by Paul Gibson
Home >> You Copy Cat
The controversial bill passed on May 13th in the French Parliament is in direct opposition to an EU directive that forbids any Member country from denying internet service without first taking the appropriate legal action in a court of law. The privacy issues involved are staggering. The government would have the right to view and access all of the personal computer records on your PC, which will be considered by anyone as an intrusion of personal property etc.
Once again, the consumer or internet user that downloads content illegally will be subject to fines that range from 2-month internet disconnection to a year’s suspension – all of this, mind you – without the need to provide evidence that this person is actually committing a crime.
The implications of the new law would seem to violate most principals of criminal, civil and corporate law. Nevertheless, the bill has been passed by the French Parliament. The new laws passed against piracy in France have sparked similar intellectual property debates in other arenas, such as plagiarism and copyright law.
The British business periodical, the Economist, opened the debate just this past week, by announcing their position: “current copyright law does more harm than good.” The debate features two experts in copyright law. On the pro side, defending this motion is Professor William Fisher of Harvard University. On the con side, opposed to the motion, is Professor Justin Hughes of Cardozo Law School, New York. Each side of the debate raises very important legal, economic and social issues that are worth some deliberation and reflection.
The basic questions raised on both sides include: Does copyright law curtail or discourage creativity? Is it really a reward for originality? Do the current circumstances warrant the existence of such copyright laws? Shouldn’t authors have to compete to sell their literary works in a free market, in much the same way as a restaurant competes in the market of food service?
300 years ago, copyright law or the right to copy a work – was actually designed to free up knowledge, not to limit its dissemination. The laws then were designed to limit the exclusive rights of the royal class to certain literary works, thus, making them available to the public domain more quickly. Nowadays, these laws might be considered as an unjust restriction on content, so a privileged few can charge the public for it.
What do you think? Is copyright law out-of-date? Does copyright law apply to artists that offer their content on the Internet? Shouldn’t artists protect their works more effectively? Is government surveillance of the Internet even legal? These and many other matters will undoubtedly heat up the debate in months and years to come. In the meantime, this weekly is free, but is protected under copyrights that appear in the Creative Commons License User Agreement.
Photo credit: http://gameanddvdreview.com/images/illegal_download.jpg © Congenia, 2009
Released under the following licence: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDeriv
You are free to copy, distribute and display the contents of this article but you must give credit to and mention the original author. You are not allowed to use these contents for commercial purposes, and you may not modify them to make any derivative works.
For full licence description, go to: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.1/es/deed.en
Posted on http://www.weeklyletter.com at 2009-05-19 07:00:00 +0200
Copyright (C) ITT (http://www.itt.es) and Planet Lingua (http://www.lingua.es)
We have more weekly letters by Paul
Poll for this weekly letter
Downloading films that are available on the internet is illegal.
Licencing
You are free to copy, distribute and display the contents of this article but you must give credit to and mention the original author. You are not allowed to use these contents for commercial purposes, and you may not modify them to make any derivative works.
(click the above link for more information)
Add a comment
This is fascinating and very relevant subject.
I have a friend who is a recording artist and he very often hears people saying that music should be free.
He says ‘Music is free. Go and get a guitar, spend time learning to play it and then you have all the free music you like.’ If you want to use his music, however, you have to pay for it.
Some people spend a lot of time and money practising and honing their skills to be musicians, writers, poets, photographers,videographers and painters. And then they see people come along and steal their work.
My opinion of the practicalities of copyright is as follows:-
If something is easy to do, then do it yourself !!
If something is not easy to do, then pay the person who has the talent and patience to do it for you.
My opinion of the ethics is.
Thou shalt not steal.
It’s easy to understand.
Piracy and copyright theft are killing creativity and everything that can stop people doing them is a postive step for all of us.
Donal, thank you very much for your comment!
As a professional artist, you must have some very strong opinions precisely because you are absolutely right – people should have to pay for your music. Unfortunately, I suspect that most consumers will continue to download music every chance they can get… I mean, I would if I were them – not because it is stealing, but because the real theft is the markup the recording studios and labels put on their music before it reaches retailers.
In the end, even if consumers pay, the majority of the money goes to intermediaries, not to artists. Another point that consumers take issue with is the canon or royalty that artists already receive for every MP3, iTunes or similar device. I mean, why should they have to pay two or three times for the same music? They make a valid point. Musicians do not finance my internet service, I pay for it. If I download their music from the Internet and they do not wish that I download it, then maybe they (the artists) should not (1) put their music on the Internet for sale if they can’t protect it from download and 2- if someone is re-selling their music, they should report it to the police, not lawyers!
Anyway, those are the humble thoughts of a lowly observer… Great comments!