Tyranny
of Copyrights
Jan 24th, 2004
Dr.
John
A fascinating article by Robert
Boynton at the New York Times discusses the burgeoning fight between
copyright and copyleft. In what can almost be described as a
reincarnation of the struggle between capitalism and socialism, a new
struggle at the very core of societal structure, is emerging. How this
struggle plays out over the next decade will affect not only our lives,
but the lives of many future generations.
In Thomas Jefferson's original
conception of the copyright, we have Article 1, Section 8 of the
Constitution, which gives Congress the authority to ''promote the progress
of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and
inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and
discoveries.'' In the year 1790, copyright protection in the United States
only lasted for 14 years, and could be renewed once before the work
entered the public domain. Contrast this with the current state of affairs
where copyrighted materials are protected for 75 years after the death of
the author. For corporations, copyrighted works are protected for 95 years
after publication. Does it seem, perhaps, like large corporations might
have had something to do with the writing of this law?
Copyrights were never intended
to protect for many decades large corporations who purchased copyrights
from the original authors or inventors. However, that is exactly what is
happening in thousands of litigations currently underway in the United
States. In fact, the current legal actions between SCO group and IBM are a
perfect example of how aging copyrights can be purchased by a company that
had nothing to do with creating the original work, but then are used as
litigation tools to extort money from other companies, and individuals.
This was not Thomas Jefferson's, nor any of the founding father's original
intent.
Copyleft, as opposed to
copyright, dictates that persons who modify a particular work, such as
making additions to Linux for example, must pass all rights to any
recipients of that work. Further, none of the modifications can be
patented, or if they are, then the patents must be licensed for everyone's
free use.
The way in which copyrights are
being used now, for example the way music is being sold one song at a time
on the Internet, is moving us ever closer towards a pay-per-service
society where everything is copyrighted permanently, and we are charged
micro-payments for every action we take. The development of Digital Rights
Management, and its incorporation into every piece of computer hardware
and software, is an inevitable move towards this end. Microsoft's Bill
Gates would like more than anything to be the person in charge of fully
digitizing and integrating micro-payments into our lives. Just like phone
bills of days long gone, you’re debit card statement at the end of the
month will be dozens of pages long.
As usual, its folks like you and
me who are caught in the middle of this titanic struggle. So which side is
right? Neither side can claim to have a fully desirable or workable model
for the way in which intellectual property should be protected in a modern
society. Intellectual property is not some unassailable edifice that must
be protected perpetually until the end of time, nor should it be ignored
as a driving force for enhancing creativity. But creativity comes from the
heart, not from greed, so that is a relatively minor consideration.
Nonetheless, rewarding people financially for a job well done is something
that Western society has deemed extremely important, and there is no sign
of this sentiment waning. As such, I propose a simple and workable
solution. Lobby Congress to reduce, rather than extend, copyright
protection in terms of years.
In my mind, if the idea is to
protect a creator or inventor of a particular piece of work, the 14 year
time limit, with a single 14 year extension seems generous. Extending that
to anything beyond 42 years ( 2 renewals), to me, smacks of greed. I think
laws can also be written to prevent the kind of action that SCO is
pursuing against IBM in particular, and Linux in general. SCO bought the
rights to some old UNIX copyrights, and now is litigating against the
entire world “to protect their intellectual property rights”. It is
not their intellectual property. They merely purchased the rights to the
copyrights. This kind of corporate extortion should not be allowed under
US copyright law. We need to return the concept of copyright back to the
idea of protecting inventors and creators, not to providing ammunition for
litigation under some warped concept of intellectual property.
Link
|
