Controlling Use: Impossible and Undesirable
In the world of copyright activism, I see myself as a “creator-friendly” user rights advocate. I don’t download; I buy books and CDs; I “get” moral rights; I want creators to be paid for their labour when they want to be; I’m a musician and writer myself; and I say all these things to my user rights comrades. But sometimes it’s hard to straddle the fence. The Creators’ Copyright Coalition launches its recently-released copyight policy statement with this sentence: “Copyright is the legal foundation that permits creators to control the use of their work.” Here, alas, at the very outset, we part company. “Controlling use” has never been part of what copyright has been about: it has become the mantra of the digital content industries (see my article “Copyright Talk” for more on this, and Chapter Two of Canadian Copyright), but it is not a goal that will serve creators as a whole. The CCC observes that “public perception of copyright issues has become skewed because corporate rights holders are seen as rich and powerful and in need of restraint in the public interest, with the result that the interest of actual individual creators is easily forgotten or lost.” All the more important, then, that the CCC develop a view of copyright independent from those corporate interests, for whom control of use is the great redemption of digital technologies that seem to be escaping the market model. If consumers, now a large force in copyright politics, see creators as controllers of use, we will indeed have an unfortunate polarization of two groups who ought to have some common ground.
Given that the CCC wants to limit fair dealing to noncommercial purposes (certainly in direct distinction from the Supreme Court) I think that what the they really want to do is “control use for which somebody might pay.” But I find this problematic too. Let’s think about blenders. If somebody buys a blender and uses it once a month, it isn’t too much value to him, but still handy to have around. On the other hand, I might use it to make smoothies to sell in my shop, and make a whole lot of money off it. Should I have to pay more money for my blender? Post-sale monitoring of use of consumer goods is increasingly possible, making for an ever seamless web of monetization. You might have to pay extra for that cheapo fairy costume your three-year-old turns out to wear every day for a year. Whether it’s clothing, culture, or widgets, I don’t think this “rental-under-the-guise-of-purchase” is a good way to run the world. (I need a smart economist: any of them out there?)
I agree with the CCC that distinguishing between corporate entities and individual creators is essential. Seems to me, though, that many of the problems they associate with “users” or consumers are actually the result of the corporate nature of the media and cultural industries, and will not necessarily be solved by collective models that will continue to disproportionately benefit large (often non-Canadian) vendors and distributors over “indie” creators and publishers. Too much power for collectives will also erode fair dealing, which I think of as a more along the lines of a human right than a perk to skinflint school boards. And let’s remember: fair dealing is even more important to creators than it is to your average passive Canadian with earbuds. So while the CCC’s document makes a major contribution to the copyright discussion - creators do just have to keep reminding everybody of their existence, skill, and low incomes - there’s a lot more room and imperative yet for making common ground between “users” and “creators.”
4 February 2008 at 3:57 pm
[...] Laura Murray: Controlling Use: Impossible and Undesirable In the world of copyright activism, I see myself as a “creator-friendly” user rights advocate. I don’t download; I buy books and CDs; I “get” moral rights; I want creators to be paid for their labour when they want to be; I’m a musician and writer myself; and I say all these things to my user rights comrades. But sometimes it’s hard to straddle the fence. The Creators’ Copyright Coalition launches its recently-released copyight policy statement with this sentence: “Copyright is the legal foundation that permits creators to control the use of their work.” Here, alas, at the very outset, we part company. “Controlling use” has never been part of what copyright has been about: it has become the mantra of the digital content industries (see my article “Copyright Talk” for more on this, and Chapter Two of Canadian Copyright), but it is not a goal that will serve creators as a whole. The CCC observes that “public perception of copyright issues has become skewed because corporate rights holders are seen as rich and powerful and in need of restraint in the public interest, with the result that the interest of actual individual creators is easily forgotten or lost.” All the more important, then, that the CCC develop a view of copyright independent from those corporate interests, for whom control of use is the great redemption of digital technologies that seem to be escaping the market model. If consumers, now a large force in copyright politics, see creators as controllers of use, we will indeed have an unfortunate polarization of two groups who ought to have some common ground. [...]