Global Content
The tension between social pressure for freedom of information and authority is
centuries old. With the invention of the printing press came access to texts that were
once only available to students through and at the discretion of their teacher, as they
were handwritten and few in number. Teachers preferred control of this information
to maintain their authority.(1)
The social pressure for freedom of information and its interaction with authority in
our information technology Age is, not exclusively, played out in the tension between
the creators and the users/consumers of information. At the heart of it in western
capitalist societies is money, while in autocratic states it is also about protection of the
State (autocrats).
The capacity for consumers to circumvent Intellectual Property rights on the internet
and obtain for free what once they would have had (and now are requested) to pay for
has led to millions utilising that capacity. This has in turn led to two opposing camps
being formed — those who believe information should be free (information meaning
all forms of expression) and those who believe the creator of the information deserves
recompense for their work and it is their right to choose not to be recompensed, not
the consumer’s.
Cory Doctorow’s (2) argument seems to be from the practical rather than the ethical,
that is, resistance is futile as the hackers will always get around protection software: it
Get Selina Ng’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
is better to figure out a different business model than create laws and protection
software that could compromise an individual’s rights by giving more power to the
State.
The argument from the alternative perspective to Doctorow is summarised by Adam
Nelson (3) who notes that “the invention of movable type never entitled anyone to
steal a book”. Nelson succinctly puts the ethical position and argues we just need to
find more ‘elegant’ solutions to copyright protection, not leap to the threat of a
Totalitarian state if copyright protection continues to be pursued.
I have never knowingly downloaded anything illegally, preferring to use platforms
that reward the creator and hopefully enable them to keep creating. Others choose to
seek ways around paying for the creator’s work. I am more of the view that we need
to keep working to protect the right of creators of information to choose to be
recompensed in return for my access to their work.
The fact that different countries have different approaches to copyright is nothing new
and different jurisdictions will always have different approaches to law generally.
While globalisation has intensified these differences across jurisdictions, it hardly
justifies giving up the principle of copyright: we are in the middle of a technology
revolution that is still a few steps ahead of the policy and law makers.
1. http://eduscapes.com/bookhistory/printculture/2.htm
2.www.theguardian.com/technology/2007/sep/18/informationeconomy
3.http://flamingolondon.com/in-defence-of-copyright-a-response-to-cory-doctorow/
