Chris Dickman (bio)

Ah, the protection of copyright, who amongst us can argue with that? Being able to reap the fruits of one's toil has an almost biblical ring to it, wouldn't you say? While it's getting harder to find the one honest man of Diogenes who hasn't engaged in some form of copyright violation or another, it's generally agreed, at least for the moment, that not appropriating other people's stuff is an element of what passes for civilized behavior (note that I will not take this opportunity to include a reference to the juggernaut known as Google "I Am Not Evil!" Books).

Despite this, the moral compass of some of our compatriots is deemed to be sufficiently out of kilter that new laws are desperately needed to protect the fabric of our society from the ravages of intellectual property violation (note that I will also not take this opportunity to include a reference to the über juggernauts in the pharmaceutical and "crop science" industries). It was probably Thomas Edison who first perfected the approach we now take for granted as the very heart of modern capitalism: create something complicated, slap legal protection on it, generate demand for it, and ensure that as many people as possible pay for it over and over.

Consider the opening paragraph of the email I received: "The Copyright Alliance and its grassroots network of creators today announced circulation among creators nationwide of a letter to President Obama and Vice President Biden, asking the Administration to pursue policies supportive of the rights of artists." Not being aware of any such "grassroots network of creators" I checked out the organization's site. Who would you expect to see on the board of such a non-profit organization? How about such grassroots groups as the Motion Picture Association of America, NBC Universal, Time Warner and Viacom? The roster of executive members includes such names as Disney, Microsoft, Universal Music Group and Sony Pictures Entertainment. The only outfit having anything whatever to do with the design profession is the Graphics Artists Guild, which says of itself that "for 40 years, we've worked with Washington to ensure that the law supports your efforts, rather than undermines them." Okay, I guess I forgive the GAG. From what, you ask?

Here in France, where large corporations pretty well get what they want (I'm sure that doesn't happen where you live), legislation has been recently passed that gives the government unprecedented, and many feel dangerous, powers. Under pressure from the usual suspects in the entertainment industry, the French government managed to enact legistration that outwardly sang the song of protecting the rights and revenues of French performers and creators. But the general consensus is that it will do little more than erode the freedoms of those using the Net and create a precedent for more of the same.

Under the new legislation, Internet providers must cooperate with entertainment industry giants to track down those suspected of copyright violations. To help out, government agents will act as intermediaries to establish that little Johnny has indeed downloaded the entire works of Metallica. Warnings will then be sent to the perpetrator, who has been identified via his... IP address. After email and registered letter warnings, boom, a judge rules that the Internet access of the IP address is to be cut off and the perp is declared guilty. So what's wrong with that?

First, the presumption of innocence is thrown out the window. Little Johnny will have to show up and plead his case after having been convicted. So one ill, copyright violation, has been replaced by another, a betrayal of a fundamental legal right. Second, you've probably already figured out that tracking activity via an IP address is fraught with peril and will lead to many false identifications. Beyond that, anyone really into illegal content can simply employ a Virtual Private Network and proceed with impunity. It's clear that this new law will have little, if any, real effect on the illegal downloading of content. But the new governmental body put in place to track and sanction Internet users at the behest of global coporations will remain.

What relevance has the new French law to the "grassroots" work of The Copyright Alliance? Decide for yourself. In a presentation last month to the FCC, the group declared that "Government promotion of broadband deployment must encourage meaningful distinctions between lawful and unlawful traffic." I'll leave it to you to reflect on the subtext of what "meaningful distinctions" might imply in this context.

The Marquis de Sade once pointed out that "Those who define are the masters." Graphic designers and creatives, no matter what their field of endeavor, would do well to ponder the words of the Marquis before lending their voice to any cause that seeks to convince them that it has their best interests at heart.

Chris Dickman
Founding Editor, Graphics.com