Sunday, January 25, 2009
Spinello defines intellectual property as “’intellectual objects’, such as original musical compositions, poems, novels, inventions, product formulas, and so forth”. Intellectual property, or intellectual objects, is so much more difficult to protect, literally and ethically, than physical objects because they are nonrival goods. With the invention and expansion of the internet not only are nonrival goods being created, but goods, such as music, which had been solely a rival good in the past, are also becoming nonrival. I agree with John Locke, who believed that people should have a natural right to the fruits of their labor. I do not think, however, that intellectual property rights, which forbid others from benefitting from another’s work without proper compensation, are necessarily the answer. It was mentioned in last week’s lecture that, for the most part, the only people who are being significantly hurt by the lack of protection of intellectual property over the internet are the large corporations, which are sufficiently well-off to begin with. The smaller musicians, on the other hand, are benefitting from the internet and the spread of their music or intellectual property, as it can only bring them more popularity. I do agree with John Locke, yet John Locke lived and philosophized during the 17th century and, although, I agree with the idea that one should deserve reward as a result of his/her labor, I do not think that, that reward must always necessarily mean the right to the result of the labor. The young, unpopular musicians, for instance, lose the ability to forbid individuals from accessing their music once it has entered the internet. Their reward is not the right to forbid others from listening, but rather the opportunity to acquire more fans, which will indirectly make them money. I do think that their needs to be some protection of intellectual property, though. One needs to find a balance, which will allow individuals enough access to the intellectual property of others to encourage growth and progress within the culture, but at the same time protect those holding the intellectual property rights so they feel sufficiently compensated, and thus want to continue creating, which is what Lessig is getting at.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I completely agree with what you said. These intellectual property laws give authors a reason for complaining and creating cases for infringement. Even though this law is supposed to protect creativity, it hinders some creative works from ever being created. Works that are built from previous works cannot be freely created without asking for permission that may not even be granted. These laws are mainly used for financial purposes rather than to protect creativity. Authors can profit from their works and from copyright infringement cases. Thus these laws make it easier for authors to make money rather than protect their creativity.
ReplyDeleteI wholeheartedly agree with your take on intellectual property. Today as a people, we face a difficult time defining the rules and regulations of intellectual property and copyrights. Artists and creators should be rewarded for the fruits of their labor, but the law we set up should not result in taking away the creative ability of others. In my opinion, all artists are inspired by artists before them. Before the age of the internet, the work of older musicians could be seen in the music of contemporary artists. Every artist has always had influences; it’s just that with today’s technology these influences can be used in different ways. Artists such as Girl Talk can use hundreds of past songs from various artists to create a totally new piece of artwork. These older songs and artists are Girl Talk’s influences. Like you say in the post, we must find a balance in copyright law which promotes the production of artists and allows them to reap the rewards of their labor while not stifling the ability of future artists to use this work as an influence. While this could be a difficult task, it is something which must be done.
ReplyDelete