Explain Copyright »
As a creative and avid user of the internet and the free stuff it provides, copyright is a major issue. On the surface it is a great idea — a world where no one is allowed to poach the ideas of others and profit on plagiarism. This protects my work which in turn is my only source of income. Or is that too ideal? I am not savvy on this topic, so instead of rambling incoherently I propose the following question — does copyright protect the rights of the citizen?
Often I do not see copyright benefiting the average artist. It is painfully bureaucratic and expensive — typically those are two words which do not click with creatives, especially when new to the scene. As a result I have seen a lot of people have their work stolen with the only feasible course of justice being to send barrages of complaints and involve the community. Sometimes this has effect, other times it does not. When it fails, I do not see the council assigning lawyers to protect those infallible laws of copyright. In the end it is all at the cost of the artist.
Which leads me onto my next point — if copyright is solely at the expense of the artist, then does that imply that it is a law designed solely for those who can afford it? If so, I propose that copyright does not protect the average creative but is a commodity that was made available to cater to our capitalist democracy and the corporations that fund it. Otherwise, why the bureaucracy? Why the fees? I do not admit to understanding the logistics of law and business, but in what context does it make sense for them to meet in regards to intellectual property?
I am genuinely asking for an explanation of copyright, considering the moral implications and perhaps correcting my understanding of it. How does copyright benefit me as an artist without a dime to my name?
I’ve always hated the concept of copyright.
To be quite honest, can we really expect people to spend their whole lives undertaking formal investigations into the theft of the average citizen’s artwork (that, let’s face it, was probably on public display) for no incentive in return? Not really. If you release your artwork to the public, then that’s like leaving a window to your house open. If you went to the police because someone climed through and took an ornament that was worth £500, they’d only tell you that it was your own fault for leaving the window open in the first place.
You can say that you wouldn’t expect people to take your artwork if you uploaded it to your portfolio online, but this isn’t the ideal world. It happens, and there’s nothing you can do about it. The only real way to avoid this kind of plagiarism is not to allow people to get hold of it in the first place. ;) That goes for large companies that bitch and moan too.
If upholding copyright is really worth that much to you, you pay people to go after the thieves. So yes, it is a completely pointless concept and IMO shouldn’t exist. People should just work within the community to try and minimise the losses from this kind of incident.
Calling up the authorities because someone copied your artwork is (at least in their opinion) about as much a waste of time and taxpayer’s money as calling up the authorities because a pigeon flew down your chimney. Nobody, especially the taxpayers, care enough to want to help you out. Especially because if that were the case they’d get thousands of calls a day. “She stole my HTML!” “She stole my Javascript first!”
Think of all the resources it’d take to track down, contact and get the thief to adhere to the law. Copyright theft may be illegal but it’s probably the case that it would cost more money to settle the case than you were likely to get out of it in the end. The government would be losing money in the name of what is considered by many a petty crime, and a crime that is so readily committed by so many members of society whether it is immoral or not.
It’s about that simple.