Module 2.2: Don't touch that! Copyright, ownership and institutional control

Image courtesy of Mike Seyfang via Flickr.com

Creative Commons Licence

Copyright is a complex area of law which is really difficult to understand. The laws have changed over the years. Did you know that the song Happy Birthday is owned by Walt Disney? And any performance of that song in public results in Disney receiving royalties for it...yes...in movies too! Considering Disney didn't write the song, it's absurd!

The Collins reader titled Recovering Fair Use argues that copyright enforcement has spun out of control. Collins states that the balance between private and public interests in creative works is facilitated by the doctrine of fair use (as codified in the United States Copyright Act 1976, Section 107). He goes on to say despite its flexibility, fair use has been systematically eroded by ever encroaching copyrights. The rise of the Web 2.0 phase with its emphasis on end-user created content has led to an unrelenting wave of creativity, and much of its incorporates or 'mashes up' copyrighted material. The copyright rules have gone too far. the law has abandoned its reason for being: to encourage learning and the creation of new works. Collins refers to Lessig here "few, if any, things...are strictly original throughout. Every book in literature, science and art, borrows and must necessarily borrow and use much which was well known and used before". Recently the Federal Supreme Court and lower courts have stressed that copyright was intended to promote creativity and have upheld the fair doctrine, but in order for the balance to exist in copyright law, cases must come before the course, copyright myth must be challenged.

The Lessig documentary Laws that choke creativity was an interesting read. He is pro-remixes and transformative works and believes the copyright laws are unfair.

• 1941 legal access to music was broken
• People make remixes for fun, not money
• The kids of today don't give 2 hoots about copyright laws. They believe they should be fought
• Music should be made public freely for non commerical use AND not freely for commercial use
• We (our generation) made mixed tapes. Our kids remix music. We watched TV. Our kids make TV.

Another video I watched this week was called A Fair(y) Use Tale which gives us a run-down on copyright laws:

• Only the copyright owner has the right to use their work
• It's forbidden to use a copyright work without permission granted
• Copyright laws differ in different countries
• Fair Use means a copyright may be broken - you can borrow a small amount of copyrighted material to teach, for news reporting, for parody and for critical comment AS LONG as it doesn't change the value of the original work in the marketplace. 

The iLecture by Em McAvan spoke about copyright laws in relation to music and how music distribution has changed copyright laws. Em refers to Lessig's statement that we have changed from a read-only culture to a read-write culture. Read-only meaning the act of consumption where there's a beginning, a middle and an end. Read-write meaning open endedness. Something that's reworkable, able to be reworked. Other points:

• Copyright laws sprung up early in the 20th century when making exact copies (bootlegging) was rife and artists were not being compensated
• Prince (the singer) changed his name so he could start writing his own songs which Warner Bros was opposed to.

The reason why Prince changed his name is here. He states: The first step I have taken towards the ultimate goal of emancipation from the chains that bind me to Warner Bros. was to change my name from Prince to the Love Symbol. Prince is the name that my mother gave me at birth. Warner Bros. took the name, trademarked it, and used it as the main marketing tool to promote all of the music that I wrote. The company owns the name Prince and all related music marketed under Prince. I became merely a pawn used to produce more money for Warner Bros.

• In 1995 the mp3 went public and was infinitely reproducible
• Napster changed the distribution of music drastically. Over 50 million people were members when the site was forced to close in 2001
• The RIAA (Record Industry of America) took on Napster as a file sharer and charged them with facilitating file sharing and illegal music distribution
• A bit torrent site in Sweden was also closed and the owners jailed and fined
• By July 2006 the RIAA had sued over 17,000 people for file sharing, then another 23,000 over the next 3 years
• The record companies are pushing to make examples out of those who distribute and obtain music illegally
• In regards to Fair Use - transformative works are OK as is parody
• The iPod was launched in 2001. iTunes reverted our read-write culture back to a read-only culture through it's encryption methods called DRM
• DRM limits the copying of a file to 5 computers but to an unlimited number of iPods. It doesn't suit the needs of a transformative participatory culture.

The Creative Commons Laws page is quite extensive and even has links to material we can use freely. In a nutshell:

• Attribution - give credit to the original aurthor
• Share Alike
• Non-commercial
• No derivative works (re-works not permitted)

Discussion 1
How has the internet changed our ideas about production and consumption?
The internet has given we consumers the technology to produce (create) our own work. However, as easy as it is - it doesn't make it right. Just because we can, doesn't mean we should. Just because I have the skills to rob a bank, doesn't mean I am permitted to.

The documentary relies a lot on the work of Girl Talk--do you think he is an original artist? Why or why not?
No - he is sampling music from other artists, which in my opinion is stealing.

In addition to charging royalties (which already prevent a lot of people from using copyrighted material in the creation of texts) copyright holders also have the right to veto the use of their material within a context of interpretation they don't like. Is this a type of censorship?
Yes, it's censorship. The artist should either make their material legal to copy or illegal. If they make it legal, they should lose all rights and have no say in it's remixes.

When writing an essay, we can manipulate Shakespeare or an academic source for example, as long as we cite and reference them. Why can't this principle relate to other types of texts we may produce?
Good question. Why isn't this the case?

Peer-to-peer downloading is discussed in the film. Anyone brave enough to share their thoughts on this and whether or not they have done it? Do we all pretend we aren't, by definition, copyright criminals?
When I got my first computer it was around the same time as Napster came on the scene. I joined and downloaded a few songs. My computer developed a virus and ended up at the local tip. I felt it was karma. It made me realise it was the wrong thing to do and since then I've only ever bought songs from iTunes. I've never downloaded a movie of TV show either. Everyone I know does though!

The history of Napster is also discussed in the documentary. Napster users created the biggest library of music in history--why is this something that is discouraged?
It is discouraged because the original artist isn't being credited or paid royalties. Think about any piece of work you create, whether it's a piece of art, sculpture, scribble, poem, song, or even essay. Think about the time you've spent creating that piece of work from it's conception to completion. Would you like it if someone stole it from you? You'd probably be happy to give it away to someone, but if many copies of it were distributed without your permission, how would you feel?

Discussion 2
What are the benefits of copyright?
There are benefits only for the author/artist/creator which simply put is financial compensation. There are no benefits for the consumer in relation to the consumer. As a consumer you need to be aware of the laws and willing to pay the price (fine/imprisonment) if caught using copyrighted material.

Are there other ways of thinking about copyright that should be considered?

In my opinion everyone using someone else's material (whether it be a quote, a song, movie, written text) needs to be credited back to the original author. I wouldn't like to know how many people have taken one of my recipes from my cooking blog and called it their own. When I have time, I'm going to put up some copyright rules on the page.

Reference
Collins, S. (2008). Recovering Fair Use. M/C Journal, 11(6). Retrieved from http://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/viewArticle/105