9/29/12

Copyright: what do we want it to do? | Technology | guardian.co.uk

Printingsponsoredby:

Whatdowewantcopyrighttodo?
Withoutposingthisquestion,askingwhetherintellectualproperty
lawsareworkingislikeaskinghowlongisapieceofstring
CoryDoctorow
guardian.co.uk,Tuesday23November201001.45EST

YouTubesusersproduce29hoursofvideoeveryminute,thevastmajorityofitindependentlyproducedmaterial.
Photograph:DavidJ.Green/Alamy

Arecurringquestionindiscussionsofdigitalcopyrightishowcreatorsandtheir
investors(thatis,labels,moviestudios,publishers,etc)willearnalivinginthedigital
era.
ButthoughI'vehadthatquestionposedtomethousandsoftimes,noonehaseversaid
whichcreatorsandwhichinvestorsaretoearnaliving,andwhatconstitutes"aliving".
Copyrightisintremendousfluxatthemoment;governmentsallovertheworldare
consideringwhattheircopyrightsystemsshouldlooklikeinthe21stcentury,andit's
probablyagoodideatonaildownwhatwewantcopyrighttodo.Otherwisethe
question"Iscopyrightworking?"becomesasmeaninglessas"Howlongisapieceof
string?"
Let'sstartbysayingthatthereisonlyoneregulationthatwouldprovideeveryonewho
wantstobeanartistwithamiddleclassincome.It'saverysimplerule:"Ifyoucall
yourselfanartist,thegovernmentwillpayyou40,000ayearuntilyoustopcalling
yourselfanartist."
Shortofthiswildlyunlikelyregulation,fullemploymentintheartsisabeautifuland
improbabledream.Certainly,nocopyrightsystemcanattainthis.Ifcopyrightisto
havewinnersandlosers,thenlet'sstarttalkingaboutwhowewanttoseewinning,and
whatvictoryshouldbe.
Inmyworld,copyright'spurposeistoencouragethewidestparticipationinculture
thatwecanmanagethatis,itshouldbeasystemthatencouragesthemostdiverse
setofcreators,creatingthemostdiversesetofworks,toreachthemostdiverse
www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/nov/23/copyright-digital-rights-cory-doctorow/print

1/6

9/29/12

Copyright: what do we want it to do? | Technology | guardian.co.uk

audiencesasispractical.
Thatis,Idon'twantacopyrightsystemthatprecludesmakingmoneyonart,since
therearesomepeoplewhomakegoodartwho,credibly,wouldmakelessofitifthere
wasn'tanymoneytobehad.Butatthesametime,Idon'tthinkthatyoucanjudgea
copyrightsystembyhowmuchmoneyitdeliverstocreatorsimagineacopyright
systemforfilmsthatallowedonlyonesingle15minuteshortfilmtobemadeevery
year,which,bydintofitsrarity,turnedover1bn.Ifonlyonepersongetstomakeone
movie,Idon'tcarehowmuchmoneythesystembringsin,it'snotasgoodasonein
whichlotsofpeoplegettomakelotsofmovies.
Diversityofparticipationmattersbecauseparticipationintheartsisaformof
expressionand,hereinthewest'sliberaldemocracies,wetakeitasreadthatthestate
shouldlimitexpressionaslittleaspossibleandencourageitasmuchaspossible.It
seemssillytohavetosaythis,butit'sworthnotingherebecausewhenwetalkabout
copyright,we'renotjusttalkingaboutwhopayshowmuchtogetaccesstowhichart,
we'retalkingaboutaregulationthathasthepowertomidwife,orstrangle,enormous
amountsofexpressivespeech.
Here'ssomethingelsecopyrightcan'tandwon'tdoanddoesn'tdo:deliveramarket
wherecreators(orinvestors)setapriceforcreativeworks,andaudiencesbuythose
worksordon't,lettingthebestfloattothetopinapureandfreemarketplace.
Copyrighthasneverreallyworkedlikethis,anditcertainlydoesn'tworklikethis
today.
Forexample,it'sbeenmorethanacenturysincelegalsystemsaroundtheworldtook
awaysongwriters'abilitytocontrolwhoperformedtheirsongs.Thisbeganwiththe
firstrecords,whichwereviewedasaformoftheftbythecomposersoftheday.You
see,composersbackthenwereinthesheetmusicbusiness:theyusedacopyingdevice
(theprintingpress)togenerateaproductthatmusicianscouldbuy.
Whenrecordingtechnologycamealong,musiciansbegantoplaythetunesonthesheet
musicthey'dboughtintomicrophonesandreleasecommercialrecordingsoftheir
performances.Thecomposersfumedthatthiswaspiracyoftheirmusic,butthe
performerssaid:"Yousoldusthissheetmusicnowyou'retellinguswe'renot
allowedtoplayit?Whatdidyouthinkweweregoingtodowithit?"
Thelaw'sanswertothiswasaSolomonicdividethebabysolution:performerswere
freetorecordanycompositionthathadbeenpublished,buttheyhadtopayasetrate
foreveryrecordingtheysold.Thisratewaspaidtoacollectiverightssociety,and
today,thesesocietiesthrive,collectingfeesforallsortsof"performances"where
musiciansandcomposersgetlittleornosay.Forexample,radiostations,shopping
malls,andevenhairdressersbuylicencesthatallowthemtoplaywhatevermusicthey
canfind.Themusicissampledbymoreorlessaccuratemeansanddispersedtoartists
bymoreorlessfairmeans.

Fairforall?
Ofcourse,someartistsarguethatthesamplinganddispersalareunfair,butit'sarare
artistwhosaysthattheprincipalofcollectivelicensingisitselfaformoftheft.Noone
wantstogetaphonecallevery15minutesfromsomesuburbanbarmanwhowantsto
knowifplayingtheir20yearoldhitonthekaraokemachineisgoingtocost15por
25pinlicencefees.
ThereisanancientcopyrightagreementthatVictorHugocameupwithcalledthe
BerneConventionthatmostwesternnationsarepartiesto.Ifyoureadtheagreement
www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/nov/23/copyright-digital-rights-cory-doctorow/print

2/6

9/29/12

Copyright: what do we want it to do? | Technology | guardian.co.uk

closely,itseemstomakethiswholebusinessofblanketlicensingillegal.WhenI've
askedinternationalcopyrightspecialistshowalltheseBernenationscanhaveradio
stationsandkaraokebarsandhairdressersandsuchplayingmusicwithoutnegotiating
alltheirplaylistsoneatatime,theusualansweris:"Well,technically,Isuppose,they
shouldn't.Butthere'sanawfullotofmoneychanginghands,mostlyinthedirectionof
labelsandartists,sowho'sgoingtocomplain,really?"
WhichisbywayofaffirmingthatgrandoldAmericanism:moneytalksandbullshit
walks.Wherethestiffneckedmoralrightofacopyrightholdertocontrolusagerubs
upagainstthepracticalitiesofallowinganentireindustry'scapacityforcultural
exchangeanduse,thelawusuallyrespondsbyconvertingthemoralrighttoan
economicright.
Ratherthanhavingtherighttospecifywhomayuseyourworks,youmerelygetthe
righttogetpaidwhentheusetakesplace.
Now,onhearingthis,youmightbethinking:"GoodGod,that'spracticallyStalinist!
Whycan'tapoorcreatorhavetherighttochoosewhocanuseherworks?"Well,the
reasonisthatcreators(and,notably,theirindustrialinvestors)arenotoriously
resistanttonewmedia.Thecomposersdamnedtherecordcompaniesaspirates;the
recordlabelsdamnedtheradioforitspiracy;broadcastersvilifiedthecablecompanies
fortakingtheirsignals;cablecompaniesfoughttheVCRforitsrecording"theft."Big
entertainmenttriedtokillFMradio,TVremotecontrols(whichmadeiteasytoswitch
awayfromadverts),jukeboxes,andsoon,allthewaybacktotheprotestant
reformation'sfightoverwhogottoreadtheBible.
Giventhatnewmediatypicallyallownewcreatorstocreatenewformsofmaterialthat
ispleasingtonewaudiences,it'shardtojustifygivingthecurrentlottowinnersaveto
overthenextgenerationofdisruptivetechnologies.Especiallywhenthewinnersof
todaywerethepiratesofyesteryear.Turnaboutisfairplay.
Sothebestcopyrightisn'ttheonethatletseverycreatorlicenseeveryuseofherwork
piecemeal.Instead,it'sthesystemthatallowsforsuchlicensing,exceptwhereother
formsoflicensingornolicensingatallmakessense.Forexample,intheUS,which
hasthelargest,mostprofitablebroadcastandcableindustryintheworld,thelawgives
nocompensationrightstorightsholdersforhomerecordingofTVshows.There'sno
levyonblankcassettesorPVRsinexchangefortherighttorecordoffthetelly.It's
free,andithasconspicuouslyfailedtodestroyAmericanTV.
Therearewholeclassesofcreationandcopyingthatfallintothiscategory:infashion,
forexample,designsenjoylimitedornoprotectionunderthelaw.Andeachyear's
designerragsareinstantaneouslypiratedbyknockdownshopsassoonastheyappear
ontherunway.Butshouldweprotectfashionthewaywedomusicorbooks?
It'shardtoseewhy,apartfromafoolishconsistency:certainly,everycurrently
ascendantfashiondesignerwho'dbenefitfromsuchathingstartedoutbyknockingoff
otherdesigners.Andthere'snoindicationthatfashionisunderinvested,orfailsto
attractnewtalent,orthatthereisalackofnewfashionavailabletothepublic.
Creatingexclusiverightsforfashiondesignersmightallowmoremoneytobemadeby
today'swinners,butthesewinnersarealreadymakingasmanydesignsastheycan,and
sothenetdiversityoffashionavailabletotheworldwouldfalloff.

It'sallaboutbalance
Backtothequestion:whatdoesagoodcopyrightlooklike?

www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/nov/23/copyright-digital-rights-cory-doctorow/print

3/6

9/29/12

Copyright: what do we want it to do? | Technology | guardian.co.uk

Well,it'sgottobebothevidencebasedandbalanced.Forexample,ifarchitectscome
forwardwiththeclaimthattheyneedtobeabletocontrolphotosoftheirbuildingsor
noonewillinvestinanarchitect'seducation,they'dbetterhavesomepretty
compellingevidencetobackupthatclaim.Ontheonehand,wehavethe
incontrovertiblefactthattoday,prospectivearchitectsspendalotofmoneyon
professionaltrainingwithoutanysuchguarantee.
Ofcourse,it'seasytoimaginethatmorepeoplewouldenrollinarchitectureschoolsif
designingabuildinggaveyouacopyrightinitslikenesseveryonewhowantedto
photographapublicroadwouldhavetopayyoualicencefeefortheuseof"your"
building.Butgiventhatthere'snoevidencethatarchitectureprogrammesarewasting
awayforwantofstudents,andgiventhatarchitectsseemtobethrivingasatrade
everywhere,theevidencesuggeststhatwedon'tneedtogivearchitectstheserights.
That'sevidence,butwhataboutbalance?Well,saythattomorrow,thenumberof
architectsdidshelveoffradically,andnoonecouldfindanyonetodrawupplansfora
newconservatoryormansardroofanymore.
Howcouldwesavearchitecture?Well,wecouldgivearchitectsacopyrightinthe
likenessoftheirbuildings,andessentiallyputarchitectsintherentcollecting
business:ratherthandevotingalltheirtimetodesigningbuildings,architectswould
spendmostoftheirtimesendinglegalthreatstositeslikeFlickrandPicasaand
TwitPicwheneversomepoorsoduploadedapictureofhisflat'sexteriorChristmas
decorationsandinadvertentlyviolatedthearchitect'scopyright.
Thiswouldcertainlymakemoremoneyforsomearchitects(especiallyoneswhose
buildingsweresituatednearpublicwebcamseveryonewhooperatedoneofthose
wouldhavetostumpupforalicense!).Butthepubliccostwouldbeenormous.Instead
ofthemereabsurdityofcoppersgoingaroundtickingofftouristsforphotographing
publicbuildings(asthoughbombingwasaprecisionundertaking,requiringthat
terroristsphotographbuildingsindetailbeforewanderingintothemwithbombs
undertheircoatsandblowingthemselvesup);we'dhavevastarmiesofprivatesecurity
guardsrepresentingthefarflungdescendantsofChristopherWrenandthatmiserable
bastardwhodesignedtheawfultowerblockattheendofmyroadin1965orso,
hasslinganyonewhotookoutacameratosnapapictureofthecarthatjustranthem
over,ortheirkidsadorablyeatingicecream,ortheirmatesheavingupakebabinto
thegutterafteranight'srevels.
GoogleStreetViewwouldbeimpossible.Sowouldholidaysnaps.Amateur
photography.Fashionshoots.Newsphotography.Documentaryfilmmaking.
Essentially,thecostofrecordingyourlifeasyouliveit,capturingyourmemorable
moments,wouldgotoinfinity,asyouhadtofigureouthowtocontactandbuylicences
fromthousandsofobscurearchitectsortheirlicencees.Surelyinthiscase,thecosts
outweighthebenefits(andyes,I'mperfectlyawarethatcertainEuropeancountries
werestupidenoughtogivearchitectsthisrighttherearealsoplacesintheworld
thatprohibitwomenfromdrivingcars,wheretheychopdownrainforeststograze
cattle,andwheretheusedcaradvertsfeaturefloridmenwearingfoamcowboyhats
screamingintoacameraifeveryoneinFrancejumpedofftheEiffelTower,would
youdoittoo?).

Makingcopyrightworkrightonline
Soabalancedandevidencebasedcopyrightpolicyisonethatrequirescreatorsto
showaneedforprotection,andalsothattheprotectionsoughtwilldelivermore
benefitthanthecostitimplies.
www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/nov/23/copyright-digital-rights-cory-doctorow/print

4/6

9/29/12

Copyright: what do we want it to do? | Technology | guardian.co.uk

Howwouldthisapplytotheinternet?Takemusicdownloads.Bythemusicindustry's
ownaccount,thepayperdownloadsystemsonlycaptureaminutefractionofthe
musictradedonthenet.ButablanketlicencethatISPscouldoptintothatentitledthe
ISP'scustomerstodownloadandshareallthemusictheywantedwoulddeliver
evergreenprofitstotherecordindustrywithoutnecessitatingspying,lawsuits,and
threatsofdisconnectionfromtheinternet.
Ifthepricewasright,practicallyeveryISPwouldoptintothesystem,sincethecostof
thelegalheadachesattendingtheoperationofaservicewithoutsuchalicencewould
bemoreexpensivethangettinglegit.Thenwecouldfocusonmakingthecollectionand
dispersaloffeesandthesamplingofmusicdownloadingastransparentaspossible,
bringing21stcenturymetricstobearonmakingsurethatartistsarefairly
compensated(ratherthanspendingvastsumsfiguringoutwhichmusicfanstosend
legalthreatstothismonth).
Now,take$300mCGIsummerblockbusterfilms:iftheproducersofthesethingsare
tobebelieved,theongoingcapacitytoproduceglitzy,bigbudgetproductionsdemands
thatserviceslikeYouTubebeshutoff(see,forexample,Viacom'slawsuitagainst
GoogleoverYouTube).
IfthisistrueI'mnomovieexec,maybeitisthenweneedtoaskourselvesthe
"balance"question:YouTube'susersproduce29hoursofvideoeveryminuteandthe
vastmajorityofitisnotinfringingTVandmovieclips,itisindependentlyproduced
materialthataccountsformoreviewerminutesthantelevision.So,thebigstudios'
demandamountstothis:"Youmustshutdownthesystemthatdeliversbillionsof
hoursofenjoymenttohundredsofmillionsofpeoplesothatwecangoondelivering
about20hours'worthofbigbudgetfilmeverysummer."
Tome,thisisanobrainer.Imean,Ilovesittinginanairconditionedcavewatching
BruceWillisbeatupafighterjetwithhisbarehandsasmuchasthenextguy,butifI
havetochoosebetweenthatandallofYouTube,well,sorryBruce.
TherejoinderIhearfromthefilmindustryinthesediscussionsisdownrightbizarre:
theycitethefactthatallthosebillionsofhours'worthofmaterialonYouTubecost
verylittletomake,andconsequently,YouTubeisabletopayverysmallsumsofmoney
inadrevenueandstillgetallthatvideo.Tohearanindustrialistdamningacompetitor
becausehe'sfiguredoutawayofmakingacompetingproductthatcostsalotlessis
justweird.Thereisnovirtueinspendingalotofmoney.
Anyonecandoit.Spendingsmallsumsofmoneytomakesomethinggreatwell,
that'sjustmagic.

2012GuardianNewsandMediaLimitedoritsaffiliatedcompanies.Allrightsreserved.

www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/nov/23/copyright-digital-rights-cory-doctorow/print

5/6