Artists Hate Copyright says BBC Presenter

A BBC program called Click (@BBCClick) was brought to our attention by a member of Stop43. It was originally broadcast on 22 November 2011.

It debated the fact that copyright is undermined by pirates and other ne'er do wells, but amazingly managed to do so without once using the word 'pirate' or even to discuss the immorality of piracy or copyright infringement. The thrust of the program is that the current problems facing artists are entirely the fault of a) the copyright system, b) lawyers c) artists, and finally d) the United States.

BBC Click

Presented by Gareth Mitchell, the first 6 minutes or so of this 15 minute program were devoted to an interview with Ryan Heath, speechwriter and social media manager for European Commission Vice President and Commissioner for Digital Agenda, Neelie Kroes.

According to the Public Affairs website Ryan has been Assistant Director at the UK Cabinet Office, political adviser to former Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has written for publications such as the Sydney Morning Herald, and published a book on Generation Y, as well as editing The Gay Marriage Blog.

We have reproduced much of the debate below, who said what, and where we felt necessary have added our explanatory [comment] on what was said.

The Debate

[Gareth] Consumers hate it, certainly many people whose livelihoods depend on it hate it as well - I'm talking about copyright. The rules about it are stuck in a pre-digital age. It's about time we thought outside the box and came up with new business models.

[comment] Meaning, copying other peoples' work is ok, find another business. A free culture mantra, now re-inforced with the help of the BBC.

That was the message over the weekend from Neelie Kroes. We kind of assume consumers hate copyright because it limits what they do with content, but it might be a surprise to many that people we assume benefit from copyright hate it as well, in other words, members of the creative industry.

[comment] Dear reader, you may safely ignore this foolish statement by the BBC presenter. It has no basis in fact and is utter nonsense. Copyright is the means by which creative people try to make a living. It is the foundation on which our creators and creative industries depend.  Sigh....

[Ryan] Not everyone hates copyright, and there is a role for copyright.

[comment] Ryan agrees that Gareth has made a foolish statement.

We need to do more than have a copyright system to support artists today. The evolution and revolution of these technologies has really changed what the copyright system has been able to do for the artist.

[comment] That is, BigTech has given people the ability to copy artistic works without penalty, so lets live with that and change the law to make it ok.

Neelie is concerned that we have a system that we can really enforce legally, and whether it's helping the artist financially, whether it's helping the artistic activity that can help our economy.

[comment] It's good that Neelie has concerns. However, if Neelie is so concerned about artists she could promote the idea that all artists are given automatic and unwaivable moral rights, that the digital copyright information they embed into their works must not be removed, that their rights are protected under a fair contract law, that there shall be no extended collective licensing, that when they offer artworks for sale there are real penalties for taking them without payment, and that their IP rights are in fact, human rights.

[Gareth] One thing I learned from Neelies speech is that most artists receive less than 1000 Euros a month so it's a really tough way of making a living. We need to find ways to get revenue to people, to incentivise then to write amazing songs.

[comment] Patronising. This completely misunderstands the problems artists face. Artists do not need 'incentivised' whether it be music, literature, photography, etc. People who choose to be artists do so because they are driven to create art, they love what they do. The problem artists have are many, not least of which is that many people are happy to obtain illegal copies of their work for which the artist receives nothing. Gareth is completely ignoring this issue and is painting a picture for the public that is completely unrelated to the problems artists currently face.

[Ryan] Technology is so important, it gives artists new ways to connect with new and existing audiences. We don't want to see a legal framework that gets in the way of these connections.

[comment] This is BigTech speech, straight out of the Google manifesto. Certainly technology is important to enable artists to promote their work, and they do, but what is the point of doing that when the same technology allows their work to pirated. Ryan is avoiding the issue of piracy and the fact that unrestrained and unregulated technology allows criminals and other individuals to steal from artists. Could it be because the BBC Click audience may include pirates, free culture people, copyright abolitionists and that they mustn't be upset? Surely not!

[Ryan] If the copyright system or legal framework is somehow blocking art or blocking distribution, or really not encouraging its creation, then it's really moved away from its original purpose.

[comment] This is utter nonsense, pandering to the Click audience again? Either that or Ryan is hopelesssly mis-informed. Ryan is making no attempt to base such assertions on fact. The copyright system is not blocking art distribution. Artists create vast amounts of art on a daily basis, the internet is stuffed full of it, and a great deal of it is for sale. So the distribution and copyright model is fine, the technology model is disfunctional.

[Ryan] What we need to do is to hear all the voices in this debate, not just the people who do well out of the current system or the established players.

[comment] OK BBC, let's have an artist on Click. You too Ryan (and Neelie), listen to the artists at grass roots level; you will find that Neelie's ideas about the way forward really need a major rethink.

[Gareth] I found it quite refreshing when reading the text of Neelies speech when she said let's not get hung up on legislation, lets think about novel technological solutions.

[comment] Gareth has also been reading the Google manifesto.

[Ryan] That's such a sensible proposal, it's astonishing to hear this coming from such a sensible politician. Neelie is saying sensible things about how copyright has changed what it can do because it was designed for a pre-digital age. We can't rely on old laws.

[comment] Sycophantic. We agree, it is astonishing to hear these views coming from a 'sensible' politician, but not for the reasons Ryan thinks!

The so called 'digital age' is an invalid argument. 'Ages' are ephemeral, another one will replace the current one and the Google machines will eventually replaced by something else. On the other hand, Art is an expression of the human spirit, it will outlast the 'ages'. Copyright recognises that and seeks to protect it for the benefit of the creator for a limited period. Copyright is in fact a universal benefit for mankind, a human right to be enjoyed by all and serves all ages. The digital age needs to adapt to the human rights' requirements of copyright, not vice versa.

[Ryan] In the EU at least there is a much more sensible discussion than the one we see in the United States where we've got this fuss over the on-line piracy act which would give the government the power to take down the internet to stop illicit copying of material.

[comment] Really Ryan! Now we know where the pirates and sundry other 'free culture' people get their foolish myths from. We assume that Ryan has never read the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) otherwise he would not have made such a ridiculous statement. The BBC presenter made no attempt in the interests of balance to challenge this untrue statement, preferring the role of a sycophant instead. It is likely he is equally mis-informed.

[Ryan] So it is refreshing to have this degree of discussion with this degree of technical sophistication at such a senior level.

[comment] The 'sophistication' seems not to have made it as far as this interview.

[Gareth] For instance, you are looking at tracking technologies, novel ways for artists to gauge where their material is popping up online.

[comment] Translation; artists can use Google to find out where their work is being pirated or infringed.

[Ryan] We are all for a system that has more transparency and we are all making sure that we use the new opportunities like the cloud to achieve the potential of our artists. We have somehow ended up in a system where it can be the lawyers or other intermediaries that become the main players in these debates rather than the artists themselves. If you think about it the cloud totally changes how we buy, how we receive and consume music and TV.

[comment] As things stand, without protective legislation and lawyers the cloud just represents another opportunity for pirates and other ne'er do wells to rip off artists. This is just more Big Tech speak; it offers no solutions to nor addresses artists' concerns.

[Ryan] It's not the role of the law to make it harder, whether its your startup, such as Spotify or Youtube, they shouldn't be stopped from getting the licenses they need.

[comment] Such a statement again completely misleads the BBC Click audience; it is completely wrong. If Spotify or YouTube or any other entity wants a license simply approach the artist and negotiate the license needed. It is the artists decision to grant a license, not the law. The law is there to stop a work being used when no license has been granted by the artist, and this is right and proper.

It's not the job of the law to make thing harder we would agree. However, it is the job of the law to ensure justice is carried out for the public good. Google and other members of the 'BigTech gang' apppear not to be in favour of justice regarding intellectual property issues, the public good that derives from respecting copyright law, and the need to give artists an economic level playing field. BigTech is the new God. 

[Gareth] The solution might be better tracking.

[comment] With these final few meaningless words Gareth winds up the interview and solves all the problems of copyright. We will soon see 'free culture' people throughout the land espousing the 'pearls of wisdom' heard on this unfairly presented and under-researched program.

Complain to the BBC

It's over to you now. You've read the above, send your complaints to the BBC about this program, ask for a right of reply, an on air interview, and for the BBC to devote an entire Click program to artists, their use of technology and the way technology works to undermine artists' rights. Spread the news amongst your friends, encourage them to complain too.

You can also complain to Ofcom about the one-sided nature of this program.

You might want to note that the BBC know all about copyright, their business model needs it, and BBC Worldwide wouldn't exist without it. You could get the impression from this program that the BBC are shitting in their own nest, except the Click audience won't realise that, will they?