Anthony Towns give a good rundown about how there’s no evidence to support the claim that “pirate” DVDs support terrorist organizations. It should be noted that this is a highly tangential topic to what Anthony was writing about – he just got me started on this so linking to his entry serves as a means to let you catch up with my thought process while giving the added benefit of linking to a highly informative piece. I do feel somewhat compelled to point out that regardless of whether or not pirated DVDs support terrorists or not, the large scale for-profit infringement of copyright is highly unethical. Don’t take that to mean that I think it’s unethical to make a copy of your favorite CD so you can play it in the car, or put a copy on your iPod or even making a copy for a friend. In fact I’d go so far as saying that downloading a copy of your favorite song so you don’t have to pay for it is not necessarily unethical (questionable but not clearly unethical). However, when you start to make money off of copyright infringement I believe you’ve taken it too far. Artists do have a right to compensation, it’s all well and good to say that they still have their copy so they’ve lost nothing, but it is important that people can make a living out of creative works. Selling illegal copies of an artists work really rubs me the wrong way. Now, on the other hand if these “pirates” had taken an existing work and given it a swashbuckling sea shanty feel then rereleased it for profit then I’d put the actions back into the questionable area (and in fact I’d lean towards saying that it’s a good thing). Extremes are generally not good for society. So it’s not good that the MPAA, RIAA (and other similar organizations) want to completely eliminate fair use, nor that they want to lock up creative works under copyright law forever. Similarly, it’s not good to simply throw out all the copyright laws and leave artists with no way to recoup costs of creation or make a living out of their works. The trouble is finding where to draw the line. One of the things I find so frustrating about the current copyright laws is that it’s practically impossible to build on to existing works to create something better. This is essentially the case of our pirates providing a swashbuckling version of the latest hit that I mentioned earlier. I firmly believe that it is in societies interest to have a very active creative culture and I believe that building onto existing work is an important part of that culture of creativity. There are two main benefits provided by allowing people to build on top of other people’s work easily. Firstly, it provides a simple and effective way for new creators to get started. Thinking up a good, original idea for a song, screen play, musical, whatever is really hard and doesn’t happen often. Thinking up an interesting new viewpoint on an existing work however is fairly simple. This provides a simple starting point for people to get into creating and develop the skills required to execute a creative project without running into the roadblock of the original idea. More importantly however, building on top of additional works can improve on the original work either by being better written/performed, by taking a more interesting view point or simply by updating it for modern times. Romeo and Juliet is a classic love story, the essence of which can be enjoyed by people old and young alike. However, culture has moved on from Shakespearean times and while some may find that disappointing, it would sadden me to think that the pinnacle of writing was in the past. More importantly, it would be sad to lose the classic story line in Romeo and Juliet just because the writing style is outdated and doesn’t appeal to today’s audience as much. Fortunately, because the copyright has expired, people can build on Shakespeare’s work to produce updated versions like the sensational West Side Story and the movie of the same title which brought these works to a whole new audience to be appreciated in whole new ways. Having said that, I would be really annoyed if someone took my work, made only very minor changes and published it as their own. I would be thrilled if they added substantially to it and gave credit (even if they made a lot of money off of it and didn’t pay any royalties to me). I’d probably be annoyed if they made substantial changes but didn’t credit me with at least giving them some inspiration. So there is a fine balance here and a set of ethical behaviors need to evolve and be recognized. Such a set of behaviors is already in place when it comes to quoting research however those behaviors don’t directly apply to other mediums and other types of creative work so new sets of ethical standards need to be created and where (and only where) required backed up by law. The end aim, at least in my opinion, must be to improve the availability and quality of creative works within our culture and not to build or support an industry around creative works. Those two aims however are not entirely at odds with each other, in fact it is essential to have some kind of industry built around creative works to provide the monetary backing required to actually fund creative projects as well as to allow creators to pay their living expenses while devoting their full time effort to creative works. Where the right balance is and how you find it, I don’t know. I do know however that it isn’t what we’ve currently got and it doesn’t seem to be in the direction we’re heading.