My Proposed Copyright and Piracy Law

I've thought of copyright and piracy issues once or twice, but I dismissed it at those moments. I think I did because I would have felt slightly guilty if I actually thought deeply about the whole system of who owns what, whose money gets lost, whose music am I supposedly 'stealing' and what's going to happen to such artist. Well, the days following the Intellectual Property lecture only gave me the obligation to actually think about the issue. Concerning the differing opinions and arguments whether piracy is wrong or right, the lecture and the reading propelled me to either take a side, sit on the fence, or just remain far away from the fence as I've been. What did I choose? I chose to sit on the fence. Let me just point out that I'm not entirely sitting on the fence, I mean, I'm not planning to tip over or something, so let's just imagine the fence has a wide platform and I'm only sitting at one side of it. But anyway, there are two reasons why I'm sitting on the fence - 1) To support the notion of the mass-produced product as publicly-owned,  2) and the notion of the mass-produced product as an emblem of profit for the "original" makers of it.

For me, there's something not quite right about piracy being 'ethically' wrong - actually, that word just blows everything out of proportion - 'ethical' (RHETORIC FAIL..!). No. 1: Ethics is a pre-given societal rules that preach on about honesty and sincerity, and doing the 'right thing'. Well, when it comes to downloading a song off the net, who says it is wrong? Who says it is right? Who decides? I guess this is where the ownership issue comes in where I'd just like to start by saying something resembling the thesis statement for this post: I don't believe the owner of the song - be it the artist or the big fat recording company that produced it - completely owns the song. Why? Because it's out there in the public. So, if it is out there, it belongs to the people out there, it is out of the corporations' hands. I remember thinking this way about 'privacy' in one of my other blog posts and how I reckon if your private information gets out, it is no longer under your control, but the public's.

I have just established the first reason why I'm sitting on the fence and this is the fact that anything mass-produced and then disseminated into the public sphere - whether bound by profit or not - partially belongs to the public. Thus, it is the public's right to make use of whatever they want to do with it for their own pleasures. In fact, I'd like to support my argument with Walter Benjamin's idea that something may be "original" but when it becomes mass-produced, it loses its value and is no longer an original but a simulacrum (a Baudrillard notion meaning 'copy'). (His study made specific reference to photography e.g. the Mona Lisa becoming reproduced around the world that the real painting loses its aura). To apply this to mass-produced products that has found its ground in the public sphere, downloading and re-creating/ re-producing them does nothing to the authenticity or value of the original. In fact, where is the original? Does anyone know, more importantly, does anyone care? 'Original' is contestable if we're looking at it from the Barthes' "nothing is new under the sun" line of thought. Looking at it from that angle, downloading stuff does nothing to the value of the "original" simply because there is no original. HOWEVER............ my other side of the fence argument asks the question: "If there is no kind of authenticity lost, isn't there any other kind of loss great enough to stand for the 'piracy is ethically wrong' rhetorical argument?" Well, yes there is, and the answer is somewhat obvious: MONEY MONEY MONEY. But note: I still wouldn't use the word 'ethically' here, that word is just so unfit.

But anyway, I say money is the big loss. Sure, companies might over-exaggerate on losses due to piracy by adding extra zeros at the end of the factual losses. But still, money is a major loss that can make me feel sorry for upcoming artists that had a hit song I didn't buy but download. (Put the likes of Gaga aside, download or not, she'll still have money growing in her backyard). I'm talking about artists who are pushed to the back of the line, non-mainstream artists, World artists, and so on. Some of these artists are either signed with Indie labels or regional small sub-labels under the big 4 who themselves are trying to make ends meet. Here, I'm trying to establish one point that it doesn't matter whether an artist is "keeping it real" by investing real art and personal creativity guided by personal values or "selling out" by privileging the bland, predictable, pop-type, commercialization in their work. The bottom line is this fact: Mass-produced cultural products are primarily meant for public consumption in return for profit. In another light, the only way to make up for the loss of authenticity at the moment of distribution is profit (and yes, in cash). This is why I think even though a product has been distributed and is thereby the public's possession, I believe the public has an obligation to give something back. I've gotta admit, one of the Copyright kids argument is pretty convincing but it lacks a certain something. It goes along the lines of: "If you made something out of your time and sweat (regardless whether there are inter-textual influences), wouldn't you be mad if someone just took it from you". Sure, I'd be mad, heck, I'd be mad! I'd stick my head out the window and scream, 'I can't take it anymore!'. However, this fails to take into consideration that we're talking about mass-produced product and not one thing one makes and someone steals. Moreover, I think the sentence is incomplete as it does not make any mention of money. Therefore, I think the sentence best suitable for my argument would be: "If you made copies of something out of your time and sweat (regardless of inter-textual influences) for the purpose of selling it indirectly to the public for profit, wouldn't you be mad if someone just took it without paying, knowing that you've just lost a few cents or dollar?". This question is honest as opposed to the first. It tells it like it is: Artists make mass-produced music to get money in return even though there may be other reasons like "to impact lives" or what not. Seeing it this way then, I think piracy is wrong as the public has an obligation to give back to the artist who shared the product in the first place.

Concluding, I maintain my split position on the fence by advocating for the public's right to own a cultural product (screw copyright). As an artist, if you put your stuff out there, it belongs out there and less under your control. But at the same time, the public also has an obligation to pay for the work at its exchange-use value. It's no contradiction, it's simply a two-way thing: "I'll make you this record, do whatever the heck you want with it, as long as you give back to Caesar what belongs to Caesar". That, colleagues, I think should be the new copyright and piracy law.