Copyright infringement an unmitigated evil? Always?
It’s worth reading the latest piece of the Digital Britain report, which asks ‘what role for a Digital Rights Agency?’.
Now the report does claim to be setting up a straw-man Rights Agency to spur discussion – but that seems to me more of a tactic by which they can ignore any real criticism, a tactic to gain what we might generously call wriggle-room.
The most interesting claim for me was their suggestion that a Digital Rights Agency should have ‘a commitment to explain to the public the consequences of unlawful use of copyright material. ‘
In the same paragraph, it’s clear what the report writers expect such an agency would say and to what effect: we will stop ‘engaging in piracy’ if we ‘understand the damage’ caused by infringement to artists.This agency would be set up not to ‘explain the consequences’ as such, but rather to unequivocally say that copyright infringement is bad. And I mean, really bad.
But, and here’s the rub, what if I disagree? What if I were to say that actually the unlawful use of copyright material sometimes and often has great value. If this new Digital Rights Agency took seriously the commitment to ‘explain to the public the consequences of unlawful use of copyright material’ I don’t know they would come down on the side of copyright at all.
I valued the records I borrowed, and yes, taped when I was a bit younger. I enjoyed, with friends, watching pirate videotapes. I learnt how to play the guitar by playing songs that I didn’t write, without paying any royalties to the song-writer. Will the Digital Rights Agency also have a duty to explain the consequences of my piracy: my life-long love for music and film?
Even straightforward claims, like that of copyright encouraging production, have counter-evidence.
For example, Frederic Sherer’s recent paper on the emergence of copyright in Europe suggests that the evidence for a link is anything but clear: he argues that “Verdi, enriched by copyright protection, reduced his compositional effort” and he concludes that “the world would be full of glorious music even if copyright laws had not come into being.” (more discussion on TechDirt)
Will the agency have a duty to point to Sherer’s research?
Will the agency explain that copyright infringement may benefit music education, as music teacher Jane Underhill suggests?
What about the good of putting orphan works back into circulation? Out of print books online and read again? Sampling and remixing? Archiving for future generations? Photocopying a newspaper clipping and posting it to your grandparents?
You know, I’ve been selective here with the examples and research I’ve chosen to highlight. But I do think that the debate over the merits or otherwise of copyright is not well concluded. And that matters. We cannot have a government agency created of which the sole purpose may be to peddle a lie.
I'm Ben Griffiths: