Monday 9 September 2013

Who owns ideas? Eben Moglen, Lawrence Lessig and the Sonny Bono Act

For OCL4Ed  - Why open matters - part 2, I've been reading the "Preknowledge" sections on The Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act of 1998 and watching the video of Eben Moglen and Lawrence Lessig's talks on the ownership of ideas.

I never have been able to understand the argument for extending copyright to 70 years after the producer's death. How is this continuing to protect the rights of the producer when they have already passed away? What right have distributors (estates or publishers) to keep making money off something that someone else created for such a long time? Okay, it's reasonable to assume the producer would have wanted to look after their dependants after they've passed away... Okay, it may be reasonable for them them to have rights to distribution for a while - a  few years, but 70?  That's a whole extra lifetime. Can't they find something else to make money from in that amount of time?  What other type of estate guarantees that?


Yes, distribution can cost money, which it can take time to make back, but 70 years?!


Now I get it. The distributors are propping up our economies. Of course they do, they make so much money. And because they do the important job of propping up our economies it is right and proper that they continue to make lots of money. In fact, they should be making more of it.[note: if I knew the emoticon for sarcasm I'd insert it here]


Eben Moglen made a point that I feel too. Whilst the law of copyright is said to be about the rights of producers, it's not. It's about the rights of the distributors, or at least it has benefitted the distributors more.


Now, with distribution becoming "child's play" as Moglen says, we should be reaching a golden age of copyright. Surely, if copyright is about producers/creators.


So it's understandable that distributors are getting upset and worried, lobbying for a tightening of control. Big publishers, music and film distributors have had it their way for such a long time and made so much money. They must feel very frightened and vulnerable.


So they began to refer to sharing as theft, stealing. 


It reminds me of the character Vizzini, in The Princess Bride, complaining "You're trying to kidnap what I've rightfully stolen." (The Princess Bride, 1987 [Motion picture]. Quote retrieved from http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0003791/quotes ).


Lawrence Lessig's talk offers some hope, in the shape of Creative Commons licensing. Finally, here is copyright licensing for, and under the control of the creator. He explains it as a move from "All Rights Reserved" to "Some Rights Reserved". It enables sharing whilst respecting the creator. Permission is given without you having to ask for permission. Balance is restored. Ahh. It does all sound a bit idealistic. He acknowledges that we are not all taking part in this "openness", but asks us to make a commitment to it.




4 comments:

  1. A thought - in a digital world, the marginal cost of distributing online is near zero. In a digital world, the pipes which carry the "knowledge" is not the problem. It's the switches which regulate access to digital content where there is essentially no cost required for the distribution ;-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. Unfortunately, too often those switches seem to be a bit sticky ;-)

      You've reminded me of another thing that irks me. Even when I'm fully prepared to pay for online music or ebooks, I'm denied them because these outdated copyright rules prevent them being sold outside the USA or UK. In that sense, access to information and goods is less accessible to people who live outside the US and Europe in the (current) digital world than it was when the distribution system was of actual items through the mail system.

      Delete
  2. I love you quote "You're trying to kidnap what I've rightfully stolen" it beautifully encapsulates the current copy right defense with the challenges provided by the internet.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete