In any discussion of intellectual property, the disparate motivations behind creator right violations must be analyzed. There are two archetypal intellectual property right violators – the pirate and the sculptor, and just as their desires vary, so too must their treatment.
*The Pirate*
The room is dim, obscured entirely from view. The lights are out, and the single window allows only for the entrance of the darkest night. All that is visible to the naked eye is my hunched form, illuminated by the glow of my monitor. My mouth is turned upward in a menacing grimace; my fingers race across the keys, shattering any silence that may develop during momentary lulls for contemplation. As I complete my effort, the grimace widens – I have successfully recoded a program for distribution on my own server. For the insignificant sum of $9.95, I purchased amazingly powerful software, solely in pursuit of profit. The simple recoding allows for online distribution – I will charge the princely sum of $99.99 per downloaded copy, making an enormous profit for only a night's work.
*The Sculptor*
The bright, vibrant posters add a great deal of color to the fully illuminated room. My friends and I crowd around the monitor, disappointed to be inside on so beautiful a day, but inspired by the promise of our work. From our earliest memories, we have shared a common passion for all things Disney and for movie songs in particular. We purchased the albums to nearly all of Disney's recent animated movies, converted the files into sound bites, and proceeded to remix them, forming new lyrics and effects. With a raucous cheer and joyful high fives, we press "upload –" our work is now available for the enjoyment of all via YouTube.
The pirate seeks to profit from the work of others; the sculptor seeks to craft a unique medium of entertainment for the consumption of the masses. Though both require the use of protected intellectual properties, it is clear that the deviation in purpose justifies a difference in response. The pirate should be held accountable to the full extent of the law – he has attempted fraudulent behavior. The sculptor, on the other hand, should be permitted to innovate and build upon the work of others, as long as his efforts do not impinge upon the profit making capacity of the creator, do not yield profit, and are intended to produce pleasure.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I completely agree with the author of this post. I think that we need to make the distinction between these two violators. One is breaking the law purposefully, knowing exactly what they are doing, and the other is clueless to the fact that they even violated a law. I also agree that the pirate should be held fully accountable for breaking the law and that the sculptor should be able to create freely. What the sculptor created was his own work. The songs in which they used, the legally paid for, and therefore they are not creating their own work at the expense of the artist or anyone else involved. If they had illegally downloaded the songs, then the situation might be a little different. Sculptors such as those described in the article should have freedom to take works of others and add their own personal touch to them, as long as it is not being done for the wrong reasons. It is not as if the sculptor was trying to charge money for their remix, they just wanted to give other people the chance to listen and enjoy what they had created. Putting things such as this clip on YouTube only helps to promote further creativity in our society. It is when we build upon the works of others that great ideas come about.
Who and should not be punished for breaking copyright law is a choice that sits on a fine line. The pirate is a violator of the law who has original intention to make money on breaking this law while others won’t. This example is a clear violation of the law. On the other hand, the sculptor is a violator of the law who does not intend to make profit on his creation. From this example, it is difficult to say this innocent act is a violation of copyright law. Nevertheless, even though the violator has no intention of profiting or harming the original creators ability to make profit, the publication of the original creators work directly violates law. For the most part, not everyone knows copyright law so who and who isn’t accountable for breaking these laws is unclear. Who should be prosecuted for breaking this law isn’t a matter of infringing of profit making, it is a matter of using another’s creativity without their consent.
Post a Comment