Conclusion

The conclusion begins by outlining the contributions the book has made to the literature, namely its identification of the socio-legal construction of relational subjectivity and the substantial theorization of relationality. In addition to these scholarly contributions, the book challenges simplistic policy narratives about copyright law and explains how it contributes to studies of media industries through its examination of how changes in media consumption, distribution and convergence helped to embed relationality in the broader media environment. The conclusion ends by suggesting that a greater attentiveness to algorithmic processes, better evidence around the role and function of copyright as well as more thought around the conceptual basis for copyright would contribute to a better understanding of the author, user and pirate in law.

Introduction: Copyright Law and Subjectivity—A Relational Approach

This chapter introduces the book’s theoretical approach to relationality and subjectivity and makes a case for studying the author, user and pirate collectively. It goes on to situate this position within a wider body of interdisciplinary literature, addressing key debates in scholarship around copyright law. I then detail the benefits of taking a relational approach, suggesting that it offers a more accurate account of how copyright law is currently constructed and responds to the conceptual uncertainty underpinning copyright. The chapter ends with a brief outline of the rest of the book.

Connected Origins: Locating Relationality in Copyright History

The first chapter details how the author, user and pirate emerged collectively over the first two centuries of copyright’s existence, and argues that these subjects still intersect today. This analysis also stands as a brief introduction to the history of copyright law for unfamiliar readers, charting the emergence and subsequent development of copyright law. The chapter ends by critiquing the increased reification of authorship that has occurred over the twentieth century and makes a case for the continued relevance of relationality in this context.

Creative Practice and Relational Authorship

This chapter discusses copyright’s inability to accurately identify authorship, use and infringement and explores how different creative industries come to their own understanding about how these practices are governed and managed. Through a study of sampling, music licensing and the production of contemporary art, I detail these governance and management practices and discuss what happens when copyright struggles with relational interactions. I end the chapter by suggesting that understanding authorship as a brand could potentially help to manage these tensions, while also suggesting that policy narratives around copyright law and its relationship with creative industries needs to change in recognition of these difficulties.

From the Piratical to the Creative User

The second chapter focuses on the user and examines how this subject has become an increasingly prominent element of copyright law across the twentieth century. After introducing the basics (and history) of fair dealing and fair use, the chapter discusses how people moved from creators to consumers due to regulatory frameworks and the technological limitations imposed on radio and television. I then turn to the late-twentieth century and consider the presence of a creative element in the discourse around users during the Web 2.0 moment and suggest that the on-going transitions between creative and consuming user can best be understood through a relational framework.

Producing the Pirate: The Courtroom and Cultural Power

Chapter Six examines how the pirate has been interpellated in different jurisdictions across the copyright wars of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, with a particular focus on the intermediaries that were charged with enabling online copyright infringement, namely peer-to-peer networks and Internet Service Providers. The chapter charts a narrative of gradual acceptance. Whereas initial decisions interpellated peer-to-peer networks as piratical and also as locations where individuals could become interpellated as pirates, by the early twenty-first century, the courts became somewhat more understanding. Instead, they viewed intermediaries as less liable and individuals as users who engaged in copyright infringement, rather than as subjects entirely defined by their piratical actions. I also reflect on how Apple and their customers were able to avoid the pirate moniker during their Rip, Mix, Burn campaign in 2003 and consider on the potential futures of the pirate subject.

Reimagining the Pirate: Approaching Infringement Relationally

The fifth chapter outlines how the pirate could be viewed relationally and explains how potentially infringing acts can be reinterpreted as innovative and lead to the production of new knowledge. It also reflects on the broader cultural contexts in which relationality operates through a discussion of the Stop Online Piracy Act and Protect IP Act protests. These protests argued that western citizens should be viewed as user-pirates and deferred the label of pirate to actors in the Global South. The chapter concludes by stating that while the pirate is often institutionally and discursively constrained, any act of piracy will reveal both an element of “use” and a latent authorial capacity.

Locating the User and Reforming Law

The fourth chapter begins with a detailed consideration of recent user focussed reforms in the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia and focuses specifically on the user generated content provision in Canada. An analysis of the provision reveals the impossibility of maintaining a coherent separation of subjects in copyright law and identifies a clear relational interaction between authorship and use, which this provision enacts (albeit in a limited fashion). The chapter then considers the professionalization of YouTube and suggests that various forms of amateur media and user-generated content are looking increasingly more “authorial” in their tenor. I then go on to reflect on how a series of digital and physical intermediaries attempt to work within the boundaries of the user subject, and discuss how various jurisdictions have either refused or accepted this proposed interpellation.