THE 2007 CROP-OVER
Every year the national festival commences in an atmosphere of controversy stemming mainly from the principle and format of likely rewards for artistes.
While some may argue that this annual impasse between the NCF and artistes should be determined long before the eve of the festival, it is not uncommon for negotiations to take place at times when optimum benefit can be obtained. NCF personnel do not have to lose any sleep if their performance falls below public expectations but the same cannot be said of artistes. If this cadre of persons are
to reap any financial rewards from their hard work, popular appeal for their productions must linger longer than a sno-cone in the Sahara desert.
It is therefore nothing short of blatant commercial piracy when the labour of artistes is exploited in CDs burnt by vendors who as "small men" posit that they too have the right to earn a living.
Creating intellectual property
The notion of rewarding innovators or creators for their ideas dates back to as early as 400 B.C. when individuals in various civilisations recognised the importance of protecting human thought, better described as intellectual property.
This philosophy of compensating ideas and initiatives has maintained its place throughout generations in one form or other. As a result,
the term "intellectual property" has come to be acknowledged as the reward for new ideas, technological inventions, artistic and literary
works as well as creative expressions.
The importance of providing some protection and reward for creativity and innovation is not to be taken lightly. In the World Bank's Intellectual Property Rights and Economic Development report makes the point that Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) convey to the owners of such intellectual property, the legally enforceable power to prevent others using an intellectual creation. These rights also lay down the terms and conditions on which such property may be used.
The underlying philosophy of intellectual property law is therefore to reward the originator of an invention – be it a book, song or clothing design – for his or her idea and effort. That way innovative and creative work is stimulated to the extent that there is the incentive of being rewarded for creativity.
Commercialising intellectual property
Those who own intellectual property generally seek to exploit their rights by converting them into commercial advantages. Not many of us will forget that Red Plastic Bag's Ragga Ragga was once the theme song of the Chicago Bulls, nor that the Mighty Gabby's Emmerton can still be heard in schools throughout London.
It is this potential for commercialising intellectual property that stimulates individual innovation and creativity which, in turn, can contribute to the enrichment of society through the economic advantages that accompany production and circulation of this intellectual property.
It is on this premise that some are blindly inclined to argue that although pirates may be depriving innovators of revenue, they play a significant role in maintaining a constant contact with the visitor and the island paradise. However, others may rightly question whether the same contact and connection could not be achieved by legal means.
The widespread instances of piracy underscore the fact that although intellectual property is a form of intangible property, it can be of great commercial value to the owner.
Piracy knows no borders
Both developed and developing countries are indeed conscious that intellectual property right infringement has now become a part of everyday commercial activity. A February 10, 2002 SUNDAY SUN headline drew attention to pirates who were cutting into the profits
of merchants and Government, who stood to lose in the vicinity of $1.5 million.
A similar charge was made just few months later in the Guardian Weekly by Michael Greene, then president of the Recording Industry of America. At the end of the Grammy Awards he made public his fears about the music industry's survival in its present form:
"Many of the nominees tonight, especially the new and less established artistes, are in immediate danger of being marginalised. Green was referring to the rampant electronic music swapping – estimated to be in the region of US$3.6 billion per month – among customers, most of whom no longer had to pay for their pleasure. Worse still, CD-burning technology allows unlimited copies to be made of copyrighted material."
Greene's warning illustrates that intellectual property infringement does not reside only in developing countries but has become worldwide.
Where will it end
While we continue to fret at the loss of revenue by our artists, we must recognise that it is difficult to fight technology. CD-burning is now a part of international culture and ways and means must be found to cope with this new technology.
Where does this leave the artistes? Like Carnival, Crop-Over comes but once a year, and during a two-month period the artistes hope to secure most of their year's income. Policing every vendor and user of a CD is both impossible and impractical.
In the final analysis we may find ourselves having to join forces with Michael Goodman, media and entertainment analyst at the Yankee Group.
In pointing to the industry's failure to adapt its business to new technologies, Goodman asserted that "they're still fighting technology, and as long as they are fighting it, they are going to lose."