I’ve been collecting posts, videos, etc. related to the copyright controversy in my Del.icio.us account, tagged copyright.

As a writer, English teacher, lover of film and literature, and friend of many artists, I’m very concerned about this issue (as a survey of recent posts here should indicate). However, the more I learn, the less sure I become of which position to take.

I’m semi-clear on a few things:

• The original intent was to provide incentives for inventors and artists to share their work with the public by providing a limited monopoly. This provision was not understood as a “natural” right by the founders, and the concern was more about the common good than the individual inventors and artists.¹
• Current copyright law, wielded less by individuals than by corporations, is restricting the benefits that the commons can derive from art, and it is doing so to an ever greater degree as controls tighten and copyrights are extended.
• Further restrictions on fair use only make this matter worse.
• We (the commons) should be concerned with our collective good, the right to build on the works of others, the freedom of information, and the right to “share culture” freely (as in libre).
• On the other hand, we should also be worried about reducing or eliminating incentives for artists and inventors to create and share their creations. Similarly, we should be concerned about the impact this will have on journalism and journalists.²

When I argue, I tend to argue from this last point. Art, literature, film, etc. … these are vital and important aspects of culture, though you’ll get no argument from me that too much has been co-opted by the corporations.³ Still, the artists themselves are not (and should not be) the enemy. We, the commons, should be interested in their success even as we actively fight against the legal and corporate limitations that have been built around them.

Collectively, I believe we can find a solution to these difficulties, but only if we are focusing on building solutions rather than, or at least in addition to, destroying the problems. If we just storm the walls and tear down the keep, the artists, inventors, and journalists are also likely to be crushed in the process.⁴

One example I applaud is Google’s recently-stated approach to newspapers, saying they have a “huge moral imperative to help.”⁵ I think this approach — the new industries, technologies, and markets reaching out to and working with the existing ones to help them make the transition effectively — is the most responsible one, and the one most likely to bring success to both the artists and the commons who benefit from their creations. I hope to see more examples like this.

Footnotes:

1. Ultimately, the goal was to get artists to share so that there would be more works for the commons to build upon, thereby improving the common good. The incentive, though directed at the artist, was to indirectly further the common good.
2. The many problems with corporate media’s “infotainment” approach to journalism is also a huge problem, but one I’m not going to address here. Still, the fact that we need good journalists, and that good journalists need to be paid for their work if they’re going to be able to do it well, should require no argument.
3. The AP’s recent insanity surrounding fair use by bloggers is an excellent worst-case example of the problem.
4. And, for the frauds and sell-outs, that might be fine … but for the rest? I’m not willing to destroy the many for the sins of the few.
5. Google CEO: “Moral Imperative” To Help Newspapers - Media on The Huffington Post