More On Carnival, CNMG, Copyright and Gayelle

When Edmund Gall first wrote about the de facto monopolization of Carnival broadcast rights in Trinidad and Tobago (read it!), he mentioned friend Mark Lyndersay's point that it was more about control than optimization. When I wrote about the issue last night, I took the same tack.

Is it the right tack? Some may not think so. Lets consider a parallel. Let us consider broadcast rights in sports.

In sports, media companies are granted rights to broadcast and rebroadcast a sporting event - be it the Olympics, the Super Bowl, cricket, tennis, etc. A key difference between carnival and sport is that sports broadcasts are typically of people getting paid to move a ball from one place to another. This is not to diminish their ability with balls - it is in fact because they are so good with moving balls around that they get paid. Carnival, on the other hand, has people who have paid to play mas (for foreigners, that means dancing and prancing in costumes some deem artistic).

Thus, the very basis of the parallel is skewed: Sports broadcasts are of people who are typically paid to play with balls. Carnival broadcasts are typically of people who paid to play themselves. The balls joke was too easy.

So there's a question about who is paying who for what. In this context, CNMG is getting paid to show people who paid to palance in what has always been, in the history of Trinidad and Tobago, the equivalent of the public domain. If you live in Trinidad and Tobago - or planet Earth, for that matter - required reading on this would be Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity (also available free here). So it's really an erosion of  the public domain.

Arguably, the same happened with sports. I may be wrong, but at some point in history sports may have been considered a part of culture though it seems to have become separate now. Why? Perhaps it's the commercialization that caused its change in status. If that is true, would the same effective status change be wanted for Carnival in Trinidad and Tobago? 

That's really the crux of the question in all of this. Gayelle is known for covering grassroots Trinidad and Tobago cultural events, and Carnival - up until 2010, it seems - was a cultural event. Some might say that it has been commercialized into idiocy, with banks giving loans for people to buy costumes and play mas. Wait. You mean people are paying interest on their costumes when CNMG gets to broadcast them and make money? Maybe I can convince people to take out loans to paint my front wall for me. It seems so much more possible now.

So, while there is a question as to whether Carnival should have broadcast rights at all, there is an underlying question about who benefits from the broadcast rights. With CNMG being a state-owned enterprise - which might explain why they don't have their own website yet - the state benefits. And since the state is a democracy, there's a question in my mind as to whether issuing a broadcast monopoly on a Trinidad and Tobago cultural event to a state owned enterprise isn't something that deserves some rigorous discussion. Discussion which, it seems, could not be found in the Ministry of Information. Perhaps that's why it isn't called the Ministry of Intelligence: anyone can have information but intelligence allows for proper use of it.

Now we get to today's Guardian article on the same: CNMG Moves Against Gayelle Over Carnival Rights. An easy assumption to make is that everyone supports Gayelle, though this whole situation is decidedly one-sided because the government who influences the Laws of Trinidad and Tobago runs CNMG. Sidenote to Guardian: You'll have better content if you drop the YouTube video in the mix instead of referencing Facebook.

This comment brings up, indirectly, the model release prerequisite for broadcast rights:

• Which masquerader gave permission to broadcast him or her?
• What percentage of the money earned by CNMG goes back to the participants?

Good questions, really. And the question of public tendering, too, is also good.

Then look at this comment:

One may argue that the soca comPetition is a small part of a big picture - national culture, exports, national pride etc. But when I see that the government has to be everywhere contributing state funds to virtually every aspect of the event, then something is wrong with the formula. Back to the Gayelle issue, CNMG is a state owned station. The parade of the bands is an opportunity for CNMG to earn revenue. Other TV stations choose to show the parade and pay for this right from the resulting advertising dollars. If CNMG does not charge for these rights, then my tax dollar has to go into financing their deficit. I would rather have Gayelle's advertising pay for showing the parade. Finally, one may ask 'what gives CNMG the right to charge?'. The answer is the same state that pays everyone millions for having shows at carnival. I say - Charge on CNMG!

The response boils down to, "the government subsidizes Carnival so it should profit from Carnival." The whole comment seems fairly well written and intelligent, but there's a problem with the logic behind it: There seems to be an assumption that the government is not representative of the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago and therefore holds monies in the trust of the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago.

So if the government isn't representative of the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago, the last comment makes sense but casts doubt on democracy in Trinidad and Tobago. If the government is representative of the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago, harder questions must be asked.

And so, the question at the core of all of this is: Is Trinidad and Tobago a democracy in more than name?