Summary:
The independent content producer faced with not making a profit and potential rip-off of his/her work via the internet has potential in the GNU public-license arena.
:: Copyleft and the independent content producer
Abstract
The independent content producer faced with not making a profit and potential rip-off of his/her work via the internet has potential in the GNU public-license arena.
Context
How do we distribute our work technologically, and still create some kind of income for ourselves? How do we ensure that our rights to that work will not be violated? Should we make money every time someone reads/uses/listens to our product? Does it matter, really?
Organizations like BMG, RIAA, Sony and others have spent millions of dollars to date (and counting) on ensuring that the artists under their wings get proper recognition and kickback. At the same time, there are the little people who write software and articles, create designs and fan art that are also concerned with their rights and their profits.
There are examples of groups (mp3.com comes to mind) who are working out methods of ensuring that these content producers get properly credited and -- in some cases -- rewarded for their efforts. No matter the place, though, it's always a big discussion. Lots at stake, tons to talk about, no real answers. One constant rings through all the arguments, though: the internet has made copyright and intellectual property too difficult to manage, and will limit our ability as content producers to make money from our work. I don't believe that.
Content
First: the internet was designed to distribute data with no consideration as to that data's origination. Whether audio, video, graphic or text, created by the distributor or not, it's all composed of bits and bytes and flows back and forth as data.
Second: copyright is pretty cut and dry. If you can prove that you were the first person to create a work (audio, video, written or otherwise) or idea, then it's yours. Whether that work has been published (distributed to others) or not doesn't matter.
In my eyes, the two are not connected in such a way that one hampers or disturbs the other. Also, neither of them is particularly concerned with profitability of the work.
The internet has made it possible for the smalltime content producer to distribute their works for less money and to more people than was possible before. On the other side, it has also increased the distribution channels of large-company creations, wresting control from those companies. However, neither of the above changes the fact that a work -- created by someone -- is being distributed. Neither of the above changes the fact that the work is someone's intellectual property.
Larger companies don't seem to grasp that, however, and smaller content creators remain worried that someone will steal their ideas. I can understand that. There is some hope, though, for solving the copyright problem: copyleft. Simply put, it's a licensing method for software that requires the initial release to be free, and all subsequent releases to be free, as well. Programs like emacs, languages like perl and php, and operating systems (Linux, BSD) have all been released under this license. Furthermore, the creators of those technologies have all remained named in each subsequent release, ensuring that full credit is given.
If your product/work/text is so important, and people really need it, then charge a download fee. The point, though, is to not worry about what happens to it afterwards. How many of you have used the paperback exchange at a local library? Does Danielle Steele get commission for each book of hers you take out of the free box?
It's possible that at some point in time, all content will be released under some kind of public use license (David Bowie on copyright). All work could be altered in any way, as long as the original author/creator remains known. For that matter, all work can be altered now. It has always been possible to alter someone else's work. We have a word for it: plagiarism.
Conclusion
In other words, don't be so worried about it. For years it has been possible to rip off the independent content producer, the larger corporations. Nothing's changed. Except for the fact that now the independents can get their work out faster.
How to profit from that work is still up in the air, but the internet has also changed nothing about supply, demand and the appreciation that people have for quality ...