Clarion Communications

The copyright in music debate creates an opportunity to re-think the purpose of copyright and similar laws, such as patent protection. Neither copyright nor patents had an illustrious beginning. Used by the powers in authority as an attempt to either limit free speech or raise money, the laws had a purpose to protect the position of those in authority. In other words, they were used to protect a monopoly.

More recently laws such as copyright, patents and trademarks are used to create monopolies not of political power but of economic power. Music writers sell their compositions to music publishers who invest
the time and money in print and marketing to create sales. The publishers and shareholders want a return on their investment. They are clearly not happy if someone gets access to the same product without paying for it. Book writers do the same.

So do hamburger makers. So if I want to buy a McDonald’s hamburger, I have no choice but to go to the licensed McDonalds monopoly somewhere and buy. As much as this might be an inconvenience, I cannot go to the Burger King outlet and buy a McDonald’s hamburger, just as I cannot buy Taco Bell at McDonald’s. They each protect their property by insisting only approved sales outlets can sell their food, for which the parent company receives a percentage of the sale. This is just as much a monopoly as is the publishing of songs, so the attack on the publishing industry for protecting its monopoly could be construed at the same time as an attack on all forms of endeavor to protect the fruit of one’s labor and capitalize on it by creating a monopoly selling outlet.

People want to get paid for their work. This is a natural desire, for to get rewarded is the means to buy other goods and services. Without such reward, composers, authors, inventors will need to create other sources of income, and when they do this they are not free to compose, write, or invent. There are a myriad of examples of how people protect their intellectual property. Publishers of electronic books may reserve the right to exclusive publication of paper editions. They want to keep this monopoly to themselves for whatever reason. Some music artists want to be able to sell their recordings exclusively through a monopoly selling channel. We can choose to participate or not participate under the artist’s terms. The current practice of taking the artist’s music, now matter what terms he dictates does not appear a good way of creating neighborly relations, or living out the idea that we should somehow love our neighbor as ourselves.

Thus, the debate over copyright has a much broader implication than just copying music. And the issue in music is not just over new technology. Deep down, it is the desire of many people who expect others in the world owe them a living. They just don’t want music via the internet. They want free music, no matter how it is delivered. If they could pick up a free CD in the store, this would suit just as well as downloading a file for free. They don’t care about the costs of creating the records, the hours of studio time to get the tracks completed and the editing to patch together several takes to create the “perfect” performance. All they want is free music, which is music at someone else’s expense

It is this desire for goods at someone else’s expense that is at the heart of the music copyright debate. Well might we complain about the price, but as economists love to tell us, the buying market, not the sellers, sets the price. So it seems that those who buy are willing to pay current prices, but the free loaders object to this. They would, as e-mails to me have confirmed, object to any price because at the end of the day they don’t want to pay anything for their music.

It is fortunate that there are enough willing buyers to keep the sellers in business, for without them our recording, publishing and inventive industries would be starved for new ideas and an unwillingness to invest in something that could be taken away from them so easily. And our lives would be poorer for it.