PROS AND CONS
To creative individuals and consumers alike, it remains difficult to completely understand the complexities of copyright and the legislation that simultaneously runs parallel. Many view it as a challenging and theoretically intricate subject, but also realize its importance to almost every facet of our social and cultural world. Essentially, only the expression of an idea is protected by copyright but not the idea itself. Despite the well-established control of copyright practices for intellectual property in regard to how it is sold, disseminated and produced, it is inevitably unknown how effective it will be in its entirety and with a changing society. One of the main aims of copyright is so ensure society is rich with creative works as a result of its support for authorship. However, there are arguments both in favor and against the idea that without this copyright, creators would not create new works. This essay intends to discuss the particular statement and draw upon external notions such as enforceability, commodification and technological change. These concepts are significant because the ultimate purpose of copyright has been greatly debated over time and there are many factors to consider. Similarly, it will explore contemporary music and the different formats such as sampling, mash-ups and remixes and link this connection to copyright as an example.
Through theoretical frameworks, copyright law is generally known as a cultural product which subsequently provides ownership rights to the ‘creations of society’. This ensures the world is rich with creative works as well as their preservation and survival for generations to come. As stated by Burrows (1994), there are two justifications of copyright: the ‘justice argument’ and the ‘efficiency argument’. The first is concerned with the individual rights of the creator and the second focuses on the effect of copyright on the utilization and production of goods. However, Towse argues that copyright is about protecting the activities of the creative industries rather than encouraging the creation of content by individual creators, despite frequent claims to the contrary. The history of copyright can be traced back to the Stationers’ Company who claimed that if one was not a member of the company, they could hold copyright. As a result, this meant that copyright was essentially a ‘right of the publisher only’. However, with the emergence of the Statute of Anne in 1710, this allowed the contemporary idea of copyright as a right of the author to develop. The current law allows copyright owners to make derivatives off their work which essentially leads to profitability and also permits them to reproduce or copy a work, perform, distribute copies and display the work publicly. In addition, owners have the ability to prevent others from reproducing their work without their permission and can also sell these rights to another party. It is contained within the Copyright Act 1968 in Australia and is automatic. This highlights the common assumption that many composers are increasingly inclined to create content because they feel a sense of protection. It is viewed as an incentive or motivation to express freely without certain fears of plagiarism or going uncredited. Copyright is often considered a balancing system and there is a fine line between the competing interests of creators that own work and those that want to access it for consumption and creative use. Overall, one cannot justify and quantify the number of individuals who rely upon the notions of copyright to produce work.
It is important to note that the concept of creativity is usually based upon previous works of creativity and does not occur in a vacuum. These creative modes may be variously plotted along continuums between direct and indirect, conscious or unconscious, aggressive or passive. Most works are transformed from one state to another and are often considered products in the globalized and capitalist world. Over the years, copying work has become a ‘common practice’ and it is one of the many reasons for the existence of copyright. This is dependent on the specific marketplace for the creative work and many individuals are capable of making a viable living through this relationship between product and market. In many cases, this is a method in ensuring society is rich with creative works because one can gain financially and make a name for themselves. The legislation of copyright seemingly offers no definitive standard for creativity, it merely suggests they are required to be ‘original’. In Australia, ‘originality’ is afforded to those that exercised nominal skill, labor and effort in the creation of the work. Under copyright legislation, creative works that are protected can include dramatic, musical, literary as well as artistic works, such as novels, poetry, films, computer software, songs and architecture. This reinforces Lawrence Lessig’s notion of a ‘free culture’ that supports and protects creators and innovators. There have been debates raised on the topic of intellectual property law. The role of copyright in supporting authorship could potentially underscore the value of fresh ideas and individual contributions to our public discourse. This suggests that society relies on copyright and it is a driving force behind the production of creativity rather than passion of the art. It hypothesizes that although we are maintaining the richness of creative works in society, there is lack of new ideas and concepts because everything is built upon one another or for a specific commercial purpose.
