CC for Everyone!
Intellectual property is a murky area, to say the least, especially when the Internet is involved. I work for a manufacturing company (that is world-wide) and every few years they have meetings on the importance of patents and employee rights to patents. After reading the articles for this week, I’m surprised we haven’t had information regarding the use of materials from the Internet. But as mentioned in “The Economy of Ideas,” proprietary (companies) assertions of thinkers are not focused on ideas but on the expression of those ideas (through objects).
Barlow’s statement “Intellectual property law cannot be patched, retrofitted, or expanded to contain digitized expression any more than real estate law might be revised to cover the allocation of broadcasting spectrum,” is a nice summation of where we are at with this issue. To complicate matters, the Internet is a global tool. With various cultures using this, who is to say which law is appropriate. In some cultures, it is very respectful to use other’s property but in the U.S. is considered plagiarism. Barlow talks of the metamorphosing tales of prehistory and information was orally passed from person to person, culture to culture. Folktales are a prime example. We do not know who the authors are but these stories were passed around and modified with each passing; most cultures have some version of Cinderella. Is that why Western countries think they have legal rights to the “music, designs, and biomedical lore of aboriginal people without compensation to their tribes of origin since those tribes are not an “author” or an “inventor””? How sad is that?
Information does want to change with each passing. In printed media, it takes much longer and there is a source (author) associated with the change. Printed media moves much slower than digital information. Our Wikipedia exercise shows how easy and fast digital information changes. My userid is associated with my change but who am I? Not a credible source that should be updating data used by millions? Scary. But, as Barlow mentions the evolution of a “settled West”, order will eventually be maintained. If it is not maintained, who will put works on the net? Encouragement of intellectual development will slowly decline. Ideas need to be free so that others can build upon them (T.Jeffereson). Ethics will need to play a huge role in the order of intellectual property. "Overprotecting intellectual property is as harmful as underprotecting it." (Judge Alex Kozinski "Bound by Law")
I actually enjoyed the comic on public domain. I was aware of the copyright issues but didn’t realize the “fair use” issue. I assumed most products in films were strategically placed for advertisement purposes. It seems the “fair use’ line is hazy at best. Some of the cases and the resolutions were surprising to me. I was surprised how the judge ruled against Mattel. Another issue is the use of public figures; I assumed that if you are a public figure, speeches and other public appearances would be considered public domain.
(I tried to insert the creative commons symbol but my Word only has ® © ™. Maybe it's on the next version?)
Comments
I was also unaware of the fair use issue that came about from the comic. I think I mentioned something about how sometimes in films directors use other forms of copyrighted media and you just assume that it was ok'd or even pushed by the original creator. If I didn't it should have.
I also like what you've said about the evolution of the speed that media is produced with Wikipedia being the most recent entry.
Posted by: NickJ | April 3, 2007 08:29 PM
I too was surprised to learn of Fair Use. The Supreme Court case of Sony v. Universal Studio's (1984) (Aoki, p. 37) sounds very similar to today's digital rights management issues. The major difference as I see it is that downloading music harms the music industry vs. privately recording television broadcasts and time-shifting to view them later. However, once you've purchased the music, isn't duplicating it Fair Use if for private use?
Posted by: Dale | April 5, 2007 10:56 PM
Hi Julia: Thank you for mentioning different cultural ways of thinking about intellectual property. "In some cultures, it is very respectful to use other’s property but in the U.S. is considered plagiarism." So true!
This is a big problem for students studying in the U.S. from other countries--the Graduate School at the U of MN has regular workshops on plagarism because it is such a continual problem. On the other hand, I liked what you said about our assumptions about aboriginal peoples. A friend of mine who is into horticulture told me that some companies are assuming patent rights on heirloom seeds from other countries, though all the residents have done is innocently share seeds with them. This has huge implications for agriculture, plant genetics, and plant varieties. As a result, (as I understand it) some communities do not have a right to use plants or seeds they themselves have developed. This is kind of like John Fogerty not having the rights to songs he wrote in the 1960s for Creedence Clearwater Revival, and THEN being sued by the record company in the 1980s for plagarism, because his new songs sounded too similar to the old ones. There was some bad blood, but that is some messed up bad blood.
Posted by: Ramonac | April 8, 2007 11:34 PM