If you have actually read the first four posts of this series and have made it to this one, I feel you deserve some kind of formal recognition. But you know, we live in a society of sensitive self-esteem where everyone gets awards, medals, accommodations, etc. We’re all special. So I know you wouldn’t actually want special recognition because you would feel it cheapened your accomplishment. So just take satisfaction in having worked your way through my meandering crankiness.

As a reminder, this is the last of a five-post series on coyright myths. In the first post I targeted the canard that copyright stifles artists and that the purchaser of a work is the one with controlling rights. In the second I addressed the myth that copyright stifles innovation and addressed griping about creative industry business models. The third post focused on the issues of marginal cost of creative works and the call for collective licensing. And the fourth and most recent post addressed the burning issues of copyright as a monopoly and a property right. Below are the final two of my informal top ten list.

9. “The government shouldn’t be the big cop for copyright owners.”

This is a popular libertarian argument, as libertarians are allergic to the public sector. Those who know me know I’m sympathetic to that line of thinking myself, but one frustration of (some) libertarians is that they become so controlled by their own dogma they fail to see reality when it doesn’t fit their fixed world view.

Most libertarians support property rights, so let’s start with real property. Say I own a cattle ranch. Say someone comes onto my cattle ranch and starts stealing my steer. I seem to have two choices – bring in the authorities or take the law into my own hands.

In this case, if the cattle were sound recordings, the anti-copyright libertarian would apparently choose the latter course. Yet these are often the same people who balk when copyright owners use the civil courts to pursue copyright infringement claims. Sometimes these copyright opponents say contract law should be used, but contract law assumes there are parties to a contract. The cattle thief has no contract with me, nor do the people he will share the steaks with. This argument is a chimera.

So my cattle are being stolen, and I can’t call the sheriff and I can’t use my rifle. I can run wire along my split-rail fence but the thief can cut that. In fact, many libertarians also despise protections (in IP they’re called digital rights management tools, or DRM) because they ultimately fail if the opponent is determined enough. It seems a 100% performance record is needed before any deterrence can be used.

So I am left with only one choice. Stop trying to protect my steer, set them free, and maybe sell T-shirts with my ranch’s logo on it. Somehow I think there will be fewer steaks for sale at my local grocery store.

10. “Copyright is really just a vehicle for corporate greed.”

Yes, this is where we hear that artists should get paid, but infringers don’t want to reward big, bad companies. Of course, those artists chose to contract their copyrighted works with those big, bad companies. Presumably it was because they felt the companies’ marketing and distribution abilities would help them, but ultimately it is not our concern why they did so. If we really respect the artist, we will respect their choice in how they want their work distributed.

Corporations, of course, employ many people. It is likely that a lot of the people blogging and posting on blogs about their dislike of corporations work for a corporation. They may in fact hate their employer but I would suspect they are happy they are employed.

Certainly a great many people are employed in copyright industries. Take a motion picture. Each one features numerous full-time studio staff and many freelance workers that are a part of unions looking out for their interests. Just look at all of those below-the-line names whizzing by at the end of a movie. These are real people, who work very hard to entertain us and rely on copyright and residuals to pay the rent and get health care.

Creators are essential for the creative industries, but n fact millions of workers in this country who are not creators have their jobs because their employers and industries enjoy copyright protection. In these hard economic times that is very important. Anyone claiming they can infringe copyright because they want to stick it to the man (in this case the evil corporation) is rationalizing what they know to be an unethical act. If they otherwise intended to buy the work, they are depriving numerous individuals of a portion of their income. If they did not intend to purchase the work, there is no reason for them to download the work.

It is too easy in this world to apply labels to people and organizations. Labels serve to simplify the debate. Simplification is not always a good thing; in fact, it usually sacrifices critical nuance. It is this approach that has given us phrases like “Hollywood vs. Silicon Valley” and “Copyright vs. the Consumer.” These conflicts only make sense in an overly simplified black-and-white world in which none of us are actually living. Some debaters prefer this artificial world because there are always a handful of arguments – canards – that can be used in any given occasion. I have outlined ten of those in these blog posts.

Proponents of these arguments will naturally find fault with my criticisms. Some will ignore my evidence that appear indisputable and instead seize on a phrase I may not have clearly articulated and present a counter-argument based on that misinterpretation. But some will make counter-arguments that are well-thought out and may be in some cases hard to rebut. I believe firmly that on the whole my themes here are sound but there could always be examples that I would have to consider at minimum exceptions to my theses. I don’t pretend to have all the answers.

But many making these ten pronouncements do seem to believe that, and it is unfortunate, because until we can get past such thinking, there will be an endless continuation of the unproductive Sturm and Drang so prevalent in this “debate.”

This entry was posted on Tuesday, December 2nd, 2008 at 6:16 pm by Patrick Ross and is filed under capitol hill, copyright law, copyright opponents, creators, economy, licensing, market forces, piracy, property rights. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.