Copyrights Should Not Be
I know that's a pretty radical stance, but let's consider the following points: first, as this article aptly points out,
the copyright extension has become such a parody of what it was meant
to be that nothing at all has technically entered the public domain
(that is to say, no copyrights expired) this year, nor will they in any
year until 2019! This is an abomination, that our entire civilization's
creative and intellectual corpus is basically being held hostage by
MIckey Fucking Mouse.The people who have been getting the copyrights
endlessly extended would honestly wish that public domain just stopped
existing, and they've been trying to define fair use out of existence as
well.
Second, however, we have the internet. The game changer. Its more
transformative to our world than the printing press. People think of it
as an innovation on the scale of TV or Radio; it isn't. Its an
innovation on the scale of THE WRITTEN WORD. The power it has to
transmit ideas instantly over incredible distances and to almost
unthinkable numbers of people, and to allow a person who knows how to
use it to obtain almost any kind of information in ridiculously absurdly
short spans of time, is something that will have social repercussions
that we can barely start to imagine. How this will play out in a
generation is unclear, how it will change human culture in 100 years is
just unimaginable. What amazes me is just how few people seem to get
this.
Certainly, copyright defenders don't seem to get this. And its not
surprising that the era of "Everything will be copyrighted forever" and
of persecuting what by all rights is fair use in works has come at the
same time that the internet has largely made peoples copyrights
irrelevant. Anyone can write anything now, and anyone can find anything,
and the power to defend one's copyright is already effectively zero.
You can't stop internet filesharing, you can only make examples of
people (which has been proven not to stop anything). In other words,
the entire system is broken.
Third, in the big picture of things, the "system" is not particularly
old. We've had "copyright" as a concept for only a tiny sliver of human
history. For only a tiny fraction of western history. Its not as
important as people think. It was a sensible measure at the time it was
created and did good things at that point. It does not do so any
longer, because the greed of middlemen and parasites who largely have
nothing to do with the creative beings that produce actual works has
allowed the entire concept to be hijacked.
But this idea, that without copyright no art will be produced and
writers will starve to death, is just bullshit. Most of the greatest
works of the western world were produced without copyright. There were
other systems by which to make money, if you were a creative person.
And that leads us to the last point: what has to change is not a
doubling down on a broken model, but to figure out a new system by which
people can afford to make a living writing or painting or singing or
whatever. One possibility is the money-up-front model of kickstarter;
its just one possibility leading the way of how people will make money
with creative works in the future.
Clearly, the world is in a transition phase, and probably most people
who read this are not yet mentally ready to accept a paradigm where
copyright in its current form no longer exists. But its pretty
inevitable that this day will come; unless you want to get rid of the
internet, you have to get rid of copyright as a system. We can live in
this nebulous netherworld of hypocrisy and make-believe, playing
pretend that the old rules still exist so that a few fat old bastards
can keep making money, for only so long.
RPGPundit
(originally posted March 13, 2012, in the old blog)
So "Arrows of Indra" will be declared to be in the public domain tomorrow?
ReplyDeleteMoney... mouth...
I think there is a need to compromise between rewarding creators for their work and enabling ideas to re-enter the public domain to encourage new/interesting applications of these ideas. A lot of older properties are hard to preserve because nobody can work out who actually owns the rights. That seems rather extreme.
ReplyDeleteI'm not the publisher of Arrows of Indra, but I did strongly support the decision on the publisher's part to make it an "open" game. Other people can use most of the material in that game in their own products if they so desire.
ReplyDeleteI would also strongly prefer it if, after I'm dead, AoI was freely available rather than making money for some asshole I never knew and who had nothing to do with any facet of the game's creation.
A limited copyright is fine. Same for patents. But it needs to be heavily curtailed. The current laws we have are essentially written to benefit a select few corporations with enough influence on government
ReplyDelete