Answer for: Do intellectual property laws have a negative or positive impact on society and culture?
#5 For art, all rights should rest with the individual creator.
| 
10 Comments
Artistic works created independently of any corporate involvement should belong to their creators, who should be totally able to call the shots on what one can and cannot do with the work- while they are alive. I disagree with current copyright law which allows generations of descendents to keep art, music and writing out of the public domain and reap royalties, however.
Comments |
Leave a comment
Did you really "create", though? What about the person who invented and manufactured your, say, guitar? Isn't it arguable that you are only taking the notes that they made and are simply "remixing" them? Do you owe them a royalty?
What about all of the artists you've listened to for your entire life that have without a doubt influenced the music that you make? Do you owe them a royalty?
I guess what I'm wondering is, how can you possibly OWN an intangible, ethereal non-thing that isn't even by the broadest stretch of the imagination entirely of your making?
I agree with Artemis.
If there is going to be such a thing as individual ownership, lines need to be agreed and drawn. What Holotone says about the influence of the guitar maker and previous songwriters is true too. However, lines are drawn by lawmakers and under the current system, the guitar maker and the previous songwriters are deemed not to be owed anything in terms of royalties. This may or may not be agreeable to different people. They may well draw the lines differently. They might say that there should be no such thing as private property at all. Once a thing is invented, the whole community owns it jointly forever and no one person can make money out of it. In the end it is simply a matter of opinion.
I am just grateful that the concept of private ownership exists in law because I would not want to work hard and produce/create if I was not going to get something out of it for just me. Working for the common good for very little reward would not appeal to me if I knew that my product was marketable for a lot better reward and I could have it all.
In the end it boils down to the fact that I care about myself, my partner, my family and friends. I want to share what I feel is mine with those who matter to me. The rest of the world is much less important. It is selfish but I think that is the way most people think and feel.
Well, I'm relating to what I know, which isn't music, particularly (certainly not as a creator) but I think I get your point. Basically you seem to be saying that since we live and breathe in an environment, we can't help but be influenced and even directed by what has come before us and what is around us, so no credit belongs to anyone for making anything. Only an Enlightened One could sincerely live by that concept or be happy with it. On the other hand, we all probably are capable of making some things about which we feel detached enough to say, "Go forth and do what you will with this." And as far as I know, we are free to do that. A statement to this effect, or attaching a Creative Commons license or something akin to it, will serve to tell the world that. Until we say so, though, others should not assume it's OK to do as they like. And they're leaving themselves open to litigation by doing so. As Silverspeeder points out, there are laws governing these things, like it or not, and they probably aren't going to go away until human society does. Aren't you just being Devil's Advocate?
@artemis:
"Aren't you just being Devil's Advocate?"
Not in the slightest; I believe that the concept of owning a non-tangible "thing" (music, ideas, etc) is preposterous.
Why then do you believe in the ownership of tangible goods? If I work to manufacture a styrofoam block in a factory, you're telling me I deserve infinitely more compensation for my efforts than someone who created an intangible work of genius. Does John Zorn deserve nothing for the works he has created? Or should there be a US Minister of Culture to compensate John Zorn for his efforts?
Music existed LoooOOOoooNG before the "rewards" of capitalism, and it will continue doing so loooOOoOng after it is gone.
Making music is it's own reward.
OK-!
This is my sort of topic. How would you work the pop music industry? Would you have a reward system in place of any sort?
(SilverSpeeder, if you agreed with me, why did you not vote for my answer?)
The music issue is so complicated -- I'm not qualified to address it. (or anything else, for that matter!)
Sorry, I got so carried away with the arguments, I forget to vote. I've rectified that.