I’ve been getting a good bit of push back on the copyright bits in “When elephants dance.” Interestingly, most of the push back is coming from customers of copyrighted works, not producers. [Ed. note 09 April 2002: One of the more articulate people I’ve been corresponding with is a cartoonist (and therefore a producer).]
So, it’s time to clarify the purpose of copyright.
Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power “to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”
Congress, in the original Copyright Act of 1790 determined “limited Times” to be 14 years. Later an additional, but optional, 14-year renewal was added. Nowhere does the Constitution, the Copyright Act, its extensions, or any caselaw of which I’m aware grant an author (or her heirs) any sort of entitlement to royalties that these correspondents describe and demand. Nor do these documents grant provision for widespread, anonymous piracy. But what’s commonly called “consumer privacy” wasn’t the topic of the article. Corporate piracy was.
Consider this scenario:
It’s year 15 after your favorite band released your favorite recording. Under my proposal, it’s now in the public domain and still wildly popular.
A corporation unrelated to the original author quickly releases a digital copy of the best digital copy they can find. This corporation wants to cash in quickly, so it uses the same cover art, same liner notes, everything. It’s a digital clone, and a pretty good one given the recording and storage technology of 15 years ago.
The band decides to go back into the studio with the original masters. They release a new version (a derivative of their original) that also contains the original tracks, direct from the original masters. Because storage capacities have doubled every two years, they can include original studio outtakes, “sweetened” versions of the original tracks, commentary on the originals, alternate takes, a couple of concert recordings, a handful of videos, and all the rest. Best of all, only the original release of the original tracks has fallen into the public domain; for the next 14 years, there’s only a single authoritative source for the new and remastered material.
Oh, and there’s a retro disco derivative version, published by a corporation that favors late-night television ads (“But wait, there’s more! If you call right now….”). For some reason this release is moderately popular in pockets of Arizona and Florida.
Which one are you going to buy?
Speaking as an author and publisher, 14 years is plenty of time to adequately exploit a work. And yes, under my proposal, a good deal of my work would fall into the public domain. So it goes. The intent behind copyright is not to provide some sort of annuity for artists, but rather to keep them creating.