The creators’ perspective

The copyfight is mostly covered from two perspectives. Pirates claim to represent consumers, urging Big Content to embrace the endless possibilities of Internet distribution. The content industries, at the same time, try to maintain a hold over their IP in a context of widespread file-sharing.

There is one side of the discussion, however, that is less than often present in the debate: that of the actual artists. The creators whose creativity copyright is meant to protect and enable. 

In a witty and informed post, TV-writer Dennis Grath contributes his two cents to the discussion. Grath explains the complexity of the creator’s struggle to earn a decent living, and in doing so, he points to the shortcomings in the debate in both the pirates’ and the content industries’ point of view.

He characterises the current debate as centring around one term: Gimme: most consumers, urged to do so by pro-sharing thinkers, oversimplify the complex nature of how artists earn their money and in extension, oversimplify the way forward.

To demonstrate this point, Grath explains three facets of creation and distribution: distribution issues, timelines of creation and the lifetime of artists.

In the distribution of content, many different business models of different industries intermingle. For example: cable companies provide the infrastructure for TV, production companies provide the content. Both need to get paid and need to find a way to balance the interests of TV with that of other channels like cinemas. With the advent of the Internet as a distribution channel, all these carefully crafted balances need to be readjusted.

Still, users should enjoy the same rights as they did in the offline era. Garth protests the proliferation of DRM, as the ones it hurts most are the fans of content that are willing to buy.

Artists need time to recoup their investments. Most artists need time to hone their skills. Much time, in fact. For writers and musicians alike, Grath points out, this can take over a decade and comes with a hefty price tag measured in sweat as well as dollars. In addition, artists often have a limited shelf life. Creation takes time and comes with hits and misses. Writers often invest years in a book that may become a flop.

This is why IPR has a lifetime. It allows artist to amortise all their previous investments and cover any and all losses they made. Grath emphasises that he doesn’t mean to say that things like mashups, mixes etc should be prohibited as long as copyright is in place. Finding proper legal arrangements for this is just not as easy as we all would want.

10 May 2010