite oldies that we cannot get otherwise? Lastly, there are people who download contents that are no longer copyrighted.



The content creators want to get their royalty for all the effort they have put in. However, they should learn to embrace the change and the law should give a balance between the content creators and the public such that both the current innovators are satisfied with their paycheck for the hard work and for aspiring innovators to have access to materials required to create the next big thing.



My suggestion to balance the interest between the content creators and public is to have a central online library with clear distinction between works in the public domain and copyright domain. The copyright domain should allow the general public to purchase the content (music, video, books, etc.) for innovation at a reasonable rate. (Consider market price, depreciation and distribution). In this way, both the creators and public would benefit as the creators have another source of revenue and the world would have a chance to see more Walt Disney.



We should also let the world know that piracy is wrong and there is a better way to get our content that is legal, a one-stop solution and is of higher quality.

REFERENCE

Ovalle, C. (2005). “What is copyright?”. University of Texas at Austin, Course INF 312. Information in Cyberspace. Retrieved on February 3, 2007, from
http://sentra.ischool.utexas.edu/~i312co/3.php

Lessig, L. (2004). Free culture: how big media uses technology and the law to lock down culture and control creativity. New York: Penguin Press. Retrieved on February 3,2007,from
http://www.free-culture.cc/freeculture.pdf

CIPRO (2003) " Gateway to economic participation" Economic Companies and intellectual properety registration office. Retrieved on February 3,2007 from
http://www.cipro.gov.za/products_services/copyrights.asp