An indistinct view of right and wrong ... Statue of Justice by night. Photograph: Dan Chung/Guardian
There's a line in Missy Elliott's hit Get Your Freak On that says: "I'm copywritten, so don't copy me". The line always irked me. I may be Swedish but, as a songwriter, copyright is a word I know and use regularly, and of course it should be "I'm copyrighted". Missy strikes me as a woman who also knows about copyrights and, judging from the ongoing trial, so does JK Rowling.
These big copyright cases bubble up to the media surface every once in a while, and often we end up with a feeling that the claimants are just being greedy or trying to make a quick buck. One of the most famous ones was when the Rolling Stones sued the Verve for using a sample from their 1965 song The Last Time in Bitter Sweet Symphony. The lawsuit was actually brought by ABKCO Records, Allen Klein's company that owns the rights to the Rolling Stones' material of the 1960s. 100% of the copyright of the Verve track eventually went to ABKCO and the songwriting credits to Jagger and Richards. Yes, I agree that both the Stones and JK Rowling are being pretty heavy handed, but the right to protect your work and have a say in what happens to it is an issue that the advent of the internet has made more important than ever.
Much has been written about how illegal downloading affects the film and music industry, as people steal and even make money - sites like Pirate Bay are not charities where people work for free, believe me - off the stolen work.
But the effects of many internet users' disrespect of copyright can be felt much further than that and they affect the livelihood of millions of people. Written work is plagiarised, photographers' pictures are used without permission and teachers second-guess any paper that gets handed in. My friend Scott, a professor in political science, told me about how he failed a student for copying his thesis off the internet. The student then claimed that what is on the internet belongs to everyone.
"As much as I can argue with that," Scott replied, "the thesis you copied was my thesis. And if you're not even smart enough to check the origin, you don't deserve to pass."
Are we looking at a new generation that has no concept of the meaning of copyright? If musicians decide to give away their music for free, that should be their own choice. It's in the word: Copy Right.
Many songwriters feel incredibly frustrated by the slanted view being presented in most media. They feel that they're being viewed as bad sports for not wanting to give their work away for free. They're accused of not moving with the times. But walking into a shop, taking what you want, and walking out without paying is still viewed as stealing. And I bet the shop owner would have to close that shop pretty quickly if it wasn't. What is the difference?
What we need is an international commission with the sole purpose of protecting intellectual property on the internet. If we don't properly deal with this issue soon, not only will hordes of people lose their jobs, but our next Burt Bacharach or Lamont Dozier won't write their masterpiece, being too tired after working double shifts at Tesco or TGI Friday's.
Contrary to what Scott's student thought, everything on the internet does not belong to everyone. If it did, it would mean we'd got rid of copyright altogether. If that was the case, imagine how quickly companies like Coca-Cola, GlaxoSmithKline and Toyota would be up in arms.
We can argue that JK Rowling ought to be a bit more lenient towards Steve Vander Ark but, as many artists who have used samples without clearing them first have learned, the fact is that he should have asked permission before using her work. Most likely, there would then have been no court case and both parties would have walked away content.
Most music creators can see that she has a point - and she's not even being asked to give her books away for free.
