I have been listening to an audiobook that is unlike anything I have heard before. The title is "Free Culture", and it speaks about creativity, innovation, the law behind it, and the affects all of these have on our culture.
It has captured my attention into today's legal system involving intelectual and creative property, and in turn I'm realizing just how permission based today's world is, among many other things.
Here are a few good points that the book points out, that after a bit of my own research I have come to agree with. Yet there is much more to this book, so don't completely judge it by what I state here.
By U.S constitutional law, Congress has the power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". Yet in 1976 the Senate passed into law the "United States Copyright Act of 1976". This act did several things, some I agree good as well as bad. As a benefit it was the first legal document to explicitly define the "fair use" rights to all citizens. Yet in the bad it extended the original copyright term to the length of the creators death plus fifty years. Then again in 1998 the Copyright Term Extension Act was passed into law which extended the maximum copyright term to the creators life plus 70 years, 20 years longer then it had already been.
But what does this all mean you might ask? Well in short it means the in a short period of time the copyright protected granted in the U.S has almost tripled from it's original maximum time of 56 years. Say if someone wrote a book right as this law came out in 1976, and lets say he lives for 75 years. That means that because of the pre-exsisting perpetual copyright extensions that book would not enter the public domain until 2112! This is also assuming that the U.S. does not increase copyright protection for an even longer period of time.
But if their dead how can the copyright go on? When a person dies the copyright can be held by many different people, family, publishing companies, ect...
But why is this bad, shouldn't copyright owners be able to control what happens to their works? I agree that anyone who creates creative content should be able to control what happens to their works. In addition, like our founding government had originally intended, I also agree there should be a balance of personal power for those works between the creator and the public. The key word here is balance, because if any side of the argument is ignored then we are doing more harm then good.
Here is the turning point, and where this book began to explain something I have never though about before. Our culture is based on the content from our past, and without a creatively free culture there is no where for our culture to build.
Then I began to look at history in my head, realizing the commonality between free cultures and a growing society. They grew because of many reason, although one that I would like to point out. It's because they lived in an environment in which people are allowed to learn, enrich, and further themselves because of what is around them. It is free culture, and I only grow more aware of it's power.
Here is an example that I believe many can relate to. Think about all the Walt Disney films you have seen, as a kid, teenager, I think most of us have. Now think about how that has affected you in your growth, how it has helped you become who you are today. Did it peek you interest in anything, do you love thinking about the story, did it show you a world that you had never seen before?
Did you know that most of "Walt Disney's" (Excluding Pixar) films are renditions or other people's stories? Think about it...
Lion King - *Some people say it is a derived work*
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
Pinocchio
Cinderella
Alice in Wonderland
Sleeping Beauty
The Sword in the Stone
The Jungle Book
The Little Mermaid
Beauty and the Beast
Aladdin
Pocahontas
The Hunchback of Notre Dame
Hercules
Mulan
Tarzan
The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad
Robin Hood
Oliver and Company
Treasure Planet
Dumbo
Bambi
Peter Pan
Lady and the Tramp
101 Dalmatians
The Many Adventures of Winnie-the-Pooh
The Black Cauldron
The Great Mouse Detective
The Lion The Witch And The Wardrobe
Even Walt Disney's first piece "Steamboat Willy" was a parody of a Buster Keaton movie.
This is what I was able to gather from an article, although there are more.
Walt Disney built a media empire from public domain, but are they criminals for nor paying a cent for %90 of these pieces? You may say yes, but
think about this. Should only companies with enough money to pay for these right be able to use works like this, do you as a creative individual not get to
touch them until 2112 at least?! Was anyone really harmed for it? Did you as a child not grow because of these films? Walt Disney did not start out rich, and most other people do not either.
I hope that this book has helped me better understand the world around me as a whole, and I also understand that there is much reflection and research I need before I can devote my life to an idea. I can promise you that this will not be my last post. ^^
References
Free Culture
http://www.free-culture.cc/Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.orgHow many Disney movies are actually original stories?
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1227624