Oh, how the times have changed. Image by Ioan Sameli, licensed under Creative Commons.
The tragedy of art and economics is that they have to mix. If artists didn't have to live off their work, the possibilities for remixing and adapting each others' work would be almost infinite. Sadly, artists need to make money, and they deserve to. As this article points out, our culture might not have been enriched by so many great artists if they had been unable to make a living from their work. Likewise, publishers who provide us with artists' wonderful work deserve their share of compensation. To that end, copyright law is a good idea. The implementation of copyright law, however, is problematic. As we've seen in the reading, it's an incredibly complex legal minefield. The Center for Social Media's guide to fair use practices is illuminating, but fair use principles still straddle an uncomfortably gray spectrum. And as Lessig outlines with the case of Jesse Jordan, the consequences of violating copyright laws can be shockingly severe.
As an independent game developer, I'm constantly looking for resources in both visual and auditory media. I don't mind asking permission or even paying to include others' work in my own. It's generally a confusing and draining process, though. For instance, I want to include audio by NASA in a game that I plan to release (commercially, mind you). Can I do this without asking permission? NASA's guidelines are vague. Sounds used for "educational" purposes are "generally" not copyrighted. It seems they can be used commercially, as long as NASA's endorsement isn't "explicitly or implicitly" conveyed. In a footnote, the site says NASA's materials aren't copyrighted by default, but if they are, permission should be obtained from the "copyright owner" (presumably...NASA?) According to this download page where I got the sounds from, the material is copyrighted by NASA. So...do I have to ask for permission? I think I've made my point.
So, what's the solution? A unified, simple interface for understanding the copyright laws that apply to a work and the permissions granted, and which provides a way to get permissions. In many ways, Creative Commons does this already, but not everybody uses Creative Commons licenses. The interface should be as prevalent as copyright itself.
As Lessig notes, Copyright in 1790 only covered "books, maps, and charts." Copyright is also automatically applied now, rather than granted on an opt-in basis as it originally was. Copyright law is not the only thing that's changing - the media it governs is as well. The internet has been the most notable change in this respect, allowing artists to distribute video, images, and sound without the use of a publisher. Of course, the internet is a curse as well as a blessing. Piracy is more prevalent than ever. But the last point I want to make is that piracy isn't always bad. Consider these words by author Neil Gaiman: "what you're actually doing is advertising; you're reaching more people, you're raising awareness . . . the biggest thing the web is doing is allowing people to hear things, allowing people to read things, allowing people to see things they might never have otherwise seen" (full interview here). This doesn't justify commercial piracy entirely, but pirates aren't always the enemy. Artists in the digital age face the challenge of adapting piracy into their business model. Shunning it will not be the solution. Invasive DRM is especially not the solution. Thankfully, we are at a new forefront of distribution. Publishers are less a part of the equation, and artists have more control over how they distribute their work. Popular bands like Radiohead have opted for surprising new methods. The Humble Indie Bundle proved to be a success, twice. When people started pirating the Humble Bundle (which could be had for a $.01 minimum cost) via torrents just for convenience's sake, the publishers embraced it and created their own torrent. The burden is on us to learn how to adapt to technology, and to embrace its challenges as well as its advantages.
Just for fun: check out Pogo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAwR6w2TgxY). He makes all of his music using samples from Disney films. Is this transformative enough to be considered fair use? I think Disney made a great call by hiring him to continue making music this way rather than suing him. This is what I mean about embracing what might have once been condemned as piracy.
ReplyDeleteI've been waiting to see how these new technologies are going to usher in the business models of the next century. You had a couple of great links that which addressed this, thanks! Obviously the "sue everyone who downloads" plan didn't fare as well as the RIAA and others had hoped.
ReplyDeleteI was also pleasantly surprised at Disney recognizing talent and assimilating it rather that trying to crush it, hopefully more companies will see this and expand upon it.
We are definitely ushering in a new age where the availability and speed at which information can be accessed is giving greater control and power to the creators, power that was once held exclusively by the publishers.
It's interesting to see this transfer of power. I'm just waiting to see if more mainstream creators start neglecting publishers altogether.
If Stephen King wrote a book and offered it directly off his website for download for $5 would he really need a middleman to publish his book and sell it for $30 each for King to make the same cut?