Does copyright have a future, should it be reformed, or should this type of intellectual property protection be discarded for ever? Is there a conflict between modern practices (e.g. internet file sharing and the ease of “copy and paste”) and ageing copyright legislation, which is struggling to keep-up with an ever-evolving digital world? Last month, Gareth Holliday and other delegates from Brookes Batchellor, UK Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys, attended a debate entitled The Copyright Debate – “Do we come to bury copyright – or to praise it?”, organised by the 1709 Copyright Blog and the IPKat and attended by over 200 people from an assortment of related professions.

Arguing against copyright were Crosbie Fitch and David Allen Green. Crosbie is an R&D software engineer who has been researching and developing alternative revenue mechanisms for digital artists and their audiences, and David is head of media at Preiskel & Co LLP, legal correspondent of the New Statesman and writes the “Jack of Kent” blog.

Arguing in favour of copyright were Emily Goodhand and Richard Mollet. Emily is Copyright and Compliance Officer at the University of Reading and writes the copyright4education weblog, and Richard has been Chief Executive of The Publishers Association since October 2010.

In the chair was Mr Justice Arnold.

A quick poll was taken before the debate to estimate how the floor felt, and it seemed that whilst the majority of those in attendance were happy to “praise copyright”, a good percentage were undecided.

Emily spoke first, and whilst she reminded us that we had a choice to make between praising copyright and burying it (“There is no middle ground: it’s thumbs-up or thumbs-down”), she was quick to point out that she did not claim copyright was perfect, but abolishing copyright was not the solution (how can we reform something which is dead?), and instead we should embrace copyright, albeit in an amended/updated form.

A world without any copyright was argued to be a world without any protection at all and simply burying copyright without a viable alternative would lead to chaos. Emily concluded her speech by admitting that current copyright legislation wasn’t perfect, but there was the opportunity to mend it, instead of just giving up completely without a better option.

Speaking next was David. He distanced himself from wishing to bury copyright outright, but instead took to the podium to highlight the shortcomings of the present system. Questions such as “Why should copyright extend 70 years beyond the life of the author?” and “Why should it be illegal to parody something?” were raised to display the unsuitable nature of the present system. In conclusion, he reiterated that he did not wish to bury copyright, but did not care very much for it either in its present form.

Richard argued that the present system could (and should) be fixed. Even if it couldn’t be mended, without a viable alternative, a world with copyright was better than a world without. Echoing Emily’s sentiment, Richard ended by suggesting that unless we can replace copyright with something that brings the same benefits, it would be foolish to bury it.

Finally, Crosbie took to the stand. Instead of wishing to bury copyright, he explained why he thought it was already on its way out of its own accord in light of modern practices, “Copyright is a dead parrot. You can nail it to a perch and keep on praising it, but it has ceased to be”.

Crosbie declared copyright to be a privilege to the few, not a right of the many, and therefore unethical. Copyright did not allow you the freedom to do something, but instead is a limit to what you are allowed to do. Prior practices used to control copyrighted material no longer work in the modern arena, and they are incapable of performing the job they were originally designed for. Since everyone has the ability to “publish” in the digital age, existing copyright laws and practices are not up to the job.

Crosbie was the only participant to volunteer an alternative to copyright, whereby artists are paid (in advance) by their fans in return for creating artworks. Whilst this may seem initially a backwards way of doing things, it cuts out the “middle man” and ensures that more of the artist’s earning make their way back to them.

Mr Fitch’s arguments were perhaps the most controversial of the evening, and received the most interrogation from the audience. After the debate we took the chance to speak further with him about his views. Despite how the floor may have chosen to interpret his arguments during the debate, Crosbie is against the idea of copyright itself, not against remuneration for the artist. It is the state-controlled monopoly (encompassing all IP) that he is primarily objecting to, and unfortunately I think his argument was lost in his strict 10 minute window to the floor. He suggests the present system, where people are not allowed to copy, is replaced with one where you are free to copy material once it is released, since the artist has already been remunerated by his fans.

After questions from the floor had been answered, another poll was taken, and a number of those who had previously sat in the middle were now prepared to praise copyright, and so swung the debate to “praising copyright”.

Perhaps given the only options available to vote on were to praise the existing copyright legislation, or to bury it completely, many people were hesitant to vote to bury copyright altogether, and felt more comfortable sticking with the existing, far-from-perfect system. Better the devil you know, than the devil you don’t.

The arguments “for” copyright were easier to come by, since it was easy to label those who opposed copyright as those who wanted something for nothing, and didn’t care for the author’s rights to be rewarded for their work. However this is a gross simplification of the problem. David and Crosbie had a far harder fight on their hands, and whilst many didn’t agree with them on the night, it must be appreciated that they are arguing for a far more subtle and complex solution than simply abolishing copyright without something else in its place to protect the interests of artists and authors alike.

Ultimately, there appeared a general consensus that whether you are in favour of copyright, or against it, the current law needs radical change, so perhaps the conclusion from the vote, that the house came to praise copyright would not be a strictly true reflection of the opinion of those present.