Let's take the example of Britney Spears. Her music is far from being the culmination of work from a singular author. The rough breakdown of the production process is as follows: First her producer, Max Martin, writes or licenses a work from another song writer for Britney to sing. Martin then brings her into the studio and, together with the sound engineer(s), records her voice singing this song. After this stage is completed, both the producer and engineer, take her voice and manipulate the sound, usually to the extent that the actual band will not be able to replicate it live. The question then remains who is the person to which we can attribute the natural title of author? Who deserves the credit for the finished work we consume.

It is my feeling that the fundamental problem with the underlying assumptions of singularity in copyright is that it seems to miss the mark by overlooking the role of 'external' contributors in the production process. The notion of individuality and originality of authorship establishes a single route towards ownership and the propertization of creative achievement. The current notion of authorship elevates an idea of genius in originality which necessitates isolation in the inspiration and production process.

The difficulty in enabling this one-dimensional approach to understanding authorship is that in many cases the creative process involves more than just the creator working in the solitary confines of her private quarters. By encasing a notion of creative expression in the language of personal property, both the law and the courts fail to account for other sources of inspiration and contribution that might have been instrumental to the materialization of creative work like the one we looked at above. In the majority of cases, the creative process is a far more textured and nuanced than the simplistic idea of one individual creating in a vacuum. At the heart of the notion of authorship lies an ongoing and arguably inherent contradiction engendered by the initiation of copyright law and its subsequent implementation.

But how could the laws possibly reflect this more nuanced, more textured articulation of the creative process? The change, if any, must be driven by a shift in focus of the law itself. Instead of trying to confine the protection of creative works to a narrow and strict definition of what creation is, we must leave enough room within the laws for a more malleable and more adaptive treatment of the current context of creative expression and distribution. As we saw in the Britney Spears example, a modern understanding of copyright involves a realization that creative works are inter-textual and often involve multiple creators. New legislative efforts could begin responding to this by weakening the test for proving joint or multiple authorship and thereby making it less difficult for rightful stakeholders to claim recognition in a work.

This is but one suggestion. However, whereas the direction of future copyright law remains unclear, what is unequivocal is the fact that the philosophical premises on which current copyright laws are based need adjustment -- we can not assume a singular author as a starting point for attribution of title.

The post What is in a Title? appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Virtual Revolution -Users Creating the World they Want
   For many, the internet promises freedom from the many delays and
limitations of the physical world.  This feeling has become so pervasive,
that virtual world access has graduated from an expectation to an
entitlement. This is why most of the other micropayment schemes did not
work - they violated this expectation of free access. For today's
cyber-surfer, most of the information that is accessed, downloaded,
burned, and/or exchanged comes free. To date, the biggest competitors for
iTunes have been web-based servers like Napster, Limewire and BitTorrents
which have allowed users to confer the unfettered benefits of digital
music files without any reciprocal duty of payment to their providers.¦lt;br />    Recent legal efforts have been made to curb this trend. Most notably, in
2001 an injunction was issued against Napster preventing the trading of
copyrighted music on its network.  In a settlement, Napster agreed to shut
its service down and payout copyright owners for prior unauthorized uses
of music, as well as an advance against future licensing royalties. But
even these efforts have not quelled the phenomenon of free file sharing.
New programs and networks have picked up where Napster left off, rendering
the for-profit services inexorably doomed.
   The decentralized nature of the internet has created a way for
individuals to transcend the moral and legal boundaries that define the
real and tangible world.  In doing so, it has effectively changed our
moral and ethical perspectives on authorship and ownership.  The ease with
which material is used, distributed and exchanged online abrades the
conceptual boundaries of intellectual property and blurs the moral
imperatives of compensation for use.  Why would one pay for information
that could be obtained for free?  Once it's on the web, whose 'property'
is it anyways?
   In normal copyright, the ability to use and manipulate another person's
work requires that the author consent and receive subsequent compensation
for use.  More specifically, the author is viewed as a natural rights
holder, entitled to the fruits of her production.  It is believed that
without this form of protection people would be less inclined to produce
and share their intellectual works.  Thus, legal protection of
intellectual goods is a precondition for production and distribution of
all creative expression. ¦lt;br />    However, given the current trends of burden-free access, it is becoming
flagrantly clear that the normal pecuniary interests of copyright holders
are too difficult to pursue online. User's expectations have
systematically mutated legal conceptions of property to the point where
one not only expects to access digital information for free, but feels she
deserves it.  It's a powerful force to contend with, and I honestly
believe that the user is the only one who is going come out a winner.

The post The Sound of Music - and Money: Getting What You Pay For….Online appeared first on IPOsgoode.