I enjoyed reading Gerry Canavan’s timely and insightful review of the new book, “Inherent Vice” by Lucas Hilderbrand, as first reported in the “Independent Weekly”online. http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A395551 The review was engaging and stimulated my own thoughts on this critical concept of “copyright.”

However, instead of bemoaning the fact that we can’t make money off of someone else’s creative work because it’s not in the public domain, that should be a stimulus to take the risk and try to make our own. That’s also the stuff of healthy competition and the foundation of a free market. Ideas are not protected, just the unique expression of those ideas. A good example are movies.

In the age of the Web 2.0, there are those who believe that if a popular film is successful, it becomes part of our cultural heritage—the public domain immediately—and in the process, copyright is essentially void, and any use of that film or any portion thereof is permissible. It’s a view espoused by many self described “multi media artists” who do “mashups” of Hollywood films without obtaining copyright permission or paying royalties. It’s also the same rationale used by those who illegally download movies and those who copy and sell illegal versions of movies. In fact, a good case could be made that illegal “mashups” are the virtual “poster boys” of bootleg videos.

The argument is this: if it’s acceptable to show illegal “mashups” in polite upscale commercial art museums, then why the fuss over bootleg copies of the same movies? The answer is found in the old joke about how it’s not possible to be a “little bit pregnant”. In the same way, either copyright protections apply or it’s “open season” for anyone to steal in whole or piece meal from the “the little guy” with a good idea. That kind of abuse of power is exactly why Copyright Laws are so stringent. There is a “fair use” clause in copyright law but too often, that’s used as justification for simple laziness in not even seeking permission in the first place.

What started with VCRs has now moved from individual copies to sophisticated big business increasingly run by organized crime and even terrorist groups as the recent Rand report makes clear. The only real difference between illegal bootleg videos and an illegal “mashup” is that the latter is often shown in upscale modern art museums under the guise that doing so is permissible because it’s “art”. In fact, it’s just as tawdry, illegal, and unethical as any bootleg movie sold in back alleys, only in more polite settings. Ultimately, it’s just as unoriginal, too.

It’s a good case why copyright infringement in whole or in part from works without attribution or credit actually is a damper on creativity. Without protection from such abuse, there is less incentive to be creative in the first place. Why risk so much when others can gain an unfair market advantage simply by copying in whole or in part from the work that took you so long to conceive and execute in the first place. In a free society, great art demands great risks and promises great rewards as one possible result. But there is no guarantee. It’s inherently risky to be creative. Without the potential financial incentive and the protections inherent in copyright, no one is safe from dullness and the lowest common denominator—copying instead of creating.

It’s easy to criticize big studios, big corporations, and big government for being responsible for not allowing creative works into the public domain sooner. What’s forgotten too often is that copyright laws are as stringent as they are to protect “the little guy” from having their unique creative expression stolen from them in whole (or piecemeal as “mashup” artists do) and used without their permission by anyone, be it a bootleg movie thief or a multi media “mashup artist” or even an upscale trendy modern art museum. That’s as important a concept now, if not more so, as it was almost 500 years ago, when the concept of “copy-rights” was first developed in England.

While there are those who decry the extended copyright protections afforded Americans today, US law is now more on par with England and many countries, some exceptions being totalitarian societies where all creative expression simply becomes property of the state. Ironically, that totalitarian view is also espoused by many corporations today, which similarly justify appropriating any and all creative work developed by their employees as permissible for the corporate good, without compensation or credit to the employee who came up with the idea. Even Ayn Rand, who philosophically championed the free market system, would be aghast at the kind of repressive policy that many corporations espouse today that is more reminiscent of the USSR that Rand herself fled from in the early part of the 20th century. The rigorous protections afforded copyright owners today are every bit as relevant as they were in Ayn Rand’s day.

I look forward to reading “Inherent Vice” by Lucas Hilderbrand. I’m already intrigued by Gerry Canavan’s outstanding, thought provoking, and insightful comments and grateful, too. A review that is that well written deserves accolades. Bravo. And “Thanks!”