Copyright

As a programmer, I find intellectual property fascinating.  There seems to be an underlying assumption of entitlement in our society: if you create something, you should be entitled to benefit from it indefinitely.  If you write a novel or play a song, no one should be able to copy it without your permission during your lifetime (and for years after).  People talk about protecting the artists, and their rights to enforce strict control over their works.

I create intellectual property every day without expectation of long-term benefits, control, or even recognition.  I write code because I'm paid to, but more importantly because I love doing it.  I often create programs in my spare time with no expectation of monetary income, just for the fun of it.  It's erroneous to assume that artists need some financial incentive to create their masterpieces.  In fact, it has been my experience that those who are just "in it for the money" in any industry can never keep up with their passion-driven colleagues.

None of that is to say that artists should be destitute.  It's also erroneous to assume that copyright is the only source of income available to artists, or even the best.  Skilled artists and original work will always be in demand.  While I make no income for copyright on my code, I am easily able to find work based on my skill as a programmer.  The same is true for popular artists: there will always be someone willing to pay for a commission or a live show.  The Internet allows more sophisticated variations on that theme, which I'll discuss in a later post.  If Beethoven or Shakespeare were alive today, would they have any trouble making money?  Would they need to make a few cents off every song played or play performed?  The real value is in the artist, not the canvas.

Copyright has many unintended side effects that stifle creativity.  Using the same example above, how many brilliant artistic expressions could Beethoven and Shakespeare prohibited using copyright?  Imagine every Shakespearean play needing approval from the Shakespeare estate, and companies being denied the right to perform those plays because their performance would not be Shakespeare's vision.  There would be no modern rock remixes of Beethoven or movies like Shakespeare in Love.  Modern copyright prevents artists from creating derivative works, and stifles artistic evolution.  Even if that is not the intention of the law, the precedent set by clouded court rulings and the threat of a lawsuit have a chilling effect.

Copyright law was designed to promote art and literature.  It was not established for some sense of justice or fairness, nor was it established as a welfare system for artists.  Many assume that artists are entitled to copyright privileges by virtue of the creative effort they put into their work.  I have the utmost respect for the effort artists put into their work, but it doesn't seem more valuable than the work everyone else does.  Carpenters are paid a lump sum or an hourly rate for their work.  That model certainly works for programmers who create code for a company.  Whether or not artists' work is different, the principle that effort should imply ownership is far from universal in our society.  Artists deserve to be paid for their work, but modern copyright law seems to establish a different standard from the rest of society.

Assuming that copyright was designed to give artists an incentive to create new works, how does modern copyright law make sense?  Copyright has been internationally standardized, lasting between fifty and one hundred years from the author's death (Wikipedia).  If everyone could do their job for five years, then live off the residuals for the rest of their life, would people work more or less?  Would artists create fewer works if they only held the copyright for 25 years?  Would they be forced to create more if they lost their residuals after 10 years?

We live in a generation without a public domain.  Everything that has been created in our lifetime will be copyrighted long after we're gone.  I don't think that serves the artists or the public.  The real tragedy will be the creative works we lose forever because no one is allowed to copy them.