Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Postgraduate Studies
MA Digital Media
Module CUP007N: Principles of Digital Media
Essay
by
Mickael Abensur
1004448
26.01.2011
During the mid 19th century, new laws extended copyrights to other
industries and in the 20th century, with the rise of the recording industry, music
was categorized, distributed, and as a consequence, copyrighted.
According to Liang (2005, p13), the battle between the Public Domain
and large publishing house drifted progressively to the advantage of the
publishers who kept pushing the limitation date of entry of any intellectual
work into the Public Domain.
But it is not totally black or white. As the time went by, copyright laws
adopted or encountered few limitations. For the sake of clarity, I have divided
these limitations into three categories: ‘sampling’, ‘fair use’ and ‘physicality’.
First of all, copyright laws don't protect ideas, but only the form of their
expression. This means that if a copy has been made without prior consent,
the original owner has to prove that the supposedly infringing version was
derived from his own work; as opposed to being an independent work. In
order for the derivative work to be undermined, it needs to show a minimum of
tangible similarities with the original work. This legal diagnostic is called
’sampling’ (Baker 1995). Arun Kumar (2010) relates that this ambiguous task
is often left to the subjectivity of individuals in charge of the case.
Consequently, copyright law on derivative work, often leads to lengthy and
costly disputes.
Lastly, copyright laws were initially designed for printers who were
publishing physical assets. Now that we have entered a digital era, with the
Internet as the pivotal component, the number of physical assets has become
scarce, as well as the number of traditional publishing house reduced. It is fair
to observe that copyright laws struggle to control illegal digital distribution
commonly called in cybernetic language ‘piracy’ (Lessig, 2004, p62).
In 1989, the Free Software Foundation released the first version of the
General Public License (GPL). This license withdraws some restrictive
copyright terms in a way that it makes your work directly available in the
public domain, and cannot be taken out of it afterwards. Some renowned
software products are using the GPL such as the GNU/Linux operating
system, the Apache web server, the Mozilla Web browser, the PHP
programming language, and the OpenOffice suite. These applications cannot
We can briefly explain why this revolution was born out of the software
industry. In 1985, Eric Steven Raymond, who was one of the first contributors
to the popular GNU/Linux first operating system released under the GPL,
comments on its early programming experience. He claims notably that
software is initiated by a developer’s need to fulfill a precise function.
Moreover, he argues that, considering the time spent programming for only a
single action, it is preferable to test and base the future work on preexistent
software. At last, he concludes that the best way of handling a complex series
of lines of code, is to hand them off to another programmer (Raymond, 2000
pp1-4). This revelation leads us to collaborative work as a new way to
regulate authorship.
15 years later, the founder of the "Free culture" movement, Larry Lessig
suggested a "code" that will regulate differently the "cyberspace", from the
"law", instituted by the copyrights (Lessig, 2000). Lessig stipulates that events
don't occur in cyberspace like they do in real life, the consequences are
unconventional. As an example, when browsing the Internet, packets of data
are sent and received between multiple computers; they travel in an anarchic
behavior. Effectively on the Internet, packets of data are set to circulate using
the most efficient method, and nothing ensures that they will follow the same
route. It is therefore very difficult to stop ‘piracy’ because certain routes
borrowed belong to different users (Lessig, 2006, p63).
Free software works together with free information, they are intricately
connected, as free software gives more control to the author to manipulate
and publish his own content. Free software grows within communities of
‘prosumer’ who collaborate to accelerate its production for everyone 's benefit.
In Flusser’s opinion, (2002, pp70-74) the collaborative system represented by
free software under the copyleft model, has a shape of a tree where from one
concept, multiple alterations will blossom. On the contrary, proprietary
software, published under the copyright model, evolve in a pyramidal structure
where all the participants of the project will be directed towards a same and
unique goal. This latter system is centralized on the profit of a single
organization, and can be seen from the perspective of the participants as
unfair, antisocial and unethical.
The rise of Internet along with the Free Software movement allows the
common consumer to become a prosumer. Copyrights do not restrict our
freedom of expression but are simply not relevant in a digital era. Our culture
is still dominated by a "Read-only" system (Lessig, 2004, p37) however its
transformation into a “Read and Write” system has already begun.
Baker, R (1995) Media Law: a user's guide for film and programme makers,
Taylor & Francis, Abingdon UK.
Lessig, L (2000) Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, Basic Books, New
York.
Mauro-Flude, N (2008) “Linux for Theatre Makers: Embodiement & Nix Modus
Operandi” in A. Mansoux & M. de Valk (ed) Floss+Art, GOTO10, Poitiers
FRANCE pp 206 - 223.
Robbins, B D (2010) “The Fifth Element: the unspoken element in the fair use
four part test” Intellectual Property Law Bulletin 14, 2, pp. 95 - 108.
Sprigman, C. Disney and the Copyright Term Extension Act. Internet (2002)
Available: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20020305_sprigman.html.
Jan 2011.
Yuill, S (2008) “All Problems of Notation Will be Solved by the Masses: Free
Open Form Performance, Free/Libre Open Source Software, and Distributive
Practice” in A. Mansoux & M. de Valk (ed) Floss+Art, GOTO10, Poitiers
FRANCE pp 64 - 91.