Re: Abolish Reproduction Right

Edward Barrow <edward[_at_]plato32.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Copyright gives authors - which in copyright terms includes artists and
> composers - the right to determine what use is made of their work so
> that they can make a living from it. That includes licensing it or
> assigning it to an investor (e.g. a publisher).

Agreed.

> The opposite principle is that those who enjoy (in the widest sense of
> the word) the results of the creator's efforts should pay for it.

Disagree - this is not neccessarily the opposite of the above. If the purpose of copyright is to encourage further creativity by rewarding past works (as you state above) then it does not follow that those who "enjoy" should pay in all circumstances. This is precisely what the arguement about fair use / dealing is about. Also, where people cannot afford to pay (eg. developing countries or by monopolisitc pricing) then they would be blocked from using the work thus inhibiting further creativity

> The reproduction right is so far the best workable approximation to the
> principle of payment for enjoyment, but it is (and has always been) an
> approximation.

Again, purpose of copyright is not payment for "enjoyment".

> If it is abolished and not replaced with an equivalent approximation,
> there are several consequences. Artists and authors could be remunerated
> by the taxpayer (as are most academic authors); or we could go back to
> the mediaeval system of patronage (today called corporate arts
> sponsorship). Personally I think that copyright is preferable to either
> state funding or private patronage.

I tend to agree about state funding or private patronage but disagree with your analysis of the current situation. Newspapers for example are not sold to readers but readers are sold to advertisers. This directly impacts on what news is seen fit to print (private patronage). Publisher oligopolies also decide what to publish in terms of private patronage principles - historically using mass "ephemeral" works to subsidize what they considered "serious" works, now they refuse to publish anything which is critical of the publisher oligopolies (examples at hand if needed!).

> The key to the problem is that copyright is firstly economic, and
> secondly legal. The law may need to be changed if the economic outcome
> is wrong - but again, the law that needs changing may not be copyright
> law but for example contract law.

Again, you miss the fundamental point. The key problem is the very purpose of copyright, neither economic nor legal but philosophical / social / political; ie. how to encourage creativity and disseminate the results thereof. The balance between fair use / dealing and reproduction right must be based on this and not legal or economic reasoning.

          Mark Perkins, RRMG Librarian
          ODI Library, Portland House
       Stag Place. London  SW1E 5DP   UK
TEL: +44 (0)171-393-1650 FAX: +44 (0)171-393-1699
          EMAIL: library[_at_]odi.org.uk