Summary
Title: Digital Copyright
Author: Jessica Litman
Publisher: Prometheus Books
ISBN: 1573928895
Pro:
• Clear, easy to read text
• Many examples used and explained
• Makes arcane copyright law intelligible
Con:
• None
Description:
• Explains history and current state of copyright laws
• Explains how copyright laws are made and have changed — for the worse
• Provides insight into and analysis of the industry of content creation
Book Review
Most people don’t realize what is and what is not legal under copyright laws — but that is because usually, copyright laws don’t make any sense. Not even copyright lawyers understand entirely what is and is not permitted by the laws they have crafted. Most people in society are willing to follow laws which make sense and which they believe in, but neither of those qualities are true when it comes to copyrights. This, then, results in a massive collision between public interests and corporate interests, played out usually in favor of the corporations when it comes to our laws.
All of this comprises a rather complicated story, but Jessica Litman’s book offers a very common-sense approach to understanding copyright law and copyright history which goes a long way towards explaining what is legal, what is not legal, and why. A professor of law at Wayne State University and a expert on copyrights, Litman has written a book which is perfect for non-experts to really learn about the ways in which these laws have been created and why they have a negative impact on their own lives.
A principle concern, according to Litman, is that copyright laws in America simply have not been created with the public in mind. For the past century, lawyers representing various business with an interest in copyright legislation have met together, created compromises which they an all live with, and then have written the relevant legislation. Congress then dutifully passes whatever the lawyers give them, not taking the time to figure out if they should or not.
Unfortunately, this means that anyone not present at the legal negotiations doesn’t have their own interests represented — and that includes the general public. In theory, our elected representatives are supposed to represent us in this matter.
Unfortunately, they never do. For the most part, this hasn’t actually been a problem — these laws only applied to the relevant businesses, and so long as that was the case, everyone was happy. Now, however, copyright lawyers want these laws to start applying to everyone else in their daily lives. We have had no voice in the creation of these laws, but we are supposed to adjust our lives to fit them.
One problem with this, aside from the obvious fact that we had no say in these rules, is that we are being expected to live according to rules we can’t understand. As mentioned above, not even the lawyers responsible for these laws entirely understand what is expected of people.
Another problem is with the very definition of “copyright.” Traditionally, copyrights have involved a sort of agreement between authors and the public: authors are granted certain, limited commercial rights to the works they produce, and in exchange, the public gets wide rights to use those works for their own benefits. This principle is expressed in the Constitution, which authorizes Congress to create relevant laws for the purpose of promoting the “Progress of Science and Useful Arts.”
Thus, copyrights were never meant to create an equivalency between “intellectual” property and “real” property — but that is exactly what copyright lawyers want the rest of us to believe is now the case. Whereas the old model was all about finding a balance between the interests of an author and those of the public, the current model being promoted is that of control — copyright holders should retain complete control over whatever they create.
Why? The reason offered is that copyrights exist in order to encourage new creations. Thus, any copyright regulation which might encourage the creation of new works is a good idea. Without copyright control, it is argued, there will be no more art and no more culture.
The hubris of such statements is absolutely staggering — and, as Litman points out, there are no copyright protections for fashion or food recipes. Have the industries around such creations fallen into ruin yet? Obviously not — and, just as obviously, it isn’t necessary for creators to have such absolute control over their works in order for new creations to appear.
