[WEB4LIB] Re: Computers in Libraries and the death of copyright

[Walt_Crawford at notes.rlg.org]

[sigh also]

To lower the heat on this discussion (where I admittedly fanned the
flames)...

Once again, I have a _second_ reason why I don't use PowerPoint for
speeches, quite apart from the freedom it gives me to (a) see the people
I'm talking to, and (b) diverge from my original outline.

I did read Roy's slides, admittedly in the morning after coming back from a
fairly intense business trip. I thought they were full of reasonable points
(as expected), when suddenly there's this flat statement: "Copyright is
Dead." The entire content of one slide. I know that good speakers (unlike
me) go for Hot Buttons and want to startle audiences into recognition--but,
well, consider how Roy's talk was reported initially to this forum:

Copyright is dead. No shadings, no subtleties, no middle ground. Copyright
is dead.

Then consider the other postings. We do have people saying "The big bad
publishers are using copyright unethically, so it's just fine for me to act
unethically"--in other words, "Two wrongs DO make a right." We have people
saying, elliptically, that we're so technologically advanced these days
that intellectual property is irrelevant.

And, as I read Roy's thoughtful explication of what he meant by the slide,
I think it overstates and oversimplifies the case considerably. Recorded
music has _never_ been well-protected against widespread copying (at least
not since cheap cassette recorders with Dolby B became available, and
people who regard MP3 as high fidelity presumably also accept cassette
recordings as high fidelity). Digital texts have, by and large, been open
to widespread copying and broadcast reproduction ever since they began
appearing--more than a decade now. And yet, by and large, the rights of the
creator have been respected ("by and large" is the key term here). For that
matter, ethics aside, the only portion of recorded music publishing that
appears to have been affected by Napster is CD Singles, and those don't
make economic sense in any case.

I really don't see the point as it involves popular literature. Most
popular literature will continue to exist primarily in print form for many
years to come--neither easier nor more difficult to copy than in a
pre-digital age. Most magazines (note: magazines, not journals) will
continue to be ink on paper, particularly given the singular difficulties
of making digital magazines work economically; most magazines cost more to
copy (particularly in color) than they do to subscribe to, thus limiting
the likelihood of piracy.

I don't expect Roy to agree with me (that would make life terribly boring),
and I do apologize for suggesting that he was abandoning ethical issues. I
know better than that. I will suggest, as evidenced by some messages, that
overstatements such as "Copyright is Dead" from respected community leaders
encourage less-nuanced followers to ignore ethical considerations in their
thinking and planning.

Do we need to consider other ways to balance the needs of users and
creators, possibly reducing the hegemonic power of publishers? Absolutely,
as new parts of an ever more complex mix--but that's always true, digital
issues aside. Copyright isn't dead--but (as law) it isn't a set of stone
tablets either.