I got very weary of trying to explain the same points about copyright over and over to people on Twitter and Facebook. If you want to follow the debate, I've posted updates on my previous blog post here. If you want to know more from me, go there and leave a comment (or here); I'm not going to tweet endlessly about it.
Here are five reasons why I'm glad we're having this discussion about copyright:
1. Copyright is IMPORTANT. It's been a reminder to all parties not to mess with copyright unless thinking VERY hard about it and consulting freelance creative people whom the policy change would deeply affect.
2. Many people are clueless about copyright. It's shown that there are a lot of people out there who have no idea what copyright really means, but still want to see it severely curtailed.
3. Copyright is a subject worth investigating. It's made us see that we can't take copyright for granted, and we need to educate people about how it protects individual artists. (It's not just a truncheon for big corporations, as some assume.) It's made us think about the current state of copyright (Lifetime + 70 years) and wonder if it needs review or is right for now, taking into consideration existing EU policy.
4. We have to go by what's written. Intention doesn't mean much unless written words back it up. It's not just the Green Party policy website, the same goes for business conducted by creative people. If terms aren't correctly written into our contract and we have no copyright to protect us as creatives, the stronger and richer party gets to decide who's right.
5. We have help. It's highlighted the importance of the Society of Authors, an affordable source of help with legal explanations. The SoA is the closest thing writers, illustrators and translators have to a union for defending our rights and pointing us in the right directions so we can educate ourselves.
Here's the Society of Author's recent statement on copyright:
The discussion has thrown up two good pieces of online writing about the subject, including these two articles. Read five myths about copyright by writer John Degen:
And check out this defense of copyright by writer Joanne Harris:
What the copyright discussion taught us about the politics and the Green Party:
The Green Party handled this quite clumsily at first. Some representatives were pretending the policy website didn't say what it said about their stance toward an intended duration copyright 'with a usual maximum of 14 years'. Some said that it meant '14 years after death', and some insisted that it DID mean 14 years in total, as written. There was confusion. What we've learned from this:
1. Writing matters. If you write something on your policy website, that's what people are going to read and they will think that is what you mean. Your intention means nothing if you can't write clearly.
2. Learn how to write if you want to make big changes to society. People who deal in policy creation need to have good writing skills, and people to copy-edit what they've written before it goes public (particularly just before an election). Being 'grass roots' is no excuse for sloppiness in thinking or in writing.
3. Twitter is a powerful way to bring up an issue very quickly. All I did was highlight an existing piece of public policy and because the policy itself was so shocking to people in creative professions, the word spread like fire. (A lot of creative people spend a lot of time on Twitter.)
4. The Green Party lets all its members vote to decide policy. The Green Party can't make quick decisions or fix wording on its website without members voting to change it.
I think the Green Party should have highlighted this fourth fact right away, to show off its democratic decision-making process. Pretending the website wording didn't mean what it said was off-putting to people trying to understand the party's stance. Party Leader Natalie Bennett kept trying to smooth over this by retweeting an article that said the website didn't mean what it said. But Brighton MP Caroline Lucas realised within a few days that this wasn't enough, admitted the party got it wrong, and highlighted the need for consultation with creatives about copyright. I still think she shouldn't pretend the party meant '14 years after death', because that's not what the policy said, but if she wants to state this as a face-saving measure, I suppose that's politics, and people who want to vote Green can show up to discuss the subject with her. Read more on the Green Party website here.
And finally, how do we vote? ...I still have NO IDEA. Argh. But I will vote. Personally, I'm not convinced about protest votes. I don't want to see UKIP get power and I believe in voting for the party I think will do the best job. (Saying 'don't worry about Green policy and vote for them because they won't get in anyway' sounds lame. It's like I handed you my book and said 'don't bother reading it, it's rubbish'.)
But some creatives who were worried about copyright policy are reassured and deciding to go ahead and vote Green, to give a stronger voice to environmental concerns. You can read writer Jonathan Emmett's argument for voting Green:
And now I need to get back to work.
