Copyright: a relic of the analog era in a digital age

In an era like ours, where a significant portion of human works is digitally accessible, copyright becomes a limiting tool, as it does not adapt to today’s needs: the speed at which information is shared and disseminated, combined with the ease of access and replication, calls into question traditional concepts of intellectual property.

Copyright, nowadays, is not fair. It restricts the sharing of knowledge and cultures, creating a genuine obstacle for those who, for economic or political reasons, cannot access such content. Originally intended to protect authors, it actually crystallizes works and ideas, thus denying many the opportunity to enjoy and contribute to a shared cultural heritage, especially today, when digital copies of an intellectual good do not incur an economic loss related to physical production.

Reflecting on the digital realm, does it make sense to limit the dissemination of a work? While a printed book requires physical resources and a tangible production cost, its digital counterpart has virtually no distribution costs. Failing to understand the value of free circulation of knowledge, at least in my opinion, is not only illogical but represents a way to deny information to those who cannot access it through traditional means due to associated costs or political reasons, such as censorship.

Furthermore, history is marked by works that have been lost due to the scarcity of physical copies. This situation is not only unjust but undermines the common good and the future of our culture; this is why projects like the Internet Archive, aimed at preserving and digitally distributing all types of human products, are more than justified.

For example, what harm could there be in making an out-of-print film accessible years after its production, or after it has earned enough to cover production costs? The author, unable to earn from works that are out of circulation, does not suffer an economic loss; indeed, the resurgence of their works, once rediscovered, could bring them to new life even years after their publication.

Fortunately, there are alternatives to traditional copyright (such as Creative Commons licenses) that allow redistribution while still protecting the author, recognizing their authorship. States should stop favoring the interests of large lobbies and begin to serve those of ordinary people. The true role of a state should be to represent and protect the community, not the ambitions of those seeking profit.

Copyright or not, the internet always finds a way to circumvent such rules and distribute (illegally) such content, even without the author’s consent. If this happens so freely and is something unstoppable, what sense does it make to adopt such measures if the content is destined to be freely distributed? I believe it is important to consider this aspect once a work is created, as, despite regulations, the internet has a nature that predisposes it to an almost “anarchic” sharing of content, which does not fit with traditional copyright: if someone wants to illegally download (or distribute) a work, they will do so comfortably evading the law.

Having said that, I believe it is important to use more permissive licenses that simultaneously ensure the authorship of works, as today’s reality requires a balance between protecting the rights of authors and the need for free and universal access to culture and knowledge.

• Copyright
• Freedom
• Culture
• Sharing