Today the Vancouver Sun published an editorial by Jacob Tummon entitled “The Case for the Death of Copyright”. Tummon is already known to readers here for his in-depth piece on copyright at Legaltree.ca. While this editorial is necessarily shorter and less detailed than that earlier piece, it still makes a strong case. Tummon is a law school graduate, and he makes the excellent point that unenforceable laws inevitably lead to disrespect for the law itself: “Canada has experience with laws that engender widespread violation: Consider prohibition in the 1920s. A law violated so brazenly is more than meaningless — it undermines the effectiveness of the legal system generally.” Bravo to the Vancouver Sun for giving space to these ideas.
Here’s the full editorial, reprinted with Jacob Tummon’s permission…
The Case for the Death of Copyright
It has been said that intellectual property law has an unfortunate tendency to “disable critical thought.”
Nowhere is this more apparent than the reasons proffered for copyright in the Internet age, including the refrain that “copying is tantamount to stealing.” That flatly is not the case.
The morality, economics, and practicality of laws dealing with physical property do not hold for the intangible works covered by copyright. With finite physical property, scarcity is inescapable; with digital representations, scarcity does not apply. It is therefore not surprising that reasoning premised on this false analogy yields a law not in the best interests of content creators (“content creator” means artists, musicians, writers and so forth.)
The ostensible justification for copyright is that it provides attribution to the original creator and serves as an economic incentive for creators who can license the use of their work to make money, provided someone is willing to pay.
The latter point deserves careful scrutiny as the vast majority of creators do not earn meaningful incomes through copyright. Moreover, there are viable models for creators to earn income from their work which do not depend on copyright. Sponsorships, ticket sales, T-shirt sales and commissioned works are obvious longstanding examples.
Canadian musician Jane Siberry offers her music on her website using a “pay what you can” system, but a guideline shows the average price customers have paid per track. The result is an average price higher than what one would pay through iTunes. There are also similarly clever business models for novelists.
Embedding advertising or product placement within a TV show or movie is another viable means to pay for content. Budweiser produces its own TV-type shows on its website Bud.TV. Budweiser’s motive is worth noting for its prescient thinking: “If we don’t start playing in this digital game now we’re going to be playing catch-up for a long time. And this is an industry that can’t afford catch-up,” explained Tony Ponturo, Anheuser-Busch’s vice-president of global media and sports marketing.
Nor is proper attribution dependent on copyright. Tort law, through causes of actions like defamation and passing-off, could be wielded to prevent someone other than the original creator from claiming authorship, and also the original creator being credited with an altered version of the work. Incidentally, plagiarism in an academic setting is currently enforced independently of copyright.
Trademarks and patents are other areas of intellectual property that do not depend on copyright and would continue to exist in the absence of copyright.
That copyright isn’t needed for attribution or economic incentive is not the whole story. There is a body of work, in all areas covered by copyright, which requires the elimination of copyright to flourish. DJ’s making mixed tapes is a simple example.
Consider, with the means available through modern software, the splicing of video to say nothing of novels; a freeing from the constraints of copyright would invariably lead to an explosion of works being altered, transformed, improved, and ultimately morphed into new works.
The lack of such creative works is a not insignificant cost of copyright. This repressing effect can be damaging to the promotion of political and social expression and greater productivity.
Copyright was originally created as a means for government to exercise censorship after the advent of the movable type printing press. Given this origin it is not surprising that copyright is not intellectually coherent.
Stephen Breyer, now a judge on the U.S. Supreme Court, wrote as an academic in the 1970s on the weak case for copyright, asking why the work covered by copyright should be treated differently than other actions that produce value far beyond what they get remuneration for, i.e. the person who invents the supermarket, the person who clears a swamp, a schoolteacher.
The truth is that copyright has traditionally, and to this day, served primarily the publisher’s interest and not that of the creator or the public — it is not derived from natural justice.
Irrespective of moral and economic dimensions, the deathblow to copyright will likely come from the Internet itself. Due to the nature of the Internet, and anonymizing technologies in particular, the practicality of attempting to enforce a pre-internet copyright regime through the Internet is a road that we as a society should not go down.
Canada has experience with laws that engender widespread violation: Consider prohibition in the 1920s. A law violated so brazenly is more than meaningless — it undermines the effectiveness of the legal system generally.
Over time, the Internet will increasingly expose constraints on text, pictures, and videos for what they are — arbitrary and outmoded. In the meantime, it makes sense for Canada not to pass copyright laws that are more restrictive and invasive.
Jacob Tummon is a recent graduate of the University of British Columbia’s faculty of law.
10 Comments on "“The Case for the Death of Copyright” (editorial in the Vancouver Sun by Jacob Tummon)"
Today, the right-wing newspaper, the Vancouver Sun, together with the VPD have launched a anti-piracy PR blitz. More deceitful dissembling is hard to imagine.
Please help to counter the spread of misinformation.
Thanks, can you provide a link to the PR blitz, or to part of it?
“Canadian musician Jane Siberry offers her music on her website using a “pay what you can” system”
Interesting concept, I’ve never heard of that before.
Anyway, thanks for the information.
L.A. Lakers Online
Radiohead did the same with the release of their last album. Keep your eyes peeled as no doubt more artists will follow this approach. Interestingly Radiohead fans paid on average $8 for each copy – voluntarily. Seems to be saying the labels overprice things and the fans will still pay – but not the amount that the labels want.
“pay what you can” system – very interesting, it is something that I know a few chiropractors use to encourage people to have care. If it works for them, then why not use it in other areas. Would be interested to find out how this musician is doing now? [commercial link deleted]
Interesting article. I am inclined to agree that copyright is not a natural law. The natural sentiment should be one that benefits all mankind.
Imagine the person who discovers fire patenting it? How about the Grimm Brothers copyrighting their work?
Can you imagine having to pay royalties for lighting a cancer stick, let alone a match for your fireplace in winter? How about a childhood without reading about Little Red Riding Hood? the Gingerbread man?
Years down the road we will be paying extra dollars just so the company who manufactures the cure for cancer or AIDs can pay their royalties to the discoverer.
Are there any books written on the subject of this article? Where can I find other arguments for the abolition of copyright laws?
Alright, I’ll answer my own question. There is a book called “Promises to Keep” by William Fisher. Read it. The guy’s a genius, and the book perfectly lays out the issues and the three most feasible solutions.
Thanks, can you provide a link to the PR blitz, or to part of it?
Personally I had a couple issues with this article.
The first is the generalization of “the vast majority of creators do not earn meaningful incomes through copyright”. This is akin to saying that “the vast majority of bikers don’t race”. Be it Harley riders or Tour de France participants, you’re casting an incredibly wide net. Also, this statement is weak sauce because in any pursuit the “vast majority” are not going to make meaningful income, be it small businesses, poker players or law students. This is not an argument for the removal of something. The vast majority of people are not supreme court judges but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t support a system that allows the chosen few to exist.
The second major issue I have is the extreme simplification of copyright. While obviously simplifying the intricacies of copyright is important for a general audience, then making an argument based on this general definition instead of the true definition is a maneuver straight from the University of Glen Beck.
Someone who claims an authoritative voice on copyright should know that copyright goes beyond simply getting paid when someone buys a track and preventing other creative endeavours. Many creators choose to be paid when someone uses their work. Yes, copyright allows this. But copyright also allows a creator to be protected from someone else misrepresenting their work or claiming it as their own. It ensures credit when a work is used and prevents intent from being perverted.
Whether you agree with copyright or not, and whether you believe these rights are too stringent or not is a fair argument and one that is made far better elsewhere on this site. But writing an article based on only a couple facets of copyright and arguing that copyright should be dead because these two facets are unnecessary/ineffective is either ignorant or disingenuous; neither of which belong in an article that purports to be an educated voice on the matter.
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.