Sunday, January 25, 2009
Intellectual Property
Over the past few weeks I have found intellectual property to be one of the most sacred things a human being can embrace and claim as theirs. Intellectual property makes up someone just as much as the physical characteristics that make up their body. So why do people try and steal or copy this intellectual property people have created? Are they not creative enough themselves? Well it seems as Lessig has written, that copy right laws are helping to change this stealing and copying of intellectual property. That’s why I see this idea of intellectual property as a part of someone, because they have taken the time to sit and create this idea that could benefit society in some way. So maybe as people, we shouldn’t try and steal these ideas, but take some time and create our own so that we all can feel a sense of helping each other. Intellectual property also separates and creates every individual in our society. So if people are stealing others ideas then they, in a sense, don’t have an identity, but have stolen someone else’s. So for the better of society wouldn’t it just be better if everyone could create their own identity? The world then would be so much more diverse than the one we have created and live in today.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Though I do believe that intellectual property is very personal and sacred to an extent, I do not agree that by using the intellectual thoughts of another to create your own means that you lack creativity or that you are stealing another's identity. I believe that we all build upon one another's thoughts, and that the intellectual ideas of one can provide the foundation and building blocks for the intellectual ideas of someone else. No two people have the same exact thoughts, thus taking into consideration the thoughts of another and ultimately creating your own is creativity in and of itself. I do agree that diversity is extremely important, but I believe that this "sharing" of intellectual thought leads to diversity because it enables people to take into consideration the thoughts of others, choose to agree or disagree with them, and then create something new, based on those thoughts. Discussion of ideas, sharing of intellectual property - these all lead to the diversification of society.
ReplyDeleteThough I agree with Ryan Fowler regarding the need to respect an individual's right to own their products of creativity, I'd also like to stress the importance of community creativity. As a society, we should be able to build on our neighbors work for the benefit of the whole society. I associate this idea with utilitarianism which seeks the "greatest for the greatest number." Fortunately, this principle includes the need for protection of individual's work so that the motivation to create is not lost. I am saying that the current products of creativity need to eventually join the 'intellectual commons' so that the rest of society may build upon them. I believe last century's inventors, creators, artists, and sculptors have now created a modern day intellectual commons that we should be able to build upon. Stealing should not be promoted but the ability to add value to a product of creativity should be encouraged. The only way we can grow as a society is to create as a society.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Ryan on this matter. Intellectual property is sacred (lack of a different or better word from Ryan). In a way, intellectual property should be protected just as much any other possession. Thieves steal jewelry because they want the money that they could not earn for themselves. If they had the money to buy their own jewelry, or earned a comfortable amount of money, chances are they aren’t going to be stealing the jewelry in the first place. This is the same with intellectual property. The reason that they are trying to possess it is because they don’t have the ability to produce it themselves. Moreover, for the reason that it is an exclusive ability, they should have to pay for it. Personally, I do not steal music, and the previously stated reasons explain why. They worked hard for their music, as did people did for their jewelry. Neither should be free.
ReplyDelete