So that intellectual property thing….
Ever since the wave of “piracy is stealing” posts from a variety of authors, I started to seriously consider writing this. And when Neil Gaiman wrote his recent thing about how he found e-piracy beneficial, the idea cemented. You see, all of these arguments present the viewpoint of writers — that is, copyright holders. However, the copyright laws in the US were conceived largely with two parties in mind: the producer of the IP (the writer or the inventor — the discussion applies to patents too to some extent) and the public at large (common good). That is, IP laws were meant to allow the writer/inventor to benefit from their work, sure — for a limited amount of time, after which the work enters public domain. “Limited time” is the issue here. And “common good”, that often gets ignored in all these debates. Intellectual property laws are just that — property laws; let’s not confuse them with “morally right”.
Allow me to share a couple of anecdotes here. Some years ago, I was on a panel dealing with writing other cultures. At some point during the discussion, I pointed out that several African countries have in place copyright laws protecting folklore. Several audience members quickly pointed out to me that folklore is not copyrightable — that is, to them the Western laws overruled whatever other laws other countries may have. Even if they were enacted specifically as a reaction to Westerners exploiting (sorry, “collecting”) traditional literature and then financially benefiting from it.
(Then there’s the patent side of the same issue: Western exploitation of indigenous knowledge via patent laws. Ironically, Western intellectual property laws allow for patenting of traditional knowledge and in effect stealing profits from those who have accumulated such knowledge, thus enabling biopiracy.)
Another anecdote: Tait and I were talking the other day about the fact that every time there’s a book featuring Zimbabwe pubisihed in the US/Western Europe, it is somehow always about a white farmer being unfairly displaced by the Mugabe regime. Never mind that until recently, in Zimbabwe 70% of arable lands belonged to 1% of population, most of which was white. Never mind that in order for the white colonists to get that land, 40,000 Zimbabweans were killed. Never mind that the “willing buyer, willing seller” only works if the white colonists are interested in surrendering their wealth — but to those who remember their carefree childhood on the farm, all this taking back of the land must seem terribly unfair, and this is the narrative Western readers are presented with. The concept of common good doesn’t seem to include whose stories we don’t hear.
So what does it have to do with copyright? Public domain is common good. Culture belongs to everyone — and the extension of the copyright term to include lifetime+ a few decades prevents that from happening. Tolkien SHOULD be in the public domain — as well as King Kong, Mickey Mouse, Pokemon…. all of those things that are a part of our culture, that has shaped generations. Folklore is fair game in the west because this is the intellectual playground of the cultural commons. “The Wide Sargasso Sea” exists because “Jane Eyre” is in public domain — but there are so many more works that have been around long enough to raise a generation on them, which are the part of our psyche, of our culture, of our background. Yet we cannot talk about them because the bunch of corporations decided that they would rather squeeze out every last drop of profit from their creation? The limited copyright term was “to encourage genius and to promote useful discoveries” — by letting the author benefit for 14 years, and then go ahead and create something new, while old stuff could now belong to everyone.
So yeah, the current state of intellectual property laws is a disgrace, because they spit on the idea of common good in favor of benefiting the corporate copyright and patent holders. Individual writers are not going to benefit as much because they lack the lawyer power to effectively enforce their copyright against the internet pirates. So instead we get those pleas and silly claims that e-piracy killed Borders, with many starting to sound suspiciously like seagulls from “Finding Nemo”. While really, the enemy is the ridiculous laws devised to benefit those who are already well off, doing little for individual writers (really, how many of you had a book in print for over 14 years?), and actively harming those who should be benefiting from the common good. Maybe it’s time to increase our creative commons, not squeeze them further, and to consider that copyright is meant to benefit not only writers but also readers.
February 21st, 2011 at 5:46 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Ekaterina Sedia and Sam Kelly, Paul Smith. Paul Smith said: RT @esedia: I talk about intellectual property: http://ekaterinasedia.com/index.php/2011/02/21/so-that-intellectual-property-thing/ [...]
February 25th, 2011 at 4:40 pm
Very appropriate to hit us with a blast from the past [I'm talking about Mickey]. I agree with you even if I am belated to the post. The fact is that piracy is in full swing now and while I do understand how immoral the practice is, I can’t see it abolished or managed or in any other way to please. The way I see it, people can ride the wave and turn this into an advantage. I think it’s the most constructive approach.