The issue of copyright infringement has me torn. As a "creative person," those few bucks which come my way derive from people willing to fork out cash for books, films and so forth. But as a poor person, I rely on freebies. Without the library and the net, I could afford no culture whatsoever.
Just now, I walked past an expensive truck brearing a back window decal of Calvin and Susie -- from the "Calvin and Hobbes" comic strip -- praying in front a large cross. The choice of iconography struck me as a tad odd, since Calvin represents the spirit of rebellion. On the other hand, the very name of the strip -- "Calvin and Hobbes" -- is a sly reference to Protestant theology.
The truly striking thing is this: That decal is illegal. It constitutes theft.
Bill Waterson, author and illustrator of the strip, has never allowed his characters to be merchandized in any way. All of those "Peeing Calvin" decals you've seen were unauthorized -- as is the "Praying Calvin" image. Someone other than Waterson has profited from the use of his property.
If you search through the torrent sites, you'll see no small amount of Jesus merchandise -- books, films, Christian music and so forth -- offered for illegal download. Granted, nobody profits from uploading torrents, which is why they carry more of a Robin Hood vibe, as opposed to an Al Capone vibe.
The "Robin Hood" excuse has become part of our culture. If you ask Library of Congress staffers whether copying books is legal, they will solemnly tell you No. Then they will point the way to the xerox machines.
On the other hand, neither the owner of that truck nor the manfacturer of that decal can lay claim to the Robin Hood legacy.
My point is this: If the Christians will not observe copyright laws, do those laws continue to mean anything?
9 comments:
I remember one strip where Hobbes asks Calvin if he believes in God.Calvin's answer: "Well, someone's out to get me."
hillarious.
You mean infringement; you don't mean "That decal is illegal. It constitutes theft." Also, the LOC staff of your anecdote are wrong; fair use is intrinsic to copyright. The copyright law is very explicit about what you may copy and what you may not copy under fair use, and also what you may or may not do with that copy.
The private law made by Microsoft, et al., is not part of copyright law. You use the (very expensive, or 'free') software as a licensee, i.e., you don't own any of it. It is made and enforceable by evil bastards. It could have been otherwise; users could have prevailed in the 1980s. But time has made that kind of (private) law embedded in the culture, meaning it can't be undone without a revolution or civil war. Have you any idea how many multi-million-dollar long-term contracts Microsoft got by shaking down corporate 'thieves' who innocently put Word on the boss's computer, innocent of the license agreement?
Anyway, it's the copyright holder's business, no one else's, in matters of infringement.
When you mention electronic and digital 'theft' and infringement, the DMCA part of the copyright law applies as well. The threshold is kinder and gentler, in part because it almost always involves a third party, including one's ISP, the site's host, or other third party disinterested entities.
Is your question, erm, point, valid, though? Xtians render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, n'est-ce pas? (I don't know the Latin or Aramaic for 'isn't it not?').
prescriptive laws are boring.
I prefer descriptive laws.
If the Christians will not observe copyright laws, do those laws continue to mean anything?
To answer your question, NO! They are simply words that only rarely have teeth.
aitch, I know precisely what the LOC staffers say and do because I have twice had that dialogue with them, and it went the same way both times.
"Anyway, it's the copyright holder's business, no one else's, in matters of infringement."
I don't recall Waterson ever bringing suit. Still, he has been very explciti -- he doesn't want his creation used on t-shirts and lunchpails. I think we should respect that.
Joseph, my dear, I didn't say or imply that you are wrong about what the LOC staffers said. I said they are wrong if they say you may not copy (from) a book, that is, if they mean it would violate the copyright law. Fair use is the Copyright Act's term of art that permits copying of published works; its wording places limitations on the copyright's exclusive rights. Prohibiting copying of a published work is itself an infringement of the user's rights to copy (or perform) without needing permission or having to pay (as long as the copyright is made known prominently).
Of course, apart from fair use, the protection only extends to copyright in effect, not to lapsed copyright works in the public domain. Fair use only applies as an exception to copyright's exclusive rights (to publish or perform, and so forth). And I'm sure you know that the federal government's publications do not and cannot hold any copyright. I'm not kidding when I say I don't know about copyright law - but I know more than the LOC staff you've listened to. Remember Dennis Kucinich? "I read it".
I don't believe, as you do, that we should respect a copyright holder's wishes concerning a published work; that's your nagging zero-tolerance again. Piracy or theft is vile, but First Amendment rights get trampled under zero-tolerance beliefs. What copyright holders (including published artists) are entitled to is all due consideration.
The irony of the thing just hit me.
That decal I saw indicates that a Christian publisher has decided to use Calvin as a model Christian.
And who is Calvin? He's a little boy who talks to an imaginary friend...
CANNON..There is no such thing as public opinion..there is only published opinion.
Winston Churchill
Post a Comment