Essay Students are required to write and submit a 2500 word essay responding to ONE of the following: - Copyright has been called "an engine of free expression". How accurate is this statement? - One...

1

Copyright is famously defined by the Supreme Court of the United States to be the
engine of free expression. Such definition is formulated by the Supreme Court as, according to it,
copyright provides a significant economic encouragement in the realm of literature, commentary,
art, music, and myriads other forms of artworks. And all these forms of art make up our public
discourse. But is it really justified to consider copyright to be the engine of free expression? The
answer to this question, for me, is not affirmative. Today’s copyright law is a contrary to the
expression which is given by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Copyright law of this present time are often employed to invalidate information in the
sphere of news reporting, political remarks, historical erudition, church dispute, cultural
evaluation, artistic expressions etc. There is an existing tension between the copyright law and
the concept of freedom of speech and there are examples of several incidents which can indicate
to the fact that copyright can impose redundant saddles on free expression. It has often been
noticed that there is a tendency of the law of copyright to prevent the speakers form effectively
conveying their messages. And such proneness can be noticed in the field of traditional and
digital media of this present day world. The remix and copying culture which is unbridled in the
domain of social networks and popular media websites can add fuel to the fire of myriads of
controversies in respect of copyright.
The copyright holders’ proprietary control is expanding in a speedy manner
encompassing their control against individual’s knacks in digitally cutting, pasting, editing,
remixing, and distributing graphics, sound recordings, etc across the globe. The legitimacy of
copyright in respect of hindering the newly developed human faculties and unique human
capabilities can surely be a matter of debate. The vitality of copyright as a vehicle of free
expression can surely be questioned in the light of the developments of digital technologies and
2

abilities of individuals to apply such technologies in catering the artistic needs of mankind.
Copyright cannot be termed as the sole driver of expression and to support this view one can
point out towards the internet which is a proof that there are innumerable number of individuals
around the world who create valuable contents without having any intention to enforce any kind
of copyright and most of these contents are created to serve the sole purpose of helping others in
need. These contents are developed in such a way that anybody can access them and can use
them for their needs. Such proofs can indicate the fact that copyright is such a process which can
hamper the humanitarian aspects of education or knowledge catering. To convey our own ideas
effectively others’ words, images, or music are often being copied or build upon but this process
can be hindered if permission to such processes is held back by a copyright which can then insist
upon a license fee to get access to such processes and many of the times the license fees can
surpass our financial limits. It has been justifiably pointed out that “copyright does not extend
merely to literal copying”, and “can also prevent parodying, remolding, critically dissecting, or
incorporating portions of existing expression into a new, independently created work.” (Netanel,
2008)
As has been mentioned earlier that there are two contradictory views in respect of the
notion of the copyright being the engine of free expression. There is a strong view in favor of
terming the process of copyright to be really an engine of free expression and it suggests that the
freedom of the press and the concept of copyright should be seen as compatible to each other and
should not be considered as contradictory. According to this view, copyright promotes
knowledge and learning and it did free authors and creators of other artworks from the shackles
of patronage and has thereby, provided security to the legal rights of composers of unique
artworks which in lieu encouraged their devotion to create more and more inspiring artworks and
3

literary works. It has been also conveyed that copyright is an ideal process to promote the
progress of art and science. But the view lacks one vital point and the point is that, “copyright
protection is “unquestionably good” but that enforcement should focus on serious criminal
enterprises, not the music fan who burns a copy for a friend or the search engine that merely
offers the link to a bad place.” (Keller, 2012) Besides, the U.S Constitution’s Copyright Clause
can also become a source of contradiction and it is undoubtedly debatable. If according to the
Constitution the sole purpose of copyright is to promote learning and discourse then at some
point of time common public should have access to some important scientific or literary works in
order to copy, modify, and...