Copyright - A great sham?

Everyone knows what copyright is. All you have to do is write "Copyright 2020 Joe Public" on something, and it is done.

Wrong. Firstly, you don't even have to write a copyright notice on it. That changed in 1989. Copyright is a totally automatic right, hence the name. Everything you ever wrote down, improvised on stage, spoke out loud in public or private, sketched on a napkin, or otherwise created, is automatically your copyright.

There are a few strange points regarding it, however.

The world's most prolific author is a man in America who set an AI program he wrote running, and generated thousands of lines of music, stories, and other semi-literate junk. The machine wasn't good, just fast! However, he holds the copyright on all its output.

The song "Happy Birthday" demonstrates one of the other madnesses of copyright. The song was written in 1890, or there abouts. It will remain protected until 2025. Now that's madness. The two old dears who wrote it have been dead for years! What benefit is it to them, now?

The problem with copyright is this: It is transferable. Why is this a problem? Because companies like Disney, with their multi-million pound lawyers and pocket politicians, are getting too clever. Every work done by someone is protected. This is to allow them a say over its exploitation, and just like people, it is long-lived. Copyright is retained for thirty years after the death of the creator. Unfortunately, Mickey Mouse and "Steam Boat Willie" is now very old. So old, in fact, that Disney are trying to get the US Senate to extend the copyright expiry date yet further, up to 50 years.

Now, remember that copyright came into being to protect the originator. How does a deadline 50 years after your death help you? It is unlikely to even still be helping your children!

However, given the ease with which the large corporations are generating copyright materials, and using the laws to shut down fans sites, and now apparently very simply persuading governments to extend the deadlines, does this mean that in 20 years the same thing will happen? The limit will be 75 years, then 100, then, copyright will be permanent? The bible will suddenly be off-limits, as will records the state created at any indeterminate point in the past.

This is the 21st Century, and we should sit up and take notice of the way the world is moving. Sites such as Napster and Gnutella are sending shockwaves through the music industry, as they suddenly realise that every piece of music in existence can be swapped for free, unstoppably. The restrictive copyright laws won't prevent this, nor will extending the deadlines. If a hundred odd year old tune is still protected as much as the latest hit, where is the end? In another ten years they will all still be copyright. I don't listen much to classical music, but they are the only tunes I have EVER heard, in my life, that are not covered by the copyright of the author. Of course, the performers hold a copyright... My point, however, is this. Most people have never heard a song that is not covered fully under copyright, and as such, with the extreme computer power are search systems now available, how long will it be before the "bulk" copyright holders are able to stop original works by new artists being released on-line or elsewhere, simply by using a neural network to find a few very similar songs and a judge? Given a big enough search set, and the fact that every song the artist or the artists parent ever heard on the radio was covered by one of a few big record companies, how could it ever be proved that you DIDN'T copy the works they claim you did?? And remember, they have many lawyers and a big budget. Remember too, that thousands of X-Files fan sites have been taken down, simply due to a legal letter from Fox (No, not Agent Mulder!). Most had nothing more than a few stills, which is perfectly legal under the fair use clause, and yet no-one ever went to court to challenge them. They won for the price of a stamp.

Given a few more years, better AI searches and a few more profit warnings, and I suspect that this will become the norm. How long before it brings the whole system down? After all, there are already systems to track images which have been photo-montage together into new composite images, and yes, there are many cases of "owners" of a work's copyright demanding 20% of the take due to a one line sample used in another song!

So, what is the solution? Remember that patents are very expensive, and last for a maximum of 20 years, in order to let ideas move more easily. I propose a similar system, except rather than the payment of fees it would involve the graceful degradation of the protections copyright offers.

From the time of creation until the time of the creators death the protections are the same as currently, with a few parts allowed to allow quoting, up to a fairly low maximum. Upon the death of the creator, the clock starts. From that point on, the maximum allowed to be published is ten percent of the total, or that which was previously allowed, whichever was the greater. Every year, the amount which can be published increases by a few percent, and so after about 25 years almost the entire work is out of copyright, and the following year, it is out of copyright. This lets everyone in on the act, not just the corporations with their massive legal budget. Web sites will be able to hold lots of stills, whole plot lines and even scripts, before the copyright is up totally. This opens the whole market up, and will generate lots of free publicity for the copyright holders estate during the few years remaining, whilst stimulating others to follow and improve.

This is what copyright was meant to do.

Note that the actual rules at the moment are hideously unfair. If you publish a book, the copyright holds from the date of first publication for only 25 years. Now consider a film, where copyright goes wild. The last to die of the principal seven people would be bad enough, but it is the end of that year... that the clock starts! It is a full 70 years from that date. So, consider the effort that the kid who played the young Queen Amadala. Let us assume Natalie lives to be only 85, and is the last of the principals to die. That is 70 years up front, then another 70 on top! So in around 2140 the copyright on "Star Wars: Episode One" will expire.. unless the might of the money in Hollywood and the media press for a further extension. I, for one, cannot imagine that the right of authors will not be further undermined. After all, the money is no longer in books, but in films. Then again, I know not the future, and would hesitate to wonder where the money will be by then. Or even if there is money.

Return to Index