VeryCD has been transformed, and its music channel no longer provides download links. Why? Because of “copyright.”
Obviously, “copyright” is the most typical concept of the print age. So what is the significance of copyright in the Internet age?
I recently added a copyright notice to the new version of my blog, so let me take this opportunity to offer a bit more explanation here.
The rise of the Internet and digital technology has made copyright issues increasingly prominent, and the “protection” of copyright increasingly difficult. The copying and dissemination of works has become far more convenient; once a work has been released, it is extremely hard to keep control of its “copy”—whether the work is text, music, or software.
So how can an author’s copyright be protected in the Internet age? Perhaps this is fundamentally a pseudo-problem. If the very concept of copyright is being dissolved, then how can we speak of protecting it? It is like saying that the rise of printing brought about the popularization of the Bible, and the authority of interpreters of scripture thus encountered a crisis. So how are we to protect the authority of interpreters? Rather than going to every possible length to preserve authority, it would be better to recognize the fate of the age and admit that the dissolution of religious authority is inevitable.
Recognizing fate does not mean simply catering to fashion and following the trend; rather, it means taking the initiative, reflecting on the changes of the age, and choosing a new path. To cling to old conventions is, just like chasing trends, only another way of drifting with the current, not a way of freedom and independence. “Conservatism” really is the mission of scholars, but the question is: what exactly is it that we are to conserve? That must always be reconsidered in light of the circumstances of the age. To say simply: we must protect the author’s copyright—this has no meaning. The question is, what are author and copyright, after all? Have these concepts themselves already changed?
.
So let us first look at what copyright protected in the print age. Why was copyright needed in the first place?
A straightforward answer is that copyright protected the creator’s enthusiasm, affirmed the author’s creative labor, maintained the vitality and order of the intellectual world, and so on. So what would happen without copyright protection?—What is called “piracy” would no longer be constrained, and published works could be copied at will. But what is wrong with that? You must know that before the print age, in the age of manuscripts, authors would rather remain anonymous, or borrow the name of great figures, all simply so that their own works could be copied more widely. In the process of copying and transcription, the content of works would be continuously altered, with additions and deletions; these, of course, would now count as “copyright infringement.” Indeed, compared with the age of manuscripts, the print age greatly invigorated the intellectual world—but was that due to “copyright”? If so, why could the concept of copyright not have flourished already in the age of manuscripts? What I mean is that “copyright” certainly can protect and stimulate creators, but that is something suited to the environment of the print age; before the print age, authors had no clear sense of copyright, much less any demand for it.
For authors, is not the desire for their works to be copied more and more an even more natural wish? “Copyright,” as a restriction on copying, is clearly not some self-evident demand. To a very great extent, the demand for copyright was not initiated by authors themselves, but came from publishers.
In the print age, the publisher was a prominent figure, a key link. The publisher’s intervention changed the relation between author and reader: through print, the author could present the work directly before the reader; whereas through manuscript circulation, the distance between author and reader was remote and vague. Readers could not tell, and did not care, about the era of the author; even the “author” was dispensable. The intervention of the publisher made clear the relation between “author—reader,” and readers were henceforth able to face the author himself. All readers faced the same text by the same author, which had been impossible before. From then on, the structure of author and reader appeared as a center-and-radiation structure—the work had, and could only have, one definite source, and all readers (through the publisher) directly faced that same source, which was possessed by the author.
This author-reader structure is one-way. The circulation of printed books has only one direction, namely, the one-way communication of “author—(through the publisher)—to—reader—displaying the work.” The reader’s feedback to the author often existed only at the very moment of obtaining the book, that is, “reader—(through the publisher)—to—author—paying royalties.” After that moment, the medium between author and reader—the publisher (printing house and bookstore)—would withdraw entirely and no longer serve as the medium of communication. And if there were no “copyright,” even this only feedback would have no way to take shape.
Thus we see: what does “copyright” protect? It protects precisely this publishing link—that is, it protects the structure of the relation between author and reader. Copyright ensures that readers can face the author’s text directly, and ensures that the author can receive payment directly from readers. Of course, this “face directly” and “directly” are in fact shorthand for “through the channels of a clearly defined and controllable legitimate publisher.”
.
However, in the Internet age, we note that the structure of the relation between author and reader has undergone a tremendous change; “expression” and “presentation” are no longer two separate things. A work is not first “completed” in the author’s hands and then “out of” the author and handed over to publishing channels. Internet works never sever their connection with the author, but from the very beginning can be entered into by readers. The channel of communication whereby readers pay royalties to authors through publishers has encountered difficulties, because publishers have long since lost their original position and no longer serve as the hub. Dissemination on the Internet does not need such a hub-like intermediary at all. Authors can release their works through multiple channels, and these works will in turn be altered and circulated through diverse means. The author is no longer the center, and the publisher is no longer the hub. But unlike in the age of manuscripts, readers can now provide feedback to authors in more ways. Only one form of feedback has been lost—that of paying royalties—and what has been gained in return is an infinitely broad space for communication; this is not much of a loss.
Those most concerned with copyright issues, and most hostile to Internet dissemination, are precisely the publishers: publishing houses, record companies, film companies, and so on. In the Internet age, they are bound to lose their former position. For authors, why must they entrust their works to some specific intermediary? Of course, as things stand now, traditional publishing channels can indeed bring authors greater income. Then there are two questions. First, if many works are created merely to seek money, is it necessarily a bad thing if there are fewer such works? Second, must authors obtain benefit only through royalties, or, to put it differently, only through publishers?
Apart from financial returns, there are other possible sources of a creator’s enthusiasm—for example, fame and prestige, for example, communication with readers. In the print age, because channels of dissemination were mainly controlled by publishers, if one wanted to gain fame and wanted one’s work to circulate widely, one could only comply with the publisher and conform to the model of copyright and royalties. But in the Internet age, the role publishers play in dissemination will become increasingly marginal. In such a context, breaking copyright may bring broader dissemination than adhering to copyright. In addition, communicating more with readers, obtaining reader feedback more comprehensively, and allowing readers to enter into the creative activity itself—all these possibilities also require breaking the traditional concept of copyright in order to open up more fully. From these perspectives, the breaking of copyright is very likely to promote creative enthusiasm even more. As for creation undertaken to seek direct income, although it can stimulate the quantity of creative output, from the perspective of quality it is not necessarily a good thing; the author to a very great extent becomes a slave of the publisher, creating not out of his own desire but in order to cater to the publisher’s demands.
On the other hand, the author obtaining income from the publisher—this profit model itself is not absolute. The development of open-source software or free software has given us an important lesson.
Open-source software created the concept of copyleft, showing its rebellious stance toward copyright. copyleft has many possible translations; the official rendering seems to be “著佐权,” but I myself lean toward translating it as “版责.” Responsibility corresponds to rights. Copyright emphasizes that one holds the right to restrict copying, and grants disseminators the corresponding rights in order to copy; by contrast, 版责 declares the relinquishing of control over copying, while granting dissemination the corresponding responsibilities—for example, the responsibility to cite sources, the responsibility to engage in exchange and learning, and, for example, the responsibility to remain open in the same way. The copier of a traditional work must obtain a copyright, whereas the disseminator of open-source software must accept a copyleft.
Of course, copyleft does not completely eliminate copyright, but is a variant of copyright. It is just like how postmodernity is a variant of modernity. But in any case it has broken through the traditional concept of copyright, and is a new concept of the Internet age. So can such works survive and develop? Can they compete with works protected by copyright? Practice has shown that works that break copyright can absolutely have room to survive. Perhaps their profits are not as large as those of monopolistic companies (such as Microsoft)—after all, the nature of the Internet is anti-monopoly and decentralized—but they can likewise, or even more so, sustain ongoing development and abundant creativity.
The reason Microsoft’s Windows system, which insists on copyright, has outperformed open-source Linux lies in multiple factors; the applicability of the software itself is one major factor. The window-desktop system really was an epoch-making creation, and Linux truly fell short in technical ability. The key issue is not that Linux lost to Windows, but that under such a situation where Windows had gained the initiative and Microsoft monopolized everything, Linux has nonetheless survived to this day and continued to grow. That is what demonstrates the vitality of open-source software. We find that it is not necessary to break Microsoft up into several companies; the vitality of open-source software is already enough to shake its monopolistic position. In fact, Linux systems have surpassed Microsoft in global network server market share, and not merely because of price, but because their performance is indeed somewhat better than Microsoft’s. In the field of blog systems, the open-source WordPress system has surpassed Movable Type, which once stood alone in its glory; and the key lies in the fact that Movable Type chose the wrong moment to embrace “copyright” and began shifting to a paid version. WordPress, by contrast, has consistently upheld open source and fully tapped the power of the open-source community, so that although it may not surpass Movable Type in core architecture, by virtue of the countless plug-ins freely developed by netizens it has, in both functionality and market share, indisputably become number one. In browser software, we still vividly remember the old antitrust case of Netscape suing Microsoft, but Netscape has long since faded from our view. Netscape lost to IE, certainly in part because of Microsoft’s monopoly, but also because Netscape itself, after being acquired, lacked ambition. We see that open-source browsers such as Firefox and Google Chrome have already shaken IE’s position to a very great extent. And in terms of performance, open-source browsers also surpass IE by several notches. Although in the field of computer operating systems Windows still holds a monopolistic position—a position it has to a considerable extent obtained through deliberate tolerance of piracy—it is already in a precarious state. In fact, in smartphone and tablet operating systems, Microsoft has long since suffered a crushing defeat. Google’s Android open-source system, based on the Linux kernel, has grown rapidly and quickly become the mainstream of smartphones, while Nokia’s Symbian system, in steady retreat, has also tried to reverse the situation through the complete open-sourcing of version 3.0.
.
Thus it can be seen that the traditional concept of copyright no longer suits the Internet age; open copyright, or breaking copyright, may bring a broader space for development. Of course, software and traditional publications are not quite the same thing after all. But can books, audiovisual works, and the like survive only by means of copyright? Of course, if one clings stubbornly to old forms, it is indeed difficult to survive in the Internet age. But existing forms are not necessarily eternal models. In order to adapt to the environment of the Internet age, the forms of various works themselves will also inevitably be adjusted. Take video games, for example: the original single-player game software was indeed easy to suffer piracy, and encryption technology never quite managed to defeat cracking technology. But rather than gaming companies going to every length to develop encryption technology, it would be better to change the form of the game itself—for example, online games, or adding more network-expansion elements to single-player games. In this way people would naturally have no choice but to buy the legitimate version. Take audiovisual works, for example: one must know that audiovisual works being published and distributed like books, and music creators obtaining benefits from publishers, are things that have only existed for the past several decades. “Pop music” is an even newer phenomenon, and the concepts of music and musicians have undergone enormous changes in just a few decades. So if the development of the Internet threatens the “copyright” of musicians, why should we not consider whether the concept of “musician” itself is being threatened? Whether the concept of “music,” and the role music plays in people’s lives, will once again undergo great changes?
As for books, it is even more so. The form of written works itself will change. In the previous article I already mentioned that the very concepts of books and papers are changing. Some people say that Internet literature has somehow harmed the development of literature. But one must note that the concept of literature itself is a new thing; its contemporary meaning has only a history of a little over two hundred years, and its meaning can of course still change. In an old article I mentioned: “Different eras each have their own literary forms. Of course, if we define the previous form of literature as true literature and exclude the new forms, then it is of course possible to say that the development of the new age has harmed traditional literature. But what is the standard by which different forms are judged?”
So when the Internet age changes the forms and dissemination of various works, what will become of the old forms? Some things that inherently lack vitality will of course gradually die out, but other things will remain, carrying new meanings. As McLuhan said, new media turn old media into works of art. For example, traditional drama, which at the time was regarded as an everyday form of recreational entertainment, became in the modern era an art form; classical music likewise became highbrow and canonical only after “pop music” emerged. Under the changing currents of the age, those imperishable things in the tradition will naturally continue, and it is precisely after the circumstances of the age have changed that those imperishable values will be able to emerge fully.
.
February 8, 2011
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply