Copyright Or Copywrong

Professional Practise Daniel Kent

Copyright or Copywrong?

"With advances in information and communications technology such as the Internet, copyright protection is no longer relevant or necessary." (Russell McOrmand, 2004)

In the UK alone one in every three DVD's sold is said to be an illegal copy. Music and software can be downloaded off the Internet for free from a number of different illegal sources, and it seems that it is almost impossible to police. The fact that this material is all copyrighted appears to have no relevance at all, as it is readily available to anyone who wants to obtain it. The whole point of having material copyrighted is so that it cannot be copied without the creators blessing.

On this evidence it would seem that the opening quote is very much true, but is it? This statement that copyright is no longer necessary suggests that copyright is a matter of choice. In fact, copyright exists the moment a work is created no matter what anyone says. Copyright exists as a function of the fact that you exist and have created something. The only way for copyright to cease to exist is for the creator to renounce it. And the only way of doing that is to refuse to take credit in the first place (Susan Crean (2004).

The Internet allows copyrighted material to be distributed instantaneously and globally at nominal cost. Copyright owners have attempted to combat these threats in numerous ways. They have sued the providers and users of online file-sharing networks. They have developed some technological barriers to unauthorized copying. And they have lobbied governments to strengthen legal protections. As part of the latter strategy, copyright owners have pressed legislatures to adopt more comprehensive and punitive criminal sanctions for infringement. They have also encouraged police and prosecutors to use criminal copyright law more liberally. But thanks to peer-to-peer file sharing software, readily available to anyone on the Internet, these attempts appear to be failing (A.Reese, 2001).

Because of these new technologies it would seem that the policymakers are now required to develop and implement new laws and policies that protect the rights of artists, but that also ensure reasonable and appropriate access by consumers who want to obtain media (H. Bedau, 2001). File sharing leads more and more people to wonder whether copyright is a natural right or a social construct that requires less regard. Some advocates argue that on the global stage, information "wants" to be free and to be spread throughout the world, so it is impossible for anyone to own information.

In keeping with the view that copyright is a natural right, copyright holders compare infringement to theft of tangible goods. Copyright holders also point out the economic consequences of infringement. In contrast, those who infringe copyrights equate their behavior with independent principles, the resistance to unfair trade practices and also simply sharing (N. Katyal, 1999). They then, advocate abolishing or at the very least changing the current system of copyright. There are arguments for both sides in that the holders are losing earnings from their way of making a living, i.e. their material, but do consumers really need to pay the prices asked for when they no exactly how much it is to reproduce them for themselves. Yes, companies have to pay for packaging and design and they obviously want to make a profit. But people can get a whole album off the Internet for free and copy it for the price of a blank 20p CD.

The digital age has increased the quality of copyrighted content as well as reduced the cost of delivering it to consumers. These efficiencies promise to spur economic growth, benefiting both producers and consumers of digital content. But digitization obviously increases efficiency for illegal as well as legal markets. Mass digital copying does not require significant investments in equipment or personnel, and one person of limited means can facilitate large-scale infringement. And as the "Napster" phenomenon revealed, people with personal computers, a broadband Internet connection, and peer-to-peer file sharing software can easily engage in piracy on a massive, global scale. This greatly increases the pool of potential copyright infringers.

It is said that many of these people may not even believe that they are doing anything wrong. By the spring of 2001, 37 million Americans