I don’t mean morally indefensible.
That is something about which there is heated argument. I mean, literally,
practically, impossible to defend. High-quality copying of printed material,
recorded music, films, pictures, etc. is now something people can do at home,
unobserved, and they do, and will continue to do so. And ‘people’ here does not
mean just those who care nothing for the rights of writers and other artists;
those who simply want to steal their work. I am am a member of PEN and of the
Society of Authors, and even of the Authors Licensing and Collecting Society,
which latter’s job is to collect and distribute to the original creator fees
for legitimate copying. I care deeply about the right of creators to be paid
for their work. Nevertheless, I do my best to get the works of other writers
without paying for them, and I know that other people do the same with my work,
and good luck to them — I want as many people as possible to read my stuff;
surely all writers do? Though it does get up my nose when I see my stuff all
over the internet but without my name attached, and some silly little blogger
trying to take credit for what she didn’t write herself. But I don’t regard
myself as the ‘owner’ of what I write: if something someone makes achieves the
status of a work of art — and I believe just a few of my writings have done
that — then that thing becomes everybody’s property, or nobody’s. God’s, if you
like.
Until recently, writers and musicians themselves were the
main defenders of copyright. Publishers, record producers etc. tried to get
copyright assigned to themselves; to take it away from the creator, whom they
tried to tell he didn’t need it, (The Guardian newspaper, of all people, still
tries this on, I’m afraid,) but the publishers etc. wanted it because actually
they knew it was valuable. Now, quite suddenly, they are the great defenders of
‘intellectual property rights’, but of course only because of their own ‘right’
to make money from our work.
The argument is presented unfairly: copiers are castigated,
called thieves, but call themselves defenders of freedom.
But why should I, a writer, be against copyright? Because,
as I said, it is indefensible. So do I care nothing for the ‘rights’ (that is
to say, ultimately, the survival, the ability to make a living) of creators? On
the contrary, I care very much.
So what would I like to see in place of copyright? This will
be dismissed as hopelessly utopian; nevertheless: What I would like to see is
an expansion of organizations like the Royal Literary Fund to a State level.
The RLF already does excellent work in this field: I myself get a pension from
them. This is how it works: writers applying for support from the RLF are asked
to present copies of their work. A committee of, among others, fellow writers
assesses literary — note, literary,
not commercial — merit, and payments, often repeated, so amounting to a modest
salary, are duly made, if you’re any good. ‘Good’; not, or not necessarily, on
the front table at Waterstones because your publisher has decided it’s in his
interests to bribe Waterstone’s to put it there.
And that, in outline, is how creators should be paid for
their work. It shouldn’t, with such a system, then matter to the creator very
much — in fact it ought to please him — if his stuff was got cheaply or free by
the public, copied, sent to friends, posted on the internet, etc.
No comments:
Post a Comment