Many of us have very common goals and priorities ~ our families, our careers, the respect of our peers and colleagues, our ability perhaps to leave some sort of mark in (wo)man's history. What seems to divide us is not our aspirations, but rather our technique.
~ Do we teach abstinence, or do we teach respect for boundaries?
~ Do we pray for divine intervention, or do we invest in (wo)man's potential?
~ Do we make the switch to metric, or do we save the hassle?
~ Do we bail out the auto industry, or do we start fresh?
What's interesting is that in the realm of intellectual property, we have developed a culture with a strong bias to only one perspective. There is however, a dichotomy of belief surrounding this issue, one that in the last couple of years has been blown wide open. Wether you side with John Kennedy ~ Chairman and CEO of IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry) in believing that digital file sharing is devaluing music, or you lean more toward the Girl Talk ideal of conceptual free trade, the main goal should be encouraging a platform which embraces both positions ~ or god forbid even encourage a synergistic relationship.
The debate is not which is of most value to the makers, the debate is how do the makers define value. It is easiest, I guess in todays western world to define value in terms of the monetization of a subject, but this doesn't leave much room for the mass of artists who attach a different definition to the term.
Consider this: Copyright Law has for many years been a major block to the formation, aggregation and distribution of progressive thought and has devalued the core fundamentals of integral, artistic endeavor. There, I said it!
Now before you start emailing me all your hate letters and death threats allow me to explain myself.
Turn on your radio (don't laugh, it still does have a huge market) or television music channel and over the course of an hour, count how many songs/genres/production techniques you have heard before and compare that to the amount of new musical ideas being broadcast.
Pay attention to the music that you hear all around you every day, what is the purpose of it?
~ Does it challenge you?
~ Does it aid in a great lecture that redefines your awareness of something?
~ Does it help to convince you to buy something?
~ Does it advertise lifestyle?
I think that without even participating in this experiment, though I do urge you to, you will deduce fairly easily that more money (not value) is to be made from playing songs over and over and over again than from introducing new, inspiring works of art. Value of copyright enters stage right and assumes the spotlight.
Now ask yourself this:
~ Does skype devalue your conversation?
~ Does public transit devalue your travel?
~ Does free healthcare devalue your life?
Of course not, because these things are all human needs, unlike entertainment.
~ WELL WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE ART? What value does ART have? What value does ART give to our society as a whole? ~ Well probably not much if your idea of art is getting a thousand spins at chum.fm or helping Labatts sell beer.
Okay okay, now that you all hate me, chill it out a bit. Copyright is great for many people. It can provide a base of income for t.v and film composers so that they can concentrate on their craft without serving tables every night. It emphasis credit to those who toil and trouble creating great works, and if nothing else; with a bit of pop sensibility, a great pair of stems and a rock hard six pack, it can be traded to a major label for the chance to have your face admired around the world while having a whopping amount of international sex and amassing a surprising $40k debt.
What I'm trying to express is that while many people attach a certain kind of value to their art; one that copyright supports, many others attach a different kind of value to their art; one that copyright protests. So the next time you feel an urge to complain about the PRV (political remix video) that used 3 seconds of a Metellica riff with out permission, or how the young techno DJ is devaluing your industry by throwing up works online and encouraging folks to download it for free, consider that maybe there is a different kind of value that is being added to your culture. Maybe, just maybe there's room for us to co-exist with different ideas about intellectual property. Maybe it's time for the Copyright Act to evolve into a current system that recognizes both pursuits.
~ What if you could use anything for free so long as you did not directly profit from the redistribution?
~ What if we linked art to academic pursuit instead of entertainment? (Then using work without permission would be allowable under the current Copyright Act).
~ WHAT IF WE FUNDED THE ARTS AGAIN INSTEAD OF WARS?? ~ Harper care to comment?? ~ Didn't think so.
Just saying ~ file sharing is not the devil, Girl Talk is not devaluing your industry and art is more valuable then the money collected by SOCAN, so lets strive to protect artists without limiting potential ~ no?
Okay now you can send your hate letters, but do it the comment section below so peeps can discuss.
