Sumit sent me an article about The End of Copyright. Kindly read it before proceeding with this entry because a lot I say has to do with sentiments expressed in that article. I agree that the author, Mr. Ernest Adams, is only predicting the downfall of copyright laws, and nowhere does he mention that he actually likes what he's predicting. I am however against his reasoning, and that's what this post is about.
One of the things that really got me in that article was the Mr. Adams' tendency to draw conjecture from incidents in the past. Sometimes very much in the past. For example, he draws a parallel between photocopying and file-sharing. And forgets about the fundamental difference between these two technologies. Note that he doesn't draw a parallel between copying audio tapes and file-sharing. The difference in the technologies would be too glaring and would not be forceful enough to make his point. The difference is that file-sharing is bad because there is no loss in quality everytime you share it. How many sequences of photocopies can you make of an original print? Three? Four? After that it becomes illegible because photocopying adds noise. Same with cassette tapes. MP3s on the other hand can be endlessly copied, and the 1000th copy is the same as the first file. Incorrect parallel? I think so.
The second thing that pokes me in the side is what Mr. Adams thinks about why laws exist. They don't exist to stop crime. They exist to reduce it. A bunch of laws have never stopped murder, corruption, theft, rape... shoplifting for that matter, from occuring. Why would they stop piracy and file-sharing? (Conjecture I agree, but you get the gist.) But you do realize that you don't want to live without these laws in place right? On the other hand the aforementioned murderers, the corrupt, thieves, rapists and shoplifters would just love not having those laws around. Make things much easier for them. So copyright laws are not going to go away just because some people think they'd rather not have them.
The third thing that really hurt me was being compared to a building architect. Okay I don't write books about wizards and witches, or make a 100,000 people go into a frenzy with guitar playing. But I'd still like to think (even though Mr. Author Adams doesn't) that the stuff I write is worth something. His argument is, and I quote, "Architects don’t get paid every time someone steps into one of their buildings. They’re paid to design the building, and that’s that." And the same thing happens when I design software. I'm not paid royalty everytime someone uses software I write for my company. I'm paid a salary to do my job. On the other hand if that Architect put in his time, money and energy to build a roller coaster ride... you get my drift right?
The last point is very close to what I said in my earlier article about Art and Technac. There's a difference between Art and Engineering. Not that I'm against Engineering copyrights. But copyrighting something is a personal preference. The logic that since the cost of the equipment was a few thousand dollars it shouldn't earn some serious money just doesn't gel. Hell, people ultimately want a free ride on that roller coaster. If giving it away makes you all warm and fuzzy inside give it away free. If the pot of money makes you feel the same way, sell it. Your choice. And that choice needs to be respected.
I know atleast three people, who are very close to me, who think that copyright and intellectual property rights shouldn't exist, and that the world should be a place where thoughts and ideas flow free and are open to everybody. What I want to say to them is that there are a lot of talented people who just won't be motivated enough if they didn't earn money for their effort. You can say that "they're just doing it for the money", but that doesn't make their art any worse. After all a Picasso does earn millions. Yeah, I hear you Darshana, but I disagree with the distinction you make between music and painting. Darshana thinks that since an original painting holds the emotional and spiritual orientation of the person at the time he/she painted it, and because a copy wouldn't hold the same thing it has singularity, and therefore is valuable. If that orientation could also be transfered to the copy, then it should be free?
And before you say "Hypocrite!", I say I am. But I want to give up smoking, run 10 kms a day, eat only vegetarian food and contribute to open source software. And by the way, I don't have MSOffice on my laptop (OpenOffice.org), the only games on it are legal (Medal of Honor, Rise of nations), and I've rented 25 legal DVDs in the last 2 months (Aatish shush!).
And some day I'll write some really fundoo piece of code, and earn lots of money. I definitely want that option open.
No comments:
Post a Comment