Ophavsretten er en pest for kunsten og kunstnerne

Det er ikke mig, der siger det, det er Bjørn Bredal i Politiken. Jeg ville ikke selv gå helt så vidt, se herunder. Men først Bredal:

Senest satte EU ’beskyttelses’-perioden for musikoptagelser op fra 50 år til 70 år. Et lodret vanvid, som følger op på det samme vanvid, som i 1990’erne førte til udvidelse af ’beskyttelses’-perioden for døde komponister, forfattere, malere etc.: Kunstnerne dør – og skal de beskyttes!

Logikken er til at græde over, og det var slemt nok, så længe ’beskyttelsen’ var 50 år: Vi taler helt enkelt om en syg mekanisme, der flytter penge over fra den levende kunst og de levende kunstnere til deres arvinger og især til hele den industri, der administrerer rettigheder.

Lige for tiden er det især filmindustrien, der forlanger sig bedre ’beskyttet’. Folk downloader film fra nettet uden at betale, og det går selvfølgelig ud over filmindustriens indtægter. Og muligvis er der ræson i at bremse den trafik på en eller anden måde – i nogle få år efter at en ny film har haft premiere.

Det er frygtelig forkert, når fortalere for ’mere beskyttelse’ på et eller andet område straks sætter sig op på en høj moralsk hest og taler om ’tyveri’ og ’kriminalitet’ hos dem, der glad og gratis bruger løs af kunsten.

Billedsproget spærrer for udsigten til de praktiske problemer, der skal løses, og fører til det ødelæggende galimatias, som rettighedsindustrien er blevet. Det er forfærdeligt, at Det Kongelige Teater ikke kan opføre en opera af Richard Strauss uden at betale en formue til den for længst døde komponists oldebørns advokater; at lærere på skoler og universiteter ikke kan vise et billede af Picasso uden at begå en ulovlighed; ja: eller at en gymnasielærer ikke kan vise den lille dumme kommentar, du læser netop nu, til sine elever, uden at gymnasiet skal betale royalty for det.

Jeg vil meget hellere have, at 100 gymnasieelever læser min kommentar, end at jeg får et par hundrede kroner udbetalt fra et firma, der for tiden vokser fuldstændig vildt i sin egen ødelæggende logik og hedder Copydan eller Tekst og Node, eller hvad det aktuelle navn nu er for den rettighedsindustri, der søger at hindre, fordyre og forkrøble udbredelse af tanker og ideer.

Bjørn Bredal og Politiken kunne selv gøre noget for at gøre det muligt for gymnasieelever at læse Bredals kommentar uden at betale for det – de kunne blot udgive bidrag fra Politikens egne skribenter under en Creative Commons-licens, der tillader ikke-kommerciel genanvendelse, hvilket også dækker uddannelsessystemet.

Generelt om ophavsret har den amerikanske juraprofessor Lawrence Lessig foreslået en “totrinsraket”: At ophavsretten gælder 21 år efter udgivelse og herefter mod et gebyr kan fornys i endnu 21 år. And that’s it.

Det ville formentlig løse de fleste af de problemer, Bredal her påpeger.

Musikindustriens piratsludder – Bad Science regner efter

Den britiske musikindustri har bekendtgjort, at den britiske befolkning hvert år downloader 4,73 milliarder ophavsretsligt beskyttede kunstværker til en værdi af 120 milliarder pund.

Før vi lige spørger os selv, om alle disse ting virkelig er £25 værd stykket, var det måske også værd at kigge lidt på de andre tal.

Det gjorde Bad Science:

You are killing our creative industries. “Downloading costs billions” said the Sun. “MORE than seven million Brits use illegal downloading sites that cost the economy billions of pounds, Government advisors said today. Researchers found more than a million people using a download site in ONE day and estimated that in a year they would use £120bn worth of material.”

That’s about a tenth of our GDP. No wonder the Daily Mail were worried too: “The network had 1.3 million users sharing files online at midday on a weekday. If each of those downloaded just one file per day, this would amount to 4.73 billion items being consumed for free every year.”

Now I am always suspicious of this industry, because they have produced a lot of dodgy figures over the years. I also doubt that every download is lost revenue since, for example, people who download more also buy more music. I’d like more details.

But what about all these other figures in the media coverage? Lots of it revolved around the figure of 4.73 billion items downloaded each year, worth £120 billion. This means each downloaded item, software, movie, mp3, ebook, is worth about £25. Now before we go anywhere, this already seems rather high. I am not an economist, and I don’t know about their methods, but to me, for example, an appropriate comparator for someone who downloads a film to watch it once might be the rental value, not the sale value. And someone downloading a £1,000 professional 3D animation software package to fiddle about with at home may not use it more than three times. I’m just saying.

In any case, that’s £175 a week or £8,750 a year potentially not being spent by millions of people. Is this really lost revenue for the economy, as reported in the press? Plenty will have been schoolkids, or students, and even if not, that’s still about a third of the average UK wage. Before tax. Oh but the figures were wrong: it was actually 473 million items and £12 billion (so the item value was still £25) but the wrong figures were in the original executive summary, and the press release. They changed them quietly, after the errors were pointed out by a BBC journalist. I can find no public correction.

I asked what steps they took to notify journalists of their error, which exaggerated their findings by a factor of ten and were widely reported in news outlets around the world. SABIP refused to answer my questions in emails, insisted on a phone call (always a warning sign), told me that they had taken steps but wouldn’t say what, explained something about how they couldn’t be held responsible for lazy journalism, then, bizarrely, after ten minutes, tried to tell me retrospectively that the whole call was actually off the record, that I wasn’t allowed to use the information in my piece, but that they had answered my questions, and so they didn’t need to answer on the record, but I wasn’t allowed to use the answers, and I couldn’t say they hadn’t answered, I just couldn’t say what the answers were. Then the PR man from SABIP demanded that I acknowledge, in our phone call, formally, for reasons I still don’t fully understand, that he had been helpful.

In the “believe it or not” dept.

Link: Home taping didn’t kill music