Copyleft
unless otherwise noted.
Can We Really Own Ideas?
23rd March 2009
Can we really claim ownership over information? Maybe only as long as it’s a secret. This is an idea I’m always thinking about–this thing called “intellectual property.” A friend recently asked me, should artists get paid? And I said “yes!” As an artist, I like to get paid.That being said, I struggle with the idea of retaining absolute ownership over even my own creations once I’ve released them to the public.
Is it right for others to make money off my hard work, my creativity? It doesn’t seem like it. Nevertheless, these words from Thomas Jefferson got me thinking:
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
So if someone takes the art I create (but still have a copy of…e.g., music) have I really been robbed? What are your thoughts?
Interesting topic, Nathan. I think people are more worried about intellectual property in a day and age where stuff is more easily copied, but it really is nothing new. You bring up a good point about how art really isn’t worth much until it’s shared. It sounds like some amount of sacrifice is made; you have to let go of something in order to get anything back at all.
I think the problem here is that we’re talking about music as though it were an idea. But music is a work. To be more specific, it is a proprietary work based on public ideas.
As far as I can tell, a perfectly parallel situation that is far more familiar and comfortable to all of us than the idea of digital music, but to which the exact same principles apply, is that of written work. The ideas upon which an author bases his novel are rarely his own — but the work itself most certainly is.
Reproducing it for profit without the author’s permission, or without allowing the author to have his share of the profits, doesn’t fly. In fact, in the world of the written work we actually take it a step further: Even using an idea without citing the source is plagiarism, and typically carries hefty consequences.
Should an author of a book, or other written work, be paid for sales of his book? Should said book be able to be reproduced without permission, and without the author receiving royalties?
@Brad: Absolutely. The fact that virtually all creative work can now be easily copied and distributed in an intangible form really forces me to rethink the ethics of intellectual property. I’m also firmly of the opinion that as an artist, sometimes the best course of action is just share your creative gift, regardless of the implication for monetary compensation.
@Josh: That being said, I’m not against making living from art…and I agree with you that there is a certain difference between an “idea” and “work,” though in music especially those lines can be blurred.
Right now I am most concerned about a general trend I see in our American culture toward a super strict interpretation of the idea of intellectual property. To a certain extent, once I sell my music, somebody else has it, you know? They should some rights to do with that what they please…they’re not renting it from me! That’s why I have issues with strict DRM schemes. Same goes with a painting, or original manuscript for a novel. I’m not talking about issues of attribution here, just ownership or possession.
Culturally, we know that stealing tangible items is theft…Non of us would take a DVD, book, or a single CD release from the store. Yet, many of us (myself included) download tv shows, movies, music, and sometimes books…and the only real difference is that they are not offered on tangible media. Once you add software to the mix, it’s even more confusing, since it exists primarily in intangible form.
Is illegal downloading *really* theft?
I’m with you on DRM. Once I’ve purchased it, I should be able to do whatever the hell I want with it. I should be able to burn it to fifty million different CDs, put it on my MP3 player — or someone else’s! — create mixes… whatever. Limitations on what I can do with something that is now legally mine are absurd.
And I should even be able to do illegal things with them. Like give them to a friend, but keep a copy for myself. Will there be consequences? Perhaps, indeed, if I’m caught. But you shouldn’t be able to physically prevent me from doing that in the first place, because often, there are very legitimate reasons and uses for the exact same action. Since the government cannot anticipate intent, it should not prevent me from using what is mine in any way. Only after the fact can it be determined that what I have done is, indeed, a crime.
Is illegal downloading really theft? Probably.
I’m a pirate. Yarr.
BTW, I’ve got over a dozen e-books on my computer, in PDF or text format. All downloaded.
See, I don’t think it’s really theft, because theft involves taking something from someone else. In the case of digital duplication, as long as the other person still has a copy, you haven’t actually taken anything that they don’t still have. That’s not saying that’s it’s necessarily ethical, just that’s not theft. It’s certainly not piracy!
The ethical problems that come up when we’re talking about intangible copies of creative works are attribution (a cultural issue that is well addressed in Creative Commons Licenses), privacy, and potential profits.
Hmmm… okay, I’m okay with saying it’s not theft, per se. But it’s clearly (at least, to me) illegal — it’s just a question of which criminal category it falls under.