As Sam pointed out to me after class, I had a lot more to say about intellectual property and the philosophical concerns about rights to that property the first time we broached the topic.
Before reading Lessig, I didn’t see the distinction between intellectual property and physical property—why should they be treated differently? I used to think that if Robert Frost wanted his descendants to profit from his work, then he should definitely have the right to copyright his material for generations because his creation should be disseminated at his discretion.
After reading Lessig, I started to change my mind (At which point Jonathan told me I was a flip-flopper and could never run for President). Intellectual property is an abstract—the words of Robert Frost’s poems don’t have inherent value. They came out of his own head for free. On the other hand, a pearl necklace, someone’s family heirloom did have value when it was created.
Then I thought about it even further, and realized that the pearl necklace only had value because of the value society places on pearls! Robert Frost’s poetry, similarly, gains value only because he is a well respected poet, and his work has a high potential value.
In handing both intellectual or physical property over to the public domain, a consumer surplus for the goods is created!!
At the same time, if both were placed in the public domain after x amount of years, the family losing the pearl necklace suffers not only the loss of its potential market value, but they also lose the initial investment value. Robert Frost’s family would only suffer the loss of potential gain.
So in the end, there is a difference, but there isn’t and it’s all a muddle and I’m desperately confused as to the philosophical solution to this quandary.
2 comments:
I am also very confused about where I stand on this issue, and the more I've learned about it, the more confused I've become! (I really like your point about how losing a pearl necklace means losing the original investment, whereas losing rights to intellectual property is only a loss of potential gain :])
Right now (and this could easily change next class-- I'm also guilty of flip-flopping on this one) I feel that the copyright term is definitely too long, and that it should not be extended for very long after the creator's death. I've been thinking a lot about how copyrights give the creator's estate the ability to control the use of the work, and I think that is potentially dangerous. Furthermore, I do not see why someone's great-great-great grandson should be in control of and benefiting from the work of someone he may never have known. Under this system, it seems possible that someone who is not even familiar with a poem or story could be making money from it. I think it was Jacob (sorry if I'm wrong) who said in class today that if a creator wants to leave money to his or her heirs, then the money that has already been earned as a result of the creative work could be left to them. At the same time, I'm not sure how I feel about work passing into the public domain immediately after the creator's death... now I'm confused again!
Anyway, at least for the moment, I do not believe that Frost Jr., Jr. deserves $100,000 a year. I do not think that it is fair to the public or to the creator.
This is an issue that has been plaguing me as well because like many others, I see both sides of the problem and can't decide which one is 'right.' Sanjana is right about the pearl necklace analogy and how the necklace took some amount of initial investment. But what about a scenario that the person who created the pearl necklace also dove for the pearls personally which would mean that no investment was really necessary except for the time needed to find the pearls in the first place. Now we are left with the same situation as Robert Frost's family. Both had ancestors who spent their time and energy upon a product, so why should one family still be able to get money from the product and the other one is told that they no longer own the product?
At the same time the pearl necklace will not further our culture very much by forcing it into the public domain as opposed to Frost's works which may inspire others to new heights. Though I understand this it still doesn't seem fair to me. So like Sanjana I've also begun to waver in my previously held beliefs about intellectual property rights.
Post a Comment