The rhetoric of entitlement attached to copyright and patent could perhaps be traced back to the myth of the self-made man as described by Beder (2000, p. 41-9). This is the myth that anyone, no matter their background, has the opportunity to be successful if only they work hard. This myth has been used to justify the large incomes and status of a few among the many.
Interestingly, in an article by Newhouse (2006) on the website Crikey, Apple is quoted as being against the move in order to protect artists against piracy. It is insinuated that this is to gain favour with the music industry by referring to their agreement as happily licensed.
In common between the two above articles, there is a tendency to examine the impact on local culture toward the end of each article. Crikey, being Australian, puts the story in the context of the Australian public and recording industry, while The Washington Post, being American, actively draws attention to French nationalism and the interest to take power away from the United States. This suggests that the authors are against monopoly power and disapprove of the monoculture that can result from gutting competition.
According to Jackson (2002, p. 431-2), the establishment of copyrights was designed to protect against monopolization and empower both creators and consumers, however the establishment of copyright regulation on the Internet actively works against promoting competition (iTunes having virtual monopoly of online distribution).
The opportunity for individuals to both create and consume content today is unprecedented in its cost effectiveness, but if iTunes becomes sole distributor and the iPod sole player, the cost to the consumer will be substantial.
On the other hand, BBC News (2006) implies that iTunes improve consumer choice by drawing attention to the absence of The Beatles in the inventory, despite a large volume of content. The implication is that iTunes helps recording companies make content available for profit.
From this, one could argue that the standardization of format and low market entry costs allow for artists to compete with other artists on the market rather than via the distributors.
However, a distribution monopoly in a cultural industry tends to limit variety over time and stagnate innovation. A classic case study of is the American comic book industry where according to McCloud (2000, p. 56-79, 111-25), the lopsided ownership of publishing power reduced the influence of artists, giving companies like DC and Marvel the majority rights.
Because of corporate ownership of copyright, the characters and plots were continuously reused through work-for-hire, and the problem of limited shelf space encouraged the publishers to only sell the most popular genre (Superhero).
Article comments
1 - methuselah
There are several flaws in current copyright laws, the result of an incremental creep toward monopoly control thru the efforts of corporations large enough to pay the high rates of lobbyists with good connections in compliant federal government.
1-the putative purpose of copyrights is to protect the intellectual, time and money investment of artists, partly to reward them for their efforts and partly to encourage successful artists to create more works, financed thru the royalty proceeds from earlier creations. This would be a reasonable plan, and it had worked in the past, protecting artists from exploitation by malevolent copying businesses and, to a lesser extent, casual pilfering by end-users. But this system was defeated by the great efficiency of large businesses that succeeded in discounting the future profits of artists by contracting them very early in their careers so that the corp would get the royalties and the artists would basically get day-wages for their efforts. The best known example of this is the rock music industry in which a $15 CD nets the artist less than a dollar. Where the recording company didn't have a prior contract with which to discount the artists earnings and capture it for themselves, they simply ignored the artist or used legal force and the superiority of resources to overwhelm the artist. Not only that, but as the royalty reward to authors of songs began, through enforcement, to produce revenue, unscrupulous individuals insisted that they be listed as co-authors to songs though they had cntributed nought to the composition. This was done under threat of exercising monopoly access to markets to browbeat artists into acquiescence.
2-copyright durations have been egregiously extended by a federal congress submissive to the demands of corporations eager to extend their de-facto monopolies far beyond the short time originally allocated to allow an artist to recoup his investment and make a reasonable profit.
3-the civil courts have shown consistent favoritism toward the Goliath companes against the David artists, either by outright findings against artists, or by allowing delaying tactics that had the same result: justice delayed is justice denied. Perhaps the judicial principle here is the belief that it is safer to harm a little artist with a wrong ruling than to harm a big company, many of whose stakeholders may be harmed.
2 - chancelucky
Jonathan,
I agree with your basic point. The operative word in "copyright" seems to be "copy" and technology has made copying so easy that the technology of enforcement really can't cope.
The Japanese system of declaring certain individuals "national treasures", encouraging them to teach+share their art/craft with others and also guaranteeing the master a comfortable living may make as much sense as anything these days.
As you point out, academic tenure works that way in some ways, but it also generally forces these individuals to teach which often can be a different skill entirely.