John Degen, who is Executive Director of the Professional Writers Association of Canada, wrote a piece in the Globe and Mail (ht: Geist) today which, having read it a couple of times now, is (a) slightly odd, and (b) is, as with so many things copyright-related, being somewhat misunderstood.
The op-ed column bears the bizarre title "Who needs copyright, anyway?" - bizarre because it misrepresents the entire thesis of the piece. In answer to the question embodied in the title (presumably composed and appended to the piece by a Globe editor), Degen notes that, well, he himself needs it:
As a writer, I'm naturally concerned about copyright. It's the legal framework in which I make my living. ... The Uninvited Guest remains my intellectual property. When it comes time to sell the film rights, for instance, it will be me doing the selling.
Well, yes - and it is precisely because of copyright that, when it comes to sell the film rights, it will be him doing the selling (and, hopefully, reaping the rewards). (For those wondering about the title Degen references, he is giving away copies of his novel, The Uninvited Guest, at his place.)
Unfortunately buried in Degen's piece is his point, and it's a valuable one, which makes it the more distressing that the Globe seemed intent on torquing his argument:
Importantly, all this activity [i.e., his election to make his book freely available online] will occur within the legal boundaries of copyright law.
Exactly - one of the critical aspects of the "copyright wars" (to borrow Degen's term) is the conflation (to the detriment of the debate) of copyright law and copyright culture. Copyright law says John Degen has the right to seek damages for infringement if someone takes his book, puts it online, and shares it with their friends (or anyone else); copyright culture involves Degen electing to forego, on his own terms, those rights to enforcement and instead engage his audience through the technological means at his disposal. The distinction is similar to that underlying the Creative Commons initiative: Creative Commons is not an alternative to the copyright regime or a substitute, it is a mechanism for using the existing legal regime in a manner which accords with the cultural preferences of its users - which is to be celebrated, but not transmogrified into something it is not.
Comments