Ted Mitew gave a lecture this week at the University of Wollongong entitled "Against the Law: Intellectual Property and Content Control". The lecture dealt with the issues surrounding copyright on the internet, patents and the history of intellectual property rights (IP) and copyright. Subjects discussed in both lecture and tutorial included internet piracy and how copyright effects the creative community.
Examples used included Shakespeare's liberal "borrowing" of ideas from other writers and Charles Dicken's apparent increase in revenue in the US despite the absence of copyright laws in comparison to the profits made in his home country of Britain where copyright laws were stricter.
As I listened to these examples and took in the finer points of the readings, especially that of Lawrence Lessig, I began to feel uneasy. It's all well and good to argue that lack of copyright does not harm the creative community when talking about those artists that are well established and have fame (or in Stephanie Meyer's case, notoriety) on their side. But what about the rest of us? What defense do artists trying to forge a name for themselves against those that would copy/steal their ideas and pass them off as their own? Especially those attempting to break into industries like publishing or the art world that are competitive enough without having someone plagiarize your work and call it their own. This issue was discussed in the tutorial and arguments for 'healthy' competition and the increase of value to the original, but how do we determine whose work is the original?
As a writer myself, this worried me. I was worried for my industry. I thought "What does this mean for my art?" Well, my solution was to publish my work through trusted channels. If I publish online, I do it through literary journals and am comforted by the peace of mind that even if my work is copied that I have a record of when I published my work and also the protection of the journal's copyright policy. If I publish to my personal literary blog, I only publish work that has either been already published elsewhere or pieces that are of a quality that won't bother me if someone copies them.
Now there are those, both in the readings and in the creative content industry that are in a panic about copyright in cyberspace and what it means for artists. Writers like Michael Bywater have taken to the web and voiced concerns over the future of creative industries in the age of the internet. In the article subtly titled If Writers Don't Get Paid, Internet Publishing Will Die Bywater suggests (like so many others) that the internet and a lack of strict copyright laws will mean the end of writers because no one will get paid. After putting aside the blatant sexism in the tagline that follows the article's title.
"We risk returning to an age when writing is the preserve of gentlemen of leisure"
Yeah thanks Bywater, and female writers/journalists go back to what? Making you sandwiches while you bang away on a typewriter? I don't think so.
After restraining my inner feminist I considered his argument... and found it absolutely ridiculous. I'm not sure who he has been working for but I don't know any writers or journalists who haven't benefited from endless opportunities made possible by the digital world. Does he publish for free or what? Who knows, I certainly haven't asked him. But from what I can see, cyberspace has mean't an increase in the need for writers rather than the opposite. Aside from the monetary benefit gained by literary journals (now made easier to access thanks to the implementation of submission systems like Submishmash), websites benefit writers with a unique opportunity for remote employment because they need them for the creation/editing of their site's content; jobs that can mean flexible hours and in some cases, the added benefit of working from home. If you browse creative job seeking sites such as Artshub you'll find no shortage of adverts asking for the services of a professional writer. There is plenty of paid work out there, clearly the industry isn't dying.
Bywater also makes the argument (like so many before him) that if writer's/artist's copyright is threatened or that if producers of creative content don't get paid, that somehow this will mean that artists will stop producing content and the internet will fall into an apocalypse of stale content.
Are you serious Michael? Have you not been on the Behance Network? Have you never logged onto Deviant Art? Obviously Bywater is not an artist himself or else he would already understand the absurdity of his insinuation that without monetary gain, artists will cease to create. I could go on and on all day about this one article alone, let alone the many articles of similar journalists crying foul at the big bad internet and the supposed approaching creative apocalypse. But since I have gone on to long already, I will see just this:
Art is as much about audience as it is about creation. Artists/writers/journalists seek to express themselves and their opinions and most have such a hunger to do so that they will do so whether they are compensated for it or not. You only have to look at the millions of blogs exactly like this one, harboring artists exactly like me, still in the business, still getting paid for our creative work published both in the 'real' world and online; but also creating content for free for the fun of it and for benefit of their audience.
