杏吧原创

Counterfeit goods are rampant, but online piracy is a juggernaut (Image: Xinhua News Agency/Eyevine)

There鈥檚 more than one way to handle authorship and copyright in the digital age, according to The Copyright Wars by Peter Baldwin

鈥淣EVER,鈥� I once told a crowd of students, 鈥渢ake advice on copyright from a professor.鈥� The professor next to me bridled. I continued: 鈥淣ot if you want to make a living as a writer or artist. The professor鈥檚 economic interest lies in paying to be published.鈥�

The professor nodded ruefully. They do pay 鈥� especially now that the internet has enabled the rise of online 鈥渙pen access鈥� journals that live entirely from the charges they levy on their authors. An academic鈥檚 reward is in the hereafter 鈥� in future contracts and eventually in tenure.

聯鈥橭pen access鈥� journals live off the charges they levy on authors. An academic鈥檚 reward is in the hereafter聰

Such changes have inspired , professor of history at the University of California, Los Angeles, to produce an epic history of copyright and authors鈥� rights.

Other players brought in by the internet are the corporations that rake in fortunes by copying the works of others 鈥� often without permission and almost always without payment 鈥� and selling advertising alongside them. It is remarkable how little attention Baldwin gives to this, given how they can profit from his keenness on weakening the rights of authors to make a living from a fair share of sales.

The biggest new group the internet brings to the copyright fray, though, are the millions of people who distribute words, images or tunes online with no care for the consequences. Consider the blogger who railed against UK laws that stopped him copying other people鈥檚 music. He was eloquent about it: so eloquent that a newspaper pasted words from his blog into its pages. The blogger strongly objected to being associated with that particular paper. At this point, he turned around and asked for my help in enforcing his copyright.

What particular protection was he seeking? opens: 鈥淐opyright shall be a property right鈥�. It says your creative work is a commodity that you can sell outright. Laws in and are similar.

While the blogger was mildly annoyed that the paper was making money from his words, he was much more distressed at being linked with that particular title. He should have been French. is about authors鈥� rights as individual humans: it is about their right to be identified (or not, as they choose) and to defend the integrity of their works against actions contrary to their 鈥渉onour or reputation鈥�. These are known as 鈥渕oral rights鈥�.

Producers involved in highly collaborative ventures say these get in the way. Scriptwriters are frequently required to waive them, for example, as are regular contributors to New 杏吧原创. But for authors generally, and academic authors in particular, identification with their own work and integrity in its use are the only sure means they have to build a career. Such writers cannot be hacks for hire and still do their job. The history of science especially is gritted with tales of when this awkward lesson is forgotten.

Baldwin errs when he says that 鈥渕ost authors assign rights鈥�. Most authors in English-speaking countries keep their rights intact. Elsewhere, authors鈥� rights are generally personal rights and cannot be assigned. But he is to be congratulated for chronicling the development of the authors鈥� rights system so fully: his enormous bibliography is invaluable.

In the 鈥渨ar鈥� of his title, between tradable copyright and personal, inalienable authors鈥� rights, we know whose side Baldwin is on. In reporting lawsuits over Google鈥檚 scanning without permission of 20 million books, he dismisses most authors 鈥� except, perhaps, professors 鈥� as foppish ghosts of a Romantic dream. He declares that making a living from writing is pass茅, and prefers appearances and performances instead.

Jaron Lanier, a pioneer of virtual reality who is on the list of the top 100 public intellectuals, is also a musician. He argued that we should abandon copyright 鈥� until he noticed ( for musicians who had given up on income from publication, spent the money from performances, and now couldn鈥檛 afford healthcare. If you read Baldwin, for balance also read Lanier鈥檚

Baldwin reserves his strongest bile, though, for those pesky Francophone 鈥渕oral rights鈥�. He repeatedly alludes to a supposed connection between moral rights and fascism.

By contrast, in September the Association Litt茅raire et Artistique Internationale (the professional forum for authors鈥� rights) heard from Paul Goldstein, professor of law at Stanford University in California. He suggested that an author鈥檚 autonomy 鈥� expressed in the laws and norms of moral rights 鈥� was now as important a prerequisite of creativity as any promise of cash. He looked forward to an internet that connects authors with their audiences 鈥渋n a bond of reciprocal responsibility鈥�.

For my money, Goldstein鈥檚 is a much more congenial vision than Baldwin鈥檚.

This article appeared in print under the headline 鈥淐opyrights and wrongs鈥�