I have always held the belief that should you create something it does indeed belong to you. If you write a song, invent something, think of a brilliant idea or manifest something intangible whatever that is, then it is your property. You can control it, who uses it and for what purposes. The reason for this is simple. It protects the owner from having what they have created used for the wrong purposes or used by someone who is claiming it as their own. However, after this weeks readings and tutorial discussion I have somewhat changed this view. Perhaps it no longer is about protecting this idea or invention or song....but more so about ensuring power and ownership in the eyes of others....As the saying goes 'knowledge is power.'
Boldrin and Levine's reading Against Intellectual Monopoly was of large interest to me as it showed the impact having a patent or copyright can have on a particular idea. In this case it halted the advancement of the steam engine, as no one else could put forward their own ideas for fear of prosecution. Once the ownership of the idea was over the product grew and flourished because there was input from many individuals, there was growth and progress. So the issue here is why exactly did James Watt want the invention for himself? Was it so that he could seek fame and glory for inventing the steam engine? Was it so he could rub it in the faces of everyone else, and show that he was better or smarter because of what he had done? Or did he simply just want to protect the invention he had created? I think the answer is all of the above, but I feel the last question is the one with the least amount of influence. Not for any fault of Watt's though, I believe he was just following human nature.
As described by Maslow's hierarchy of needs when we get to a certain stage (and have fulfilled particular needs) we start to seek esteem, a feeling of accomplishment and respect amongst peers.
Source : http://www.newexistentialists.com/posts/07-22-11
I think this whole idea is what drives the concept of copyright. That people seek out the need to be attributed and acknowledged for what they have achieved. We all know how good it feels when we receive a compliment for something we have done or a decision we have made. It makes us happy and as humans we always have this drive to seek satisfaction and approval from others. I think this is ultimately why copyright exists. In a way one could look at it and say it's an over glorified ego booster...and I guess it is. I don't think it's so much about protecting the idea, but rather about showing other's who has the power and knowledge, due to what they have created.
I found my stance on copyright somewhat swayed after the readings as well. I do think that affording copyright to artists and musicians is a matter of giving them due recognition for their creativity and providing the financial motivation to continue, however there are some serious issues that need to be addressed regarding the patenting in the scientific world. Like with the case of the steam engine, the patenting of genes is against the greater public good. Medical and drug research companies are showing that they have power, but patenting genes is a way to multiply that power while simultaneously disregarding the medical and health implications of their actions. A very serious problem.
ReplyDeleteI love how you've incorporated Maslow's heirarchy in regards to the concept of copyright. And I would have to completely agree with you. There is no harm in freely distributing content, even no harm in declaring it is yours. It is definitely a fundamental psychological human need, but it is not vital in our existence. Some work to be the opposite, for example to help others without recognition.
ReplyDeleteI also believe in crediting someone for their intangible hard work, creation and/or inventions... but where do we draw the line? How do we decide whos idea is what, in a culture is almost always readily shared online? I wonder where this debate will head in the future...
I loved the incorporation of Maslows hierarchy too! Very thought provoking how you use the idea that copyright is simply an 'ego booster.' I somewhat agree with this, but don't you think that financial gain is another reason copyright exists? Yes its nice for the artists to be recognised, but we have to remember that often the creations that these people make are their primary income, providing them with the basic needs listed on the hierarchy.
ReplyDeleteI love your question, Olivia about how we can credit work to someone. I believe that copyright certainly needs to be modified to reflect this digital age, but how can we do this? How can we credit someone for their work, for both egotistic and financial reasons, while fostering the online culture of free information sharing? Its definitely an interesting discussion. Emma and I are looking at copyright and online music for our presentation so hopefully we can provide you guys with some further information soon.
I agree with you in what you say about acknowledging one's work and seeking for satisfaction and approval. Totally agree. But I also believe that authors, if they want to, should have the right to have some credit for what they've created.
ReplyDeleteThe concept of copyright nowadays is a bit old and doesn't work with the current global society, where almost everyone shares content and can easily download nearly everything, so it should be changed. But, when something is posted online and not in a physical device..which law of copyright must we apply?
That's a great connection to the Hierarchy of needs! A good way of thinking about it.
ReplyDeleteMy opinion, too, has been swayed this week in class. Before I never thought that copyright could indeed be detrimental to the idea itself. Even in my own blog this week, I used a case from my life for wanting to be recognised as the person who brought the particular usage of a word to my group of friends, which suits the peer recognition idea that you have raised.
But generally, I believe so long as credit is given, then there is no problem, which is why I have such fond feelings towards the idea of Creative Commons.
Connecting Maslow's hierarchy to the copyright discussion is an inspired move, though the problem of monopolising intangible goods (ideas) still stands.
ReplyDelete