As a strong believer in property rights both real and intellectual, and a fervent supporter of the free market — what’s happening on Wall Street right now isn’t a failure of the market, it’s the result of the collapse of distortions and bypasses of the market — I was optimistic when I saw an article titled “PRO-IP, Rights, and the Roots of Copyright Opposition” in a publication called Capitalism Magazine. I was not disappointed.

The piece is by M. Zachary Johnson, a composer and musicologist in the NYC area. I wasn’t previously familiar with Mr. Johnson’s work, but I hope he remains engaged in the debate, because he articulates quite clearly the frustration of creators when told all of their effort in creation matters not once their work is converted to ones and zeroes. A passage from the piece:

The fact that it is easier to copy these things does not eliminate the creator’s sovereignty over his own product. The price of his work, even if it is $0, is his to set.

Absolutely right. He then elaborates on that point a bit later in the piece:

So a creator’s right is not per se to the particular physical instance, but to the creative content that is embodied in these objects. And the only practical way for a creator to control and profit from his work is for him to hold by right the power to decide when, where, how and under what conditions new physical instances of his creation may be made and distributed. That is the meaning of the right to copy.

Now where the author starts to lose me a bit is in his condemnation of what he calls the “progressive” model of education that he feels focuses more on emotion and socialization than fact. As someone who helps both of his kids with homework, I would say that a lot of facts are being taught in schools today. I just don’t think a lot of facts regarding intellectual property are being taught. It’s not so much the method as it is the subject matter. (Here at the Copyright Alliance, we are working with educators to remedy that.)

Mr. Johnson is focused on the moral attitude of those who would infringe copyright. It’s a legitimate avenue to pursue. Clearly many if not most infringers know what they are doing is at least illegal, and if they feel it is not wrong there is probably some rationalization occurring related to their distrust of large corporations (one of Mr. Johnson’s theories), or their own lack of money (although they generally don’t apply the same rationale to physical goods), or the fact that everyone is doing it (the “diffusion of responsibility” example), or some lack of respect for rules or authority. And in some cases, it may simply be an ignorance of law and moral correctness; they may honestly believe that if the works are there online for free than it must be that it is intentional on the part of the owner. I think that circle of infringers is getting smaller, however.

The point I’m getting at is that I’m reluctant to apply motives regarding morality to those who I feel disrespect the rights of creators by devaluing the worth of their product simply because it is digitized. I can disagree with them vehemently but it is not my place to pass judgment on them. I am dismissed frequently by some proponents of reduced rights online, and they will use language that is quite harsh, crude, immature and off-point (typical of the blogosphere and policy debates, unfortunately), but the general theme is that I am considered an apologist for large companies. Large companies and individual artists all own copyrights, they are all in this Alliance, and I will defend them all large and small. These same opponents also often suggest I say what I do because of who my members are; I say I serve my members because I believe in their cause.

I am willing to accept at face value that foes believe in the principles in which they are promoting, even if I feel they are mistaken. I always wish the same courtesy be applied to me, although that happens less often than I’d like. Given that desire on my part, I won’t go so far as Mr. Johnson in ascribing motives to opponents.

But I do welcome his piece, which is articulate and thought-provoking.

Share this:

This entry was posted on Thursday, November 20th, 2008 at 4:31 pm by Patrick Ross and is filed under copyright opponents, creators, education, market forces, piracy, property rights. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.