In the midst of our ongoing debates over file-sharing and the latest twisted headlines from the RIAA, the discourse seems to have slipped into whether artists need to be compensated for their work (which they should) and whether the poor suicidal copyright watchdogs have gone over the deep end in attacking their own consumers (which they have).  Yet it is important to remember that this is more than just an economic debate – this is part of an ongoing struggle to determine the appropriate line between comodification and our cultural evolution.

Let’s face it – to varying degrees, we all enjoy what Hollywood spews out no matter how trite and repetitive it can be.  Such endeavours require a substantial amount of capital and investors should be able to profit from their work if we expect them to continue being produced.  Much as in the publishing and music industries, copyright law has existed for the purpose of safeguarding this monetisation.  Yet it is important to remember that copyright is meant to be of a finite duration.  This allows artists to profit from their work while also ensuring that future generations are able to continue building on this work when it enters the public domain.  As James Boyle of The Public Domain notes:

Our markets, our democracy, our science, our traditions of free speech, and our art all depend more heavily on a Public Domain of freely available material than they do on the informational material that is covered by property rights. The Public Domain is not some gummy residue left behind when all the good stuff has been covered by property law. The Public Domain is the place we quarry the building blocks of our culture. It is, in fact, the majority of our culture.

Perpetual copyright effectively consolidates our cultural heritage into the hands of a few wealthy industrialists and restricts creative expression worldwide.  This trend must be stopped. 

You can read the full Manifesto here and please take the time to sign it.

Nice piece up from Cory Doctorow (of BoingBoing) on the perils of trying to suppress the internet as an alternate means of distribution:

So, how do you use copyright to ensure that the future is more competitive and thus more favorable to creators and copyright industries?

It's pretty easy, really: Use your copyrights to lower the cost of entering the market instead of raising it.

What if the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) had started out by offering MP3 licenses on fair terms to any wholesaler who wanted to open a retailer (online or offline), so that the cost of starting a Web music store was a known quantity, rather than a potentially limitless litigation quagmire?

What if the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the North American Broadcasters Association made their streams available to anyone who paid a portion of their advertising revenue (with a guaranteed minimum), allowing 10 million video-on-demand systems to spring up from every garage in the world?

What if the Authors Guild had offered to stop suing Google for notional copyright violations in exchange for