I recently took the plunge and decided to read George Orwell’s 1984.
Turns out that because I am a US citizen, I cannot have free access to 1984 until 2044! But that is only if Congress does not pass another law, extending copyright length yet again.
I paid to read the book. Along with the privilege of viewing it only on Kindle devices that Amazon controls, my $5.74 bought me the moral high-ground to complain about it.
I hold this truth to be self-evident: We have the inalienable right to experience the expressions of fellow human beings. We have the right not only to speak freely, but also to hear freely. Anyone who proposes to control this proposes to control our minds. This is what 1984 is all about.
I agree with the notion of temporarily granting an author control over the dissemination of their work, so they can gain some material benefit from their act of service to the rest of us. This is not the only way, and probably not the best way, but it is the way we have chosen.
However, some works of art are so deep, so important, that they are greater than their creator. The needs of all our souls far outweigh the material needs of the artist. Such works should pass immediately into the public domain (and to be fair, we should reward the artist generously by some other means than copyright control).
1984 is one of those works.
Comments
7 responses to “1984 belongs to all of us”
Totally disagree with you on this one Fred, sorry. That’s why libraries still exist. Your premise seems, well, Orwellian.
Who decides what is important and why does importance mean its free? Does that go for film, art and music as well? So the Beatles White album should be free as well as The Godfather.
Can I make derivative works for free and without permission?
Shouldn’t we say the same for pharmaceuticals? For safety products in cars? Where does it end? In Utopia’s promise destroying innovation thats where. The short patent on Pharmaceuticals is why the initial prices are so high – they have to make their money back in just a few years.
The reality is that society decides what is important by choosing it and buying it. Take that out and its really 1984 – the government telling us what is important and what is not and what, according to your premise, I have to pay for even if I don’t want it.
I know copyright law pretty well, I help artists to keep theirs as long as possible. True artists do not “do it for the money” but they should have the opportunity to reap the rewards, or there will be no artists left – and therefor no art.
I have never understood why copyrights are not like other property rights. If you are paying your taxes and using said property why should anyone, especially the government have the right – ever – to take it from you? Why shouldn’t Disney have the right to Mickey Mouse in perpetuity?
Europes copyright laws follow your ideal somewhat and do not advance society in my opinion, because they devalue the very art they are stealing from the artists.
Kids these days already believe its fine to steal music and movies because its something not tangible to them.
It all makes me very sad – that is when it’s not making me very angry!
You want to read 1984 for free on your Kindle? I think I should be able to as well, but I don’t have a Kindle even though its an incredible device, so I should get one for free don’t you think?
I basically put forward two ideas in the post:
1) All art belongs to all of us.
2) Some art, because of its immense depth and importance, should skip the copyright phase and go directly into public domain.
The first proposition is actually the accepted norm, even in current law. The second is just a crazy idea that hit me while writing the post. I would not argue #2 to death.
Certainly not all art is *worthy* of skipping copyright. Who cares if Mickey Mouse is trapped behind a paygate? It doesn’t change the world or save my soul. Let’s talk about truly important art, like the Bible, or a story that exposes the subtle evils of totalitarianism and mind control.
Will people remember or care about my work in 100 years? A 1000 years? Only in my wildest fantasies could I write a novel that is worthy of being promoted to public domain immediately.
Fred I am so confused by your response. You want to promote and accept totalitarianism to spread the word that we need to stop totalitarianism?
Who is John Galt?
You have not explained to me WHY you believe that Art, and not All enterprise that is benificial to mankind as a whole, should be taken (I would say stolen) by society. Because it is transformative?
What is the difference between a song and a blood pressure medication?
If someone comes up with a way to cheaply purify even the dirtiest water should we not, according to your theory, close down their business, override their patent and let everyone have their idea? It would surely make the world a better place. Clean water leads to better life expectancy, leads to better lives. It would surely have the potential to change the world. Allow someone to live longer, better, easier and you give them the opportunity to focus on the spiritual rather than just the physical. That is transformative.
http://www.buylifestraw.com
My 17 year old son and I were discussing your blog last night and we wondered who would decide what is “worthy” of skipping copyright? You say immediately so there must be some committee somewhere. Setup by congress perhaps?
“So should we take all of One Directions music and make it public right now? Oh but its just a boy band, that the critics pan, and teenage girls go crazy over screaming, fainting, crying…. You can barely even call it music definately not art.” I said to my son.
“You just described The Beatles in early 1964.” He said (which was exactly my point btw.)
Society decides what is “great” art. Not in an instant but over years, decades, centuries. What survived is what we consider great. Time is an incredibly important factor.
A major flaw in your arguement is that Van Gogh sold not a single painting in his lifetime. He was to those around him irrelevant.
When you are done reading 1984, may I suggest Atlas Shrugged? But you will have to pay for it.
I Am John Galt.
One more point that needs to be made, because I work with musicians. I know their hearts. I watch them suffer for arts sake.
Art – of any kind – is not free to the artist. You speak of soul? True artists will struggle, sweat, cry, and leave a piece of themselves in their work.
To take that from them for the greater good, would be stealing a part of their soul.
That is collectivism and it is morally wrong in my humble opinion.
Let me try to reflect back your concerns:
1) The notion that my art belongs to everyone, and not exclusively me, implies that any intellectual production belongs to everyone.
2) “Belongs to everyone” means I won’t be allowed to profit from it. It means, in effect, that there is no such thing as private intellectual property.
3) The process of removing my creations from me and giving them to the world will be mediated by government. It is a form of oppression.
If these don’t quite capture your viewpoint, please help me understand you better. In the meantime, here are some reactions …
#1 — Yes. I believe all intellectual productions belong to all humans. This includes both art and inventions. This mutualism becomes a moral imperative when it can save another person’s life, and a strong moral obligation if it can make another person’s life better.
#2 — No. My OP accepts the notion of short-term control over intellectual creations (aka “intellectual property” or IP) in order to support the artist or inventor. There are other ways to do this, each with its own merits and problems. A classic example is patronage.
#3 — No. I do not call for any particular form of government or policy. I am speaking at a moral level.
Perhaps the best way to illustrate all of this is to point to the free/open-source software movement.
#1 — It is primarily about technological inventions. The Linux kernel is a prime example. There is an analog for artistic creations and other intellectual productions. Wikipedia is a prime example.
#2 — We believe that greater wealth can be created by sharing IP with each other than by creating artificial scarcity and selling. OTOH, ownership of the IP remains in the hands of the creators. Copyright and licensing still apply.
#3 — Everyone respects the rights of others to choose whether to give/volunteer or not. Note that the free software movement has shaped itself to fit within the current legal frameworks of the world, although we consider them to be less than ideal.
It was very helpful to learn that you favor Ayn Rand’s thinking. I have not read Atlas Shrugged, but will add it to the list. 🙂
You should be aware that I am radically individualistic. I abhor large organizations that ask people to sacrifice their identity. My economic philosophy favors distributivism. My epistemology (which is always in flux) includes elements of both objectivism and constructivism. These may seem contradictory, but there are some elements in common.
My current novel (SuSAn) is not written as an apology for a particular philosophy. In fact, the act of writing it has helped me work out my thinking. If there is any point to it at all, it is that technology cannot save us from ourselves. If there is an arch-villain, it is collective behavior. Specifically, the book proposes that when too many humans form a group, a super-organism emerges which takes over the group in a self-destructive way. This is a more nuanced concept than typically used in dystopian novels, based on Cognitive Science but strictly fictional.
Nice discussion. I can see good in both ideas. As an artist, there are times I don’t care if someone uses my work (but it is not life changing). Sometimes I just want to share.
However, if I were to spend years or even months writing and researching a book, or years on an important painting, I think it would deserve the dignity of protection and I put a value on my time, even if it is 99 cents a copy.
I’m kind of thinking copyright is more about individualization (tagging your work) than about pure profit. I’d gladly pay to see my favorite musical artists perform, though I believe prices should be controlled so that people can enjoy the work without trouble. The Bible does say “the laborer is worthy of his hire.” I think price control, not free concerts all the time, would make me appreciate music more (for example).
We do put value on work and time and talent.
But maybe someone decides to give a gift to the world! That decision should rest with individuals only, IMO.
Maybe I seemed a bit unsympathetic above because I have a really good day job that gives me a comfortable living. I don’t need to be paid for my art, because I am already paid well for my science. Those two pursuits are really the same at heart. (BTW, trying to make a living as a scientist is no bed of roses either, but I won’t go into detail here.)
I totally agree with both you and Beth that the worker is worthy of his/her wages. “Don’t muzzle the ox as it is treading out the grain.” All 3 of us on this thread (so far) are artists, and we have all poured blood, sweat and tears into our work. There is nothing about either of my ideas that suggest an artist should not receive honor or material comfort for their work.
You have read my book. You know the kind of aspirations voiced by one of the characters: “Imagine a world without poverty, where everyone lives long healthy lives doing what they have talent for rather than struggling for survival. …” I want you and Beth (and me) to be rewarded for our work.
My concern is about the control of information. Control means I can withhold good from someone in need. Control can create an elite class that enriches their souls with literature and their comfort with technology, while the rest are too poor to access such things. Is it actually my right to do this?
Perhaps here’s another way to frame the argument. Suppose creativity is a gift from God. If you believe this, then you must ask how He will judge your management of His gifts. In the end, it never truly belongs to you.
If I discover a cure for AIDS (or better water purification, or a GMO that instantly doubles world food production), how do I draw the balance between taking care of my own needs and saving the lives of millions of people?