What they seem to mean, sadly, is “how to make citizens comply with the illegitimate mess that is modern Copyright law”. I have a few thoughts on this, which I wanted to “get down on paper”.

Questions

The questions which the IPO is asking are as follows:

1. How to educate and change consumer behavior towards copyright material
2. How to support industry efforts in developing new and attractive legal ways for consumers to access content
3. How to support legislation to address consumer activity that breaches civil copyright law and how to tackle persistent infringement
4. How to enable technical copyright-support solutions that work for both consumers and content creators
5. Whether or not the Agency should be an independent industry body with back-up legal powers held by Ofcom
6. How such an agency can be funded

One respresentative, namely Steven Carter (Minister for Technology, Communications and Broadcasting), also stated that:

“In the new digital age, copyright infringement has become easier and more socially acceptable, so it’s clear we need some form of legislative backstop for the protection of rights as well as new and innovative ways to access legal content. Today we have published proposals in the form of a Straw Man on digital rights. That Straw Man could be torched, tolerated or a touchstone for the start point of constructive debate and design.

Interesting that they admit the use of a Straw Man (a fallacy) as their starting point, yet do not shrink from moving forward on enforcement and “educating” the public with such fallacies.

Education of consumers and modification of their behavior is a false (and dangerously presumptive) premise, and not at all the issue. The issue is that organisations generally known as “big media” have, over the course of many years, perverted the Copyright system to their own ends. It is the corporations, and the government that have allowed this perversion and enforced it, which need to be re-educated.

The Fundamental premise of Copyright

Copyright was created, (ostensibly, that is) as a way to encourage creative contributions to society. The idea was that, by preventing others from copying an idea for a short time, those who spent the time to come up with the initial idea would be rewarded. The fear (ostensibly), was that without rewards, people would not create. That fundamental premise alone, I would very much contest, given that people have created since the dawn of time. I believe it is in peoples’ nature to create, and that true creation is done for the love of the idea inspiring it. Whenever I’ve been possessed of a creative idea, it was just that — a possession by the idea, to the point where I could not wait to bring it to life, to enjoy its realisation, to share the benefits with others, and to enjoying seeing their joy in return. I also tend to take time to thank those that inspired me, thereby completing a cycle. Likewise, people have thanked me for my work and built on it in their own ways, adding just a little more joy to my creations. In fact, I’ve met many more artists (including painters, musicians, writers, etc.) working for the love of their art than for monetary rewards.

Holding back society

Today, it is more and more the case that big media is holding back society by controlling the creativity and communication between citizens due to ever extended copyright terms (in fact, copyright terms should be shrinking, due to faster distribution methods), DRM, the application of copyright law to private use (rather than commercial ventures), etc.

Creativity, and creative works, are a fundamental form of expression and communication between human beings. Invariably, this creativity is nothing more than each person standing on the shoulders of those who came before, and invariably, no creator is unique, when other potential creators also have access to the same pre-existing works. For instance, Albert Einstein, one of the greatest, most innovative minds of our era, was certainly not alone, with at least two others working on very similar ideas at the same time in history. His creative genius was but a small leap, based on the leaps made before**. Likewise, musicians have often acknowledged their influences as hugely affecting their work, and often directly take (sample) and remix the works of others, creating interesting new works with only the most minor modifications to pre-existing work. As each idea builds on the one before, each and every access to existing knowledge, art, music, film, or other media is more important than any individual right to control such access.

The obvious conclusion then, is that all individual creativity is minor, but that, where possible, ensuring all individuals (ANY and ALL of whom may go on to create even greater works) receive unfettered access to creative works is of utmost importance. This clearly shifts the natural bias towards individual’s rights to access content online, regardless of

The current system of copyright is so perversely biased towards commercial interests, despite its original intent, that it no longer represents natural rights of citizens, and no longer reflects the modern realities of distribution ease. As a result, citizens, en masse, intuitively recognise its failure to match reality in any way, and consequently reject it as invalid.

How to support industry efforts in developing new and attractive legal ways for consumers to access content

Again, the premise — that industry is making efforts, and that these efforts must be supported despite citizens wishes — is false. It is the consumers’ natural rights which are being abused, and must be reinforced, and it is citizens who must be assisted to take back those rights from the results of many years of overzealous corporate lobbying, if not downright corruption. The burden of achieving legality lies with those who have abused the legal system for years, to the point where the majority of citizens, from to the youngest child without legal knowledge to the most eminent copyright lawyers, intuitively know that the current system is broken, and therefore ignore it.

Consumers can easily access content by simply downloading a file, with by far the vast majority of costs being bandwidth costs which ARE already, entirely validly, shouldered by those same consumers. Yes — these costs, the true costs, they pay for, often at high rates, happily and legitimately. What consumers are failing to pay for is false costs and false scarcity, which they see for what it is, namely a perverse attempt to hold back society’s technological, social, and cultural progress. They reject such things accordingly, and I believe no one should expect a more fitting response to such perverse, cynical attempts.

3. How to enable technical copyright-support solutions that work for both consumers and content creators;

First of all, honesty is required on the part of government, copyright holders, and artists. The fact is that the market is flooded with musicians and media makers, and media like music is simply not scarce enough (nor such a skill these days, given software assistance) to command high prices. More importantly, creativity is not the domain the elite, but the domain of every human being with access to appropriate tools which allow them to express their creativity. Those tools are available more widely every day in the digital world, and so the day is coming when “artists” will simply be “people”. Creativity is becoming commoditised by this process, and the fact is that distribution of media is now effortless, and “big media” is simply obsolete.

IF and WHEN that realisation has been made and fully accepted by both “big media” and artists, then fair prices will be set according to supply and demand. Consumers will happily pay. But make no mistake: this will absolutely NOT resemble the mass transit of money from many poor, equally creative citizens to a few wealthy, controlling corporations controlling access to a few “successful” creatives. That situation has plagued society and copyright for the last few centuries (and ONLY the last few centuries, during which corporations have been assisted by government to abuse their power). To attempt to enforce this unfair and illegitimate status quo will serve only to create a consumer backlash which will ultimately be the undoing of the current system, rather than its savior.

4. Whether or not the Agency should be an independent industry body with back-up legal powers held by Ofcom

Absolutely not. The world is changing too quickly for law makers to keep up with. Until the situation has settled down, until the vast majority of citizens understand this brave new world fully, and are largely in agreement about the way forward, neither government nor corporations have a mandate to enforce anything. Laws represent the will of the people, not vice versa. If the law does NOT reflect the will of the people, then it cannot truly be considered valid law.

5. How such an agency can be funded

Until the current, very fundamental misunderstandings of corporations and government have been resolved, no such agency should exist, as it cannot hope to spend money on a valid goal, therefore it should not be funded. Of course, studies seeking true understanding and resolution should not be funded by any such biased organisations either.

** “Einstein did not achieve this revolution by means of a single stroke of genius—rather, he stood on the shoulders of dwarves and giants” — Science Daily, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060731113951.htm

–
Lee