Publishers had a role in the old world. Their job was to aggregate information and sell it in a digestible form, for which they charged money. But the internet and other technologies made publishers' roles as information clearing-house irrelevant, outdated, anachronistic and obsolete. The world has changed, but they have not. ...

Copyright was developed to protect the rights of publishers, not authors. It was intended to protect the publishers from competition for seven to 14 years before releasing the work into the public domain, where all could benefit. Grasping publishers have persuaded governments to extend the life of copyright protection in some cases, up to 70 years.

The real profits go to publishers, who hide their greed behind a facade of altruistic concern for the artists they blatantly exploit. The result is the manufactured stardom of second-rate rock bands and third-rate airport pulp-fiction authors. ... Every artist owes an enormous debt to those who went before, and the point at which artistic licence and derivation ends and copyright starts is forever murky. Copyright seeks to lock innovation away.

What Philipson seems to be missing is that content creators, not publishers, create the expressions protected by copyright, and that legal protection of those expressions benefits them -- and the wider public -- far more than corporate distributors. Philipson's real objection does not appear to concern copyright per se, but rather, the manner in which it is (willingly, mind you) assigned by content creators to 'anachronistic and obsolete' distributors.

While technology has undoubtedly created more efficient distribution networks than traditional publishing models can provide, artists obviously think publishers are still deserving of an interest in their works. However, regardless of the publishing model artists choose to adopt, it seems beyond dispute that the law must provide a mechanism by which to effectively enforce their rights. The challenge facing copyright lawyers is to forge a body of law (or work within the existing legal framework to produce a mechanism) less capable of oppressive misuse or subsequent exploitation.

Originally by The Age Technology Headlines, 11:37 AM

Read more