copyright

Do we need copyright laws to protect the intellectual property of artists or creators?

The answer is of course “yes” – copyright laws are there to protect the ownership rights creators of art, as well as the creators of software, and other intellectual property that might not immediate be associated with “artist” or “creative artist.” And anyone who does anything well will rightly claim the title: Artist.

Yet the distinction is important. In the current debates about copyright rules, advocates need a way to talk about who is being talked about. We need to be able to say, “we need strong copyright laws to protect….” Who? “Intellectual property creators” is clunky. “Artists” brings to mind musicians, painters and sculptors but maybe not those who write software or design video games. "Content creators" leaves out sculptors, painters and others often associated with the "fine arts."

This is not (merely) an academic exercise. Words, as Kenneth Burke noted 50 years ago, necessarily offer a reflection, selection and deflection of reality – and as such words are necessarily persuasive, setting (in his words) “terministic screens” that act as filters on reality. Those who want to strengthen copyright laws and crack down on people posting stuff online they shouldn’t – an issue that concerns me as a member of the Board of the Copyright Alliance and the Washington representative for Vin Di Bona Productions (which produces America’s Funniest Home Videos) and the Caucus for Television Producers, Writers & Directors - need to define the issue in a way that makes success more likely. This means including allies outside of Hollywood, New York and Nashville, credibly increasing the numbers of people who work in the copyright industry and otherwise expanding the debate in ways that make it more likely more policymakers will care.

Doing this requires answering the question, “who do copyright laws protect”?

Yesterday in this space I wrote that calling the unauthorized posting of copyrighted material on the internet “piracy” did not help solve the problem (Argh Is Not the Answer).

As the late Murray Edelman wrote, “The critical element in the political maneuver for advantage is the creation of meaning.” Language creates that meaning. Words define allies and opponents, options and outcomes.

Calling copyright violations piracy and those who do it pirates constructs a debate in which college and high school students (some of the most egregious violators) are swashbuckling, maiden chasing Johnny Depps. It also make the solution plank walking or stranding on a deserted island, both of which the Supreme Court is likely to take issue with.

Combating the unauthorized posting of copyrighted material on the web requires a new metaphor, a word or phrase that is less clunky than “unauthorized posting of copyrighted material” and less romantic than “piracy.”

If not piracy, then what?

Answering that question is a two-step process.

First, advocates need to agree on the outcomes they want. The answer to this seems fairly easy – no piracy (realistically less piracy). But here it is important to recognize that the outcome is no piracy. Laws can help, changing social norms can help, filtering technology can help, other things may help as well. Critically, the goal is not a law, court ruling, or software: it is less stuff being posted and viewed without the owner’s permission (of the two, viewing is the bigger problem – posting only matters in that people then view the material). Keeping a focus on the final goal can help prevent chasing down alleys that, at best, lead to partial solutions.

Second, advocates need to better understand both what and how those doing the bulk of the posting and viewing think about copyright on the web. Good focus groups with those who are doing the violating can help copyright holders concerned with the issue understand how those who illegally post view their actions. As Edelman and others have noted, it is far easier to persuade people of things they already believe to be true than it is to get them to think something new. If people think pirates are cool and don't think of themselves as pirates, don't try to get them to see themselves as committing piracy and that it's bad. It would be much easier to find something they already think is bad to which online copyright violations could be associated.

Those who want to protect copyright need to understand how those doing the violating view the issue. From their perspective, what are they doing? Who is being hurt and how? What arguments for not violating copyright make sense? Who are the victim, vanquished and victor? Larger public opinion research can then help test and hone the messages learned in the focus groups.

Armed with this understanding of how those who need to be persuaded think about copyright and the internet advocates can construct a campaign to protect it.

(In the interest of full disclosure, Milo Public Affairs represents Vin Di Bona Productions whose show “America’s Funniest Home Videos” is routinely posted online without permission and Milo’s Principal, Peter Loge, sits on the Board of the Copyright Alliance. The views here do not necessarily reflect those of Milo’s clients or the Copyright Alliance.)

To more effectively stop people from putting stuff online without permission from the copyright holder advocates need a better metaphor than piracy.

That words matter in politics isn’t news. Everyone from Aristotle through Edelman, and Lakoff to Luntz, and many more have written about the power of words. Words tell us what the debate is about and define possible policies. If “pro-life” is used in the abortion debate the focus is on the fetus as a separate living being and the outcome must be to restrict or eliminate abortions. If on the other hand “pro-choice” is used the focus is on the pregnant woman, she is given power and the outcome must be to allow abortions.

Which brings us to pirates.

Music, movies, television shows, and sporting events are routinely posted online without the copyright owner’s permission. This is illegal and costs copyright holder’s revenue directly through theft and indirectly through costs associated with monitoring the internet, pursuing violators and lobbying for better rules.

Copyright holders are losing the battle to protect their works. Part of this is a matter of law and part of it is a matter of culture. A lot of piracy is committed by people who don’t think of themselves as thieves. A lot of illegal file sharing is done by teens and college kids who would never shoplift a candy bar. Calling these folks pirates doesn’t help.

An Ask.com search for “pirate” returns more than 9,700,000 hits. The first two are for “talk like a pirate day.” Ask college students to think of a pirate and they tell you about Johnny Depp. Those students, many of whom regularly share copyrighted material, would never think of themselves as pirates. Talking to students about stopping online piracy just doesn’t make sense because it defines them as guys who say argh, chase wenches and drink rum. Indeed, one of the leading sources of unauthorized copyrighted material is called Pirate Bay and plays up the romantic notion of swashbuckling adventurers taking on powerful forces (the web site features a picture of an island with different areas called things like “Lawyers Gallow” (sic) and “Grave of MPAA”).

Advocates for copyright protection need to find a new metaphor, a new word to encapsulate the debate. The term should identify those doing the posting as violating both the law and social norms, identify the copyright holders as victims and set policy directions that lead to greater protection of intellectual property.

The obvious questions are how one goes about figuring out what that word is, and what some of the possible options are. Both of those questions will be addressed in another post.

(In the interest of full disclosure, Milo Public Affairs represents Vin Di Bona Productions whose show “America’s Funniest Home Videos” is routinely posted online without permission and Milo’s Principal, Peter Loge, sits on the Board of the Copyright Alliance. The views here do not necessarily reflect those of Milo’s clients or the Copyright Alliance.)