There is a tension between public interest and private interest as far as copyrights are concerned. When creative works are widely, commonly and freely available, the cultural space of a society expands. It leaves behind a richer legacy for future generations. Existing creators often use the work of previous generations. For example a book like Pride and Prejudice and Zombies takes and extends the original work in an entirely new way. Such a book would simply not be possible if the original was still strongly protected by copyrights. The fantasy elements in the Harry Potter series were first articulated and defined in earlier works. This series takes those elements and mixes them in entirely new ways. As a result we have a new set of books that has not only delighted old and young alike but also resulted in spin offs like movies, fan fiction, parodies etc. Our cultural space has been expanded and enriched and the stage has been set for possible future creations.
Copyrights however act as a toll gate in this process. They do not allow the free mixing of ideas that results in important new works. Instead they force one vision onto society. Interesting combinations are not allowed to occur. Furthermore, only approved creators are allowed through the toll gate and only after the payment of proper entry fee. Again the cultural expansion that occurs from the free mixing of ideas is stymied.
As mentioned previously, copyright issues also affect economic development. However they do more than that. They also affect scientific development. In order to be taken seriously, research papers need to be published in a peer reviewed journal. While this process raises its own set of issues, my concern here is with the resultant effects of copyrights. Scientific journals are the academic equivalent of gatekeepers in the commercial world. By locking up knowledge of new developments, they actually hamper advances in science. Unless they can pay the fees demanded, other scientists - specially in the developing world - are unable to access the new knowledge. Science, more than any other field, builds on previous work. Every single scientist today, every single Nobel laureate has built upon and extended the work of previous generations. When today's developments are locked up tightly under copyrights, we actually slow down the scientific advances that will enhance and enrich our living standards tomorrow. Who knows if an article in a journal leads to an idea that ends up in a cure for cancer or that results in a viable form of space travel. If the bright spark is not allowed access, such important developments can get delayed maybe indefinitely.
In recent times, copyrights have been extended onto new creative forms. This first started off with movies and songs. Thus Disney was able to get copyright protection for Mickey Mouse, a character that created a new cultural reference. Interestingly, Mickey debuted in a film called Steamboat Willie which was a parody of another film called Steamboat Willie Jr. Thus we see that the earlier film created the cultural space for the introduction of an iconic new character. Later this protection got extended to the new medium of television and later still this was extended to computer software.
The emergence of personal computers, associated software and networking has vastly boosted the importance of copyrights. Before computers, copying a work was a tedious, difficult and costly procedure. Afterwards, it became simple and virtually cost free. The business models that had worked well in a pre personal computer age failed spectacularly post personal computers. Another development of the computer age has been that algorithms - the set of instructions that a computer can follow without human intervention - have become very important and copyrightable. So now, we have companies fighting over copyright issues that may seem arcane but which affect all of us now and will do so in the future. The decisions made today will affect how the culture of the future will develop. Unfortunately, these decisions are being made by entities whose primary interest is in locking down as much knowledge as they can for as long as they can. They do this because the immediate rewards are so great even though in the long run all of us will be impoverished.
Are copyrights needed? Yes and no. Individual creators need some form of protection for a period of time in order to possibly benefit from their creations. They may choose to give it away for free as some record labels do in order to create awareness but that should be their choice. The critical element is that of time. How long should individual creators be allowed to benefit from their creations. Here there is no single solution. What if the individual has a single hit in his or her lifetime? Should copyright protection expire early? In such a case, I think it should not. What about creators who have multiple hits? In their case, copyright protection can be dropped at an earlier stage. Ongoing works like blogs would certainly need to be protected for the life of the creator (or atleast a reasonable estimate of the same). Indeed after a specified period of inactivity, ongoing works can be released into the public domain.
In the case of corporations, copyright protection has to be limited. Companies are not reliant on any single hit. They have a steady ongoing stream of revenue. After having benefited for a period of time, why should they be allowed to enjoy what will essentially be rental income. Forcing earlier works into the public domain will not only allow other people to take the original into new directions, it will also force the company to innovate aggressively. In the end, our society and our culture will be better off.
No comments:
Post a Comment