5 Seriously Dumb Assertions About Copyright that John Degen thinks aren't dumb

Is this him? I think it's him.

One year ago, John Degen wrote an article on myths about copyright that media should stop repeating. When I read the headline I expected... something different.  Certainly not the most asinine, badly cobbled together, reductionist article about copyright I'd ever read, Now It's 9 in the morning, and I haven't had my breakfast, so if this article comes off as angry, it's because I am.

But before I get into dismantling this piece, I want to clarify that I am not an anti copyright person. I love copyright. Some of my best friends are copyrighted. But Copyright is all kinds of screwed up, and in dire need of reform. But anyway, tell me, Mr Degen, what are these myths you are talking about?

Myth #5. Artists Feel Restricted by Copyright

Artists don't feel restricted by copyright? Oh, ok.

You know that originally, George Lucas' plan before Star Wars was to make a new version of Flash Gordon, right? That was his idea. Instead, because of rights issues (which are going on to today, apparently, almost 40 years later), George Lucas instead did an original story only mostly ripping a lot of elements from Flash Gordon serials.

Now, you may point and say that that's a good thing, because we like Star Wars as it is. But imagine 10000s of George Lucases who saw a material decades their elder, realized that it was not available, and instead of making  a Star Wars, they made a nothing.

Even worst, when you consider that the artist today is also a fan. With the tools available to them the fan wants to make an X-Men fan series, a My Little Pony fighting game, and a remake of Streets of Rage made from scratch. It takes no business  away from Marvel, Hasbro, and Sega that these works exist. But still, in comes copyright law. Fuck you, George Lucas. You have to wait until the 2070's to be able to touch that Sega Game.


Myth #4. Copyright Harms the Public Domain

Myth #4. Night Harms Day.

Are you frickin' kidding me with that logic? Of course things being copyrighted keeps them out of the public domain!

But with that aside, what these half baked paragraphs gloss over is that our unreasonable copyright laws, it's created a dearth of new public domain works. Public Domain used to be like stuff your father had as a kid. Now it's  stuff from 100 years ago. To put it into perspective, when stuff does begin entering the public domain at all in 2019, it's gonna start with silent era movies and stuff like that. SILENT ERA. FROM ALMOST A CENTURY AGO!

"Secondly, can we please stop conflating copyright with a lack of access?"

You say. Books and film reels are finite. They can deteriorate over time, and carelessness. To people trying to preserve these works by duplicating them it's a pain to know they have to let it rot, lest the great grandson of the guy who  bought the rights to the film sue them because how dare you sir! I may not have even touched the property in 2 generations, but how dare you?

Myth #3. Copyright is an Attack on Artistic Freedom

It is. But it always wasn't.

You see, earlier iterations of Copyright law were merely about wholesale duplications of a work. For example, whole sale duplication of Huck and Finn? Illegal.  My own fan book where Huck is a pregnant naga and Finn a yiffy wolf? Acceptable. Because the heart of the law was that the duplication would undercut sales of the original, and thus the original author would thus have no reason to make MORE books. But we want more books, so we'll prevent that from happening.

But copyright grew in length and scope and with. Now it includes that you can't make a documentary about the song Happy Birthday because that song is copyrighted(that it isn't is a different issue.)

Now, you want to make your own Flash Gordon, even after it's public domain, and some guys take you to court before you even start filming.

And most heinously of all, the lenght of copyright was extended  for 40 years. Now, remember that I told you that copyright was supposed to incentivize the creation of works, right? So how does extending the copyright on a work do that? Bob Kane and Bill Finger created Batman for what is now DC in the 1940's. They did it to get payed THEN. When they heard the copyright (That wasn't their to begin with) on that was extended on the 70's, do you think they were incentivized to make even more stuff? "Well, old chum, I guess now that that copyright is longer on our old works is larger, we should really  get to work on doing more stuff".

So for no reason and against the heart of the law and the orders of the constitution, I can't  make my own Batman v Superman this year, when both characters would have been public domain  in the mid fuckin' 90's according to the law of their time.


Myth #2. Copyright Costs Consumers
Copyright costs consumers because copyright is a monopoly.

Monopolies generate hiked up prices due to lack of competition. Now, again, that's not all bad as long as Copyright is also doing the other stuff it's supposed to be doing. But how much is too much? Does the economy really need for the company that bought the company that had the rights to a film or book or song from the 40's, sell it  at for a 1341234020982058% profit margin? Or does the whole thing fall around our ears if they have to compete with other people also offering that same old timey ware?

Because a study found most works make most of their profit in the first 5 years. In fact, Congresses own study on copyright recommended that long long copyright isn't as helpful as "we think".

Myth #1. Copyright only helps Corporations
This isn't even a myth. It's real life. Even YOU admit it.

"Say what you want about large media corps, publishers, music and film companies, etc. — they’ve made way, way more of a tangible contribution to the livelihoods of the working artists I know than Google ever intends to."

The music industry is HORRIBLE with artists. Absolutely horrible. They sell a CD and pay the artist 1 cent. They sell a digital MP3 and pay the artist 0 cents. They put the artist's song in an ad and give the artist nothing. But they own the copyright, though. THESE are the people who want copyright to last forever.

The movie industry is so fucking shady with it's finances, they don't even know if movies are making money or not. They won't pay David Prowse, the man inside Vader's suit, because apparently Return of The Jedi never made it's money back {:(... THESE are the people who want copyright to last forever. THESE are the people living off of the works of others.

They always raise "the starving artists out there" when their humongous profits are threatened. And now that a digital age is here, where they aren't the only game in town anymore, where they can't control production and distribution and marketing, and where it doesn't take thousands of dollars and blowing  the right people to get in the door, they are scared. And they will do whatever it takes to keep a semblance of control. And copyright is one of those things.

They take the copyright laws THEY lobbied for, and abuse them. They'll lobby for international treaties that make copyright even more ridiculous, and then raise their hands and say "don't look at me, I didn't do it."


Copyright is like a penis. You've been led to think the longer it is, the better everything will be. And up to a certain point, longer is better than shorter. But there is a point where it's really not benefiting you anymore. What the Degens of the world haven't realized is that we're struggling to fit a 3 meter monster dong in this digital age's trowsers, when a reasonably sized one will not only do the job, but do it better. "Big ship, sailing be damned" is the saying in my country.

I can see were you're coming from: sometimes  when you see how people react to copyright, it can be a bit unsettling. But don't worry about copyright. It's already got entire transnational treaties enforcing it's ridiculous lenght. So no, it doesn't need you do defend it from the " ivory-tower legal-theory departments and digital-utopian advocacy group" meanies.

 See you in 95 years, hopefully.