Monday 25 March 2002

Pic of the day: Fractals strike again!

Copyright, copywrong

I truly enjoy these songs by Chris de Burgh. But if you ask me to rip an MP3 file of one of the tracks and mail you, I would say: "What, you want me to rip you a new one??" Good music deserves to be bought; this rewards all those who have cooperated to bring it to you. The number of copies sold also influences the artist's income. Often directly, in other cases by strengthening his bargaining position in the future. So unless Chris says otherwise on his official web site, you should buy his songs.

On the other hand, I think streaming music should be virtually unlimited. If I talk to my friend in my room, we can both listen to my records; clearly the same should apply to a chat room. (There is the question of bandwidth, of course. But I mean in principle.) And of course, I think that I should personally have the right to listen to the music wherever I want, in whatever format I want. I demand the right to copy it to my minidisk or to my MP3 player. When I bought the CD, I did not buy a shiny platter; you can get those for free from AOL. I bought the music, and it is mine to enjoy whenever and wherever I want. What I mean is, I bought the right to listen to that music.

***

In Norwegian, we do not talk about copyright. The relevant term here translates as "rights of origin". I feel that this is indeed a better term. It points in the direction of the creator and the process of creation, which is essential to understand these issues. I feel that the current trend in American copyright law is caused by forgetting this. The rights to a created work rests with the creator by default. I would even say, by divine right. He can give up these rights or transfer them, either as a gift or if he is being compensated in a way that he accepts. But the rights are the creator's (or creators'). Thus if a company has bought the rights to a work of art, and the duration of copyright is extended, this can not be applied to the company. They have not paid for that. The rights may default back to the creator or rather his descendants, but not the buyer, who bought it for a defined amount of time. All else is theft in the eyes of God and good men, and human laws cannot change this any more than they can justify other vileness.

Another disgusting act is acquiring the copyright to any work and then not publish it. This is just plain wrong even when we talk about the most mundane texts. It becomes sheer blasphemy when applied, as hopefully by accident, in a Christian youth magazine I read. They have a notice that sending any material to them for publication would mean giving up all rights to it in any form, regardless of whether they choose to publish it or not. Now remember that people would supposedly write revelations that had been helpful to themselves in their spiritual life, and that they wished to share so others might possibly be strengthened and inspired too. Now they should be unable to share these insights forevermore? I am hard pressed to imagine how such an idea might sneak by any person who has heard even a distant rumor of either god or decency. (It must have been drafted by a lawyer. Sorry. It had to be said. Actually, there are good lawyers too, but I don't think they would do a thing like that.)

In a somewhat more grayscale case, you have computer games that are released and then sold out, and not re-released. The publisher may feel that there would not be sufficient profit from publishing it again. They may also feel that the old game would divert players who might otherwise buy their newer and more profitable games. This is certainly a decent business decision, but I feel that it ignores the most essential question: The moral rights of the actual creators. To a creator, seeing his creation being killed is a separate affront that I feel standard contracts simply do not compensate for. I know that a few software creators encourage sharing abandonware. But most do not, so evidently they feel that they have not accepted this risk as part of the job. I feel again that the final decision is the creators'. Provisions for these things should be made at the time when the rights change hands.

***

As for my humble self, I try to respect rights of origin. I do not just download some picture from someone else's site and plaster it on mine. In a few cases I have used pictures not made by myself, but then they have usually been substantially altered, or used promotionally when I recommend some product. This is however rare. Usually I have contributed decisively to the picture; for instance a screenshot from a game, in which I have played into a certain situation in order to capture that picture. In that case, I feel that the rights of origin are sufficiently mine to publish it, particularly if I also give credit in the text. Similarly, when I quote lyrics from other people's songs or poems, I try to restrict myself to the part that has influenced me, and give credit.

I expect to be treated roughly the same way. If you grab large chunks of text, like a whole entry, I ask you to give me full credit. These are my creations, and people should know where to go to find more of them. I do not demand that you restrict yourself to linking, though this may certainly save you space. Actually I suppose whatever I write has a better chance of survival if people cut and paste it, so I sure don't mind that. Just don't pass it off as your own or "anonymous" when you know it is not.

As for pictures: Any pictures that are identifiable of me should be left well enough alone, unless you are a family member or wildly in love with me, in which case I suppose printing them out falls under "fair use". Nature pictures are free for the taking. I did not create nature, and I haven't put that much work into looking for those pictures. A real photographer probably puts much of their soul into finding the ideal motif and angle, and waits patiently for the light to be just right, so don't apply this to everyone. But my nature pics are free for everyone -- just remember, you cannot copyright them. I have not given up the rights, just shared them. Consider them in the public domain. Screenshots from games or other software are also free for the taking from my side; but if the creators of the game has any dispute, I am not going to fight for you in court, mind you.