LibriumArcana.Games

Was wondering the web today and came across this article:

http://www.questioncopyright.org/promise

Here is the opening paragraph:

There is one group of people not shocked by the record industry's policy of suing randomly chosen file sharers: historians of copyright. They already know what everyone else is slowly finding out: that copyright was never about paying artists for their work, and that far from being designed to support creators, copyright was designed by and for distributors — that is, publishers, which today includes record companies. But now that the Internet has given us a world without distribution costs, it no longer makes any sense to restrict sharing in order to pay for centralized distribution. Abandoning copyright is now not only possible, but desirable. Both artists and audiences would benefit, financially and aesthetically. In place of corporate gatekeepers determining what can and can't be distributed, a much finer-grained filtering process would allow works to spread based on their merit alone. We would see a return to an older and richer cosmology of creativity, one in which copying and borrowing openly from others' works is simply a normal part of the creative process, a way of acknowledging one's sources and of improving on what has come before. And the old canard that artists need copyright to earn a living would be revealed as the pretense it has always been.

The rest is a little too long to reproduce here, but it brought up some interesting points, and I am not sure if I agree or not. Copyright does give the creators some power for good: one example dear to me is copyleft would not exist without copyright. But would it even be necessary? I'm not sure.

What do you think? Is copyright obsolete in the age of the Internet, or is it still necessary?

Destructionator XV wrote:What do you think? Is copyright obsolete in the age of the Internet, or is it still necessary?

I think the basic idea of copyright is to ensure that the creators (artists, etc) is properly rewarded for their hard work and creativity. That's copyright suppossed to be. Unfortunately, that is not what happening in the real world. Suppose you're a comic artist selling your works to a publisher; now who will hold the copyright of your works? You, or the company? In most cases, you'll sign a contract that states that all the copyright belongs to the publisher, not you. Things like how much you'll be paid is entirely up to the publisher; ergo, the artists and creators is at the mercy of the corporation.

I think copyright should be hold by the individual creator instead of corporation. Ideally, corporations can only license the work, while the copyright is retained by the individual artist/programmer/creator who created the thing.


However, I have to admit that it is easier to said than done. For instance:

(1) What about the case of bands like the Beatles? Who should be credited for the creation of a particular song? Lennon? McCartney? The band members first should agree how to distribute the copyright among them.

(2) Bargaining power. When an artist have a strong bargaining power, it is likely that she/he can retain the copyright of her/his work. Sadly, begginers doesn't have such power. Did Jerry Siegel and Joe Schuster, or their predecessors, own the copyright of Superman? Nah. They didn't have much bargaining power when dealing with DC Comics.


However, the age of internet has (somewhat) shortened the distribution process. Individual programmers, for instance, can distribute their works through website (shareware, etc) without having to give up the copyright to a big-time software publishers. I think the shareware model can work for other things as well. For instance, an aspiring musician can sell their music through their website, etc, etc.

Finally, to answer the question, yes, I think copyright is still relevant in the age of internet. But as long as the internet is free, I hope copyright will get closer and closer to its ideal purpose: rewarding the creators for their work, instead of serving the corporate greed.