When may one legitimately copy a page from a book or a photograph of a person or a recording of a song? What ethical principles come to bear on these questions? These questions have grown in importance, and will continue to grow in importance, because the amount of available information is growing, and the ease of copying is growing.
The answers may be surprising. I would ask you to bear with me as I try to think carefully about principles of right and wrong.
Read the rest: Copyrights and Copying.
Twenty years ago, when photocopiers first began to be common in church offices, religious and music periodicals began running articles warning us of the danger of violating copyright laws, especially in making transparencies of songs, publishing the words of hymns in bulletins, etc. The stream of such articles continued unabated for some years, and one continues to read them from time to time. Indeed, one can hardly ever pick up a piece of church music without reading stern warnings about the consequences of illegal copying. Indeed, one music publisher where I used to live regularly sent out vaguely threatening letters to all the local churches on this matter. It is hard to believe that they actually thought this sort of practice would improve their business; my own inclination is to steer far away from any involvement with such a company. But from another point of view, this publisher’s efforts were only a tiny sound amid the din of voices moralizing and legalizing about copyright.
The issue has come up again more recently in connection with web sites enabling customers to share music files with one another. Courts have ruled that free downloading constitutes violation of copyright, and some such sites have had to go out of business or to set up a system of payment.
In all this time, I waited eagerly for the other shoe to drop. It has seemed inevitable that some article, somewhere, would advocate an obvious alternative. For it is possible, after all, in our democracy, to get laws changed. We are not constrained forever to meekly acquiesce to a system which continually threatens us with grave consequences, even for innocent oversights, on dubious moral grounds. Perhaps I have not read the religious press as carefully as I might have, but I have yet to see any article on this subject advocating anything other than groveling compliance. Hence I must drop the other shoe myself.
Read the rest: The Other Shoe, or Copyright and the Reasonable Use of Technology
Ah, you finally got around to reading this. It’s really quite excellent. And notice how Poythress quotes Richard Stallman.
I stopped reading the first article 2/3rds of the way through. It was incredibly disappointing. The logic and examples were seriously deficient, IMO. Among other things, he seems to suggest that the current laws would forbid even quoting a sentence or borrowing an idea and citing the source for credit. That is just bizarre. He talks about applying the Bible into a new situation in which the Bible doesn’t speak, but then doesn’t actually do that. His application of the biblical principles were not sufficiently adjusted to our current system. What about those whose lively-hood comes from that which can be reproduced effotlessly? Someone could purchase a copy of a book, scan it, and release it for free online, or print their own copies. According to him, this would be “imitating God” and to forbid it would be preventing people from doing what is loving?
Peter,
Why do you think copyrights end? Why did the the founders allow this?
Bobber, I’m not really sure what that proves. Gaining one’s lively-hood from producing a physical good (like ax-heads) is substantially different than gaining one’s lively-hood from writing literature, for instance. Thus, each one requires its own unique approach. If I make an ax-head, you can only “copy” that ax head at a near equal cost (you still need the raw material and the means to forged it, etc.). However, if I write a book, you can reproduce that book at a miniscule fraction of what it cost me to produce the book. I may take 400 hours to write one books. You could make 400 digital copies of that book in a 400th of a second. You could make 400 hard copies in 40 hours with a good copier.
We’re in a fundamentally different situation. That’s why the examples used in the first article (I didn’t read the second one) were disappointing, to say the least. He didn’t interact *at all* (at least in the first 2/3rds of the article) with these substantial differences. For an example of poor argumentation, he notes that the biblical authors quote each other, which legitimates “copying.” What? Seriously? No-one is arguing that we shouldn’t be allowed to quote each other in the way that the Biblical authors did. That’s a non-argument.
I’m willing to be convinced, but I have not yet seen or heard a good argument on this.
You still didn’t answer my question. Why do copyrights wear off? The original copyright in the US was 10 years with the possibility of a 5 year extension (I think this is correct, it’s close if not exact). Why did the founders think this was important?
Peter, I also wrestle with what to do here. For me, the arguments that copying shouldn’t be fettered do seem compelling, but then I wonder how musicians and writers could possibly make a living. There are are a few things that have helped me here (you should read Frame’s article; it touches on these):
(1) First, for most artists and writers, I suspect they don’t derive a lot of income from the work itself. I’m not sure about musicians — don’t they make more money from live performances and tours than from CD sales? And I think most authors aren’t in it for the money, either; Frame indicates this is true for theological books, at least. It seems like the moneymaking angle is a bigger issue for publishers and distributors. The potential for free distribution could actually help artists because it would give them more widespread recognition.
(2) Second, I can’t imagine that this would be an isolated change. If public opinion shifted enough that we got significant freedoms in the copyright arena, it seems highly likely to me that we’d be growing in significant freedoms across the board — e.g., with respect to regulatory oppression of small business and industry. That would really stimulate the creation of wealth, and thus it would open up a lot more freedom for individuals and businesses to engage in patronage and sponsorship. Sponsorship would include the sort of right-of-first-publication that Frame describes.
(3) More generally, changes like this will have unintended consequences (for better or worse) that we can’t easily foresee. For every benefit that some regulation brings there are many unseen benefits that it stifles. We shouldn’t be quick to assume negative consequences for regulatory *freedom* — especially knowing something about human ingenuity and creativity. For example, several factors could shift the balance of power and income from publishers to artists (e.g., publishers competing for first-rights, or the turning of publishing into even more of a commodity). And who is to say that it is better to encourage artists to hoard their past achievements rather than encouraging them to be continually striving to create something new? Overall I find it hard to believe that a determined artist or writer would not find some way — likely a “better” way, all things considered — to make a living.
Bobber,
Frankly, I don’t know why the framers included copy-right expiration, and I don’t really think that has any bearing on the issue either (at least not the questions I raised). That’s a red herring, IMO. We’re in a different situation now than when the framers wrote the Constitution. They could never have imagined the digital age. I’m not arguing for permanent copy-rights. But bringing up the founders doesn’t move the conversation forward, unless you have a point that I’m not seeing.
“Intellectual property” *is* different physical property. I’m happy that things enter public domain after a time and I think that is as it should be. My beef was mainly with the poor arguments in the first article.
Scott, you do bring up some good points, but it seems as though you flatten all “intellectual property.” Theologians don’t make squat off of books (except perhaps NT Wright), and musicians might not make their whole lively-hood off of recordings, but (a) why does that matter–just because the money they make is extra doesn’t mean it’s right to take that away. And (b) novelists and other do in fact make their living off of their books (which is why I said it seemed like you were flattening the issue).
“Intellectual property *is* different [than] physical property…
It has great bearing on the issues you raise. Your argument is an economic one. You are advocating copyright as a means of making a living. But this was not the way Jefferson and the framers saw it. Here is what the Constitution says: “[Congress shall have the power] to promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”
The supreme court has interpreted it thus: “The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the [copyright] monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors.”
Copyright was never intended to provide a way for authors to make a living, only to provide insetive to create works.
If you want to redefine the purpose of copyright then you must amend the Constitution and follow the amendment process.
See Stalman’s discussion: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html
Bobber,
Poythress was speaking morally, not legally, as was I. The framers of the Constitution did not live in the world we live in, and so copyright for them doesn’t have the same urgency that it does for us.
Legally, regardless of *motivation* for copyright law, Congress does have the authority for such a law, as your quotation establishes, so, no, I do not think one would need to amend the Constitution. Even so, one could make the argument scientists and artists without a lively-hood are unlikely to promote the Progress of Science. So either way, I still fail to see how bringing up the framers is particularly relevant: I’m arguing morally not legally, and either way, Congress has the authority to do want I’m arguing for.
Disagree. Congress can vote on extending copyright as they have in the past but if brought to the supreme court there is no doubt what the intent of the constitution is. If one were to ask Congress as to why they don’t extend copyright indefinitely, then they would be faced with the reason as to why it was made finite in the first place.
And I disagree on the nature of the world. In fact there is evidence from the past that copyright law may actually hinder the livelihood of content creators. During the time of Dickens, works could be reproduced in the US without being bound by British copyright law. Some authors actually made more money selling in the US.
But really, if enough people become informed about the original intent of the Constitution it will be a mute point for your case. The supreme court has spoken already. If people want their rights back and would like copyright terms to be reduced, the courts would be obliged by the law to reduce them.
There is no morally compelling argument. Making up a phrase like “intellectual property” doesn’t give you an argument.
And making statements like this don’t help your case either: “Making up a phrase like “intellectual property” doesn’t give you an argument.”
With all due respect, that’s a bullshit thing to say. It is completely unhelpful to the conversation. I have in fact been making numerous arguments and to reduce my argument to “making up a phrase” (which I did not in fact make up, but borrowed for convenience despite the questions about it, which is why I put it in scare quotes) is grossly inappropriate.
“Copyright was never intended to provide a way for authors to make a living, only to provide insetive [sic] to create works.”
False dichotomy. Part of incentive means protecting their source of income. How do you think the framers imagined copyrights promoting the Progress of Science? It’s a nice argument to claim that their intent was to promote the progress of science, ergo, they weren’t concerned with financial reimbursement to the inventors/writers/etc, and so neither should we. However, the two are obviously connected since the framers believed that copyrights protected the monetary incentive to create.
I don’t have a stake in whether copyrights should be 10 years or 70. Either way, the Constitution provides for copyright laws, so Congress is within their rights to establish them. I don’t really see what is so hard about that.
And as for whether copyrights actually are financially beneficial or not, you’re welcome to believe what you believe (I’m skeptical, but not unconvinced), but that’s your belief. Don’t equate it with constitutionality.
“But really, if enough people become informed about the original intent of the Constitution it will be a mute point for your case. The supreme court has spoken already. If people want their rights back and would like copyright terms to be reduced, the courts would be obliged by the law to reduce them.”
You seem to be missing my point. I never argued that copyrights should be any particular length of time. I don’t know where you would get that. If they get reduced to 10 years, I would be totally fine with that. It is you who (seem) to be arguing that they shouldn’t even exist and that is a Constitutionally untenable position. You are the one (it seems to me) who would need to amend the Constitution.
Congress has the right to establish copyrights if it promotes the Progress of Science, right? They currently believe that such copyrights do that, right? You disagree. Great. But that doesn’t make copyrights “unconstitutional”.
My main complaint against your argument is that you were making an economic argument. That is, you seem to be saying that copyright cannot be changed because people are making a living on copyrighted content. But this is not the purpose of copyright in the Constitution. But your last post seems to be changing your tune. At this point, I don’t know which you are really supporting.
I am not necessarily in favor of completely abolishing copyright in every instance. But it is at least worth considering if it would promote more progress and sharing of knowldege.
I didn’t say that it was you who made up the phrase, “intelectual property” but simply that this phrase is not a way to make the economic argument valid.
I also take issue with your course language. It is out of place in this duscussion.
Ok, more on your claim of a false dichotomy: Sorry but I don’t find it persuasive. There’s no indication that they thought of it as a source of income to be protected. Rather the main concern is the content is accessible which will result in progress. Go back to the quotes I provided. Notice how the Supreme Court has backed it up. The author’s income is clearly secondary to stimulation of content creation and distribution. And one of the reason they may not have spelled it out more clearly is that it’s not a given that a monopoly on copyright guarantees a livelihood.
Stallman states it thus:
“The copyright system works by providing privileges and thus benefits to publishers and authors; but it does not do this for their sake. Rather, it does this to modify their behavior: to provide an incentive for authors to write more and publish more. In effect, the government spends the public’s natural rights, on the public’s behalf, as part of a deal to bring the public more published works. Legal scholars call this concept the “copyright bargain.” It is like a government purchase of a highway or an airplane using taxpayers’ money, except that the government spends our freedom instead of our money.”
So this is the ultimate question: Is copyright working? Is it resulting in content creation and distribution which stimulates progress? According to your argument, the question should be: are a large number of content creators secure in their livelihood as a result of the content they create? And then we must also analyze who asks this, the public or government?
Sorry, I’ve been super busy with school. I don’t have time to respond. Thanks for the interaction, though. I appreciate the challenges, even if I’m still not completely convinced.