Intellectual Property

In an age where information is power, nothing becomes more sought after than ownership of intellectual property. Copyrighting, trade marking, and patenting information that was thought to be intangible expressions of creativity and intellect brings up certain issues, both legal and ethical. On the one side of the argument, copyrighting information is a way to protect one’s own ideas from being copied, or being taken as someone else’s. Assuming that the idea or product has cost money in order to be produced and distributed, copyrighting that knowledge or information makes sense, so as to protect the producer’s assets. However, one of the main issues that arises out of the cost of this information is the fact that, in a digital age, copyrighted materials, such as music, do not have nearly the same level of production and distribution costs as they once did. The standard fees for copyrighting and distributing are very heavily based in an archaic mode of production and distribution, and therefore do not have as valid of a position in today’s copyrighting costs. As Charles Mann argues in his article “Who Will own Your Next Good Idea?”: “manufacturing and distribution costs collapse almost to nothing online: zeroes and ones can be shot around the world with a few clicks of the mouse” (Mann 286). The proof of this overpricing is evident in the dollars, as copyrighted materials contribute to almost 400 billion dollars annually, while the cost of piracy and illegal copying is only a deficit of 20 billion dollars (Mann 286,7). The fact that producers are still greatly profiting off of an outmoded protection of assets proves that these laws mainly favor capitalistic endeavors over creative freedom.

This issue of creative freedom is said to be greatly inhibited by limitations of copyrighted materials. In his article, Mann outlines some of the main reasons why information should be free in order to endear creative producers of new content to take and re-configure past information. He quotes poet Northrop Frye by saying that, “Poetry can only be made out of other poems: novels out of other novels” (Mann 290). He notes that many aspects of our current culture rely on the reproduction of others’ work, in a way that both highlights their classical qualities, but also reconfigures them to reflect a changing culture. For example, many popular songs feature clips or “riffs” from older popular music. This idea of remixing music is heavily reliant on previous creations. If we aren’t able to take from the past, of course giving credit where credit is deserved, innovation will suffer. Lawrence Lessig’s article “Free” also touches on this subject of intellectual freedom, and he reveres technology for being the medium on which creativity will thrive: “Technology could enable a whole generation to create—remixed films, new forms of music, a new kind of storytelling, writing, a new technology for poetry, criticism, political activism…” (Lessig 299). While capitalists state that innovation is spurred by the competition created by copyright and ownership, there is an argument to be made that it can actually be hindered by this same process, as many people who wish to create and innovate do not have the financial means to use and share information of the past. Ultimately, if people do not have the means to access intriguing and inspiring information from throughout history, our culture will come to a standstill.
This is the issue that the Creative Commons wishes to solve. Like Lessig, producers involved in the Creative Commons project believe that creativity and digital information cannot be entirely free, as there is always the cost of production, as well as the fact that many creators rely on profit to make a living. However, their belief is that creators of content should exercise their right to display and share their content, within a realm of reason. By setting certain standards of use and rights, creators of new content can now decide how their information is to be used by others, and to what extent. This creation of a ‘common wealth’ of information contributes to the overall richness of cultural content. By creating a ‘best-of-two-worlds’ atmosphere, people will be less likely to settle for less than greatness when it comes to reforming new ideas from the old.

Works Cited
Lessig, Lawrence. “Free.” Living In The Information Age. Ed. Erik P.Bucy. 2nd ed. Belmont: Thompson Learning Inc. 2005. 296-303.

Mann, Charles. “Who Will own Your next Good Idea?” Living In The Information Age. Ed. Erik P.Bucy. 2nd ed. Belmont: Thompson Learning Inc. 2005. 285-291.