These Discussions Are Uncomfortable
Uncomfortable Discussions
From the Age of Enlightenment forward, mankind’s quest was to become one with the fountain of all knowledge so that we might truly envision the universe in all of its vibrancy. Our many disciplines allow us to pursue a well-rounded study of knowledge so that we might also better understand our human condition. But how far have we really traveled along this timeline of our history that has indeed exploded into data that can now be accessed at the touch of a fingertip? Though we have this data, how efficiently have we truly used it to better the condition in which we live? Not just the physical, but the metaphysical as well. Our times have become fractious as one person’s knowledge tries to circumvent another’s using the totality of what we as individuals know. Yet, knowledge alone cannot fill in the appropriate answer if it’s not tempered with empathy, or vice versa, can it?
Let’s check out just a few cases where we might actually finally open up a viable conversation to find solutions that we all can live with, without coming to physical blows because of our individual beliefs. Or worse, enact legal solutions that eventually shackle us all to decisions that might lead to the nuclear (not literally) option. Everything in the universe links to something else, and these cases also build upon one another to create something much bigger than the original issue.
Case File A: Intellectual Property
Copyright Infringement (image credit: Joy of Tech)
Related Article: Professor Michael Birnhack on Privacy
We hold our creations to be sacred, especially when we’re the ones that have poured our hearts and souls into them. I have created it, and it’s mine forever. I want recognition/pay for my honest efforts. But I know that I have to share it in order to get that recognition. No, wait! What if someone (gasp) tries to steal it from me? That’s NOT right! That’s PIRACY!! And we know what happened to the pirates of old. They met their maker in the most definitive manner once they were caught. For it was our moral obligation to punish this indecency.
And so the conversation once again becomes “good versus bad”. Intolerance reigns supreme as there’s no possible way that such a crime can be justified. Nay, there is no excuse to not uphold a person’s property, intellectual or otherwise, as the most sacred. So sacred that the most Supreme Court of one nation chose to extend (again) the lifetime of the copyright for an intellectual property that had once been in the public domain (fragmented as it is).
“In aligning the United States with other nations bound by the Berne Convention, and thereby according equitable treatment to once disfavored foreign authors, Congress can hardly be charged with a design to move stealthily toward a regime of perpetual copyrights,” – Ginsberg
So, the argument that one Supreme Court justice upheld is that this body of law saw fit to uphold the norm that others followed. With little consideration to one of the founding documents of his nation that also states, “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries”. And without hearing the arguments that many foreign legal bodies are finally acknowledging that copyright needs to be revised for the modern times, so that equitable protection can be given to the original creator while also allowing for future innovation.
This argument won’t end because we refuse to have the necessary discussion that many original creators are already entertaining: a responsible system driven by the original creator’s motivations in releasing creative work for public consumption and innovation. Such a solution includes the already functioning Creative Commons method of user-defined copyright.
But some people refuse to see that increased protectionism of intellectual property will actually have a destructive effect on that fountain of all knowledge from which we humans draw inspiration to continue to create. It’s a hard battle because it’s weighted down by our individual human motivation to survive. Personal survival versus survival of the species: It’s too broad an argument to fight, because it requires forward-looking solutions that won’t necessarily solve the immediate problems. And the circular argument continues, because there’s a convenient historical solution already developed which tentatively works. Why fix what’s not broken? Though that’s not true as another much larger player has skewed the rules to its own benefit, and not the benefit of the original creator. So now we find a way to level the playing field: Y Combinator wants to kill Hollywood
I think I dreamt about this post before reading it. Thank you, Carolyn, we will make it happen, you'll see.
[...] publicity and protests around the SOPA and PIPA acts gripped the attention of ordinary people and politicians alike, but did the noise of [...]
[...] now, North Carolina, which will host the Democratic National Convention this year (pending campaigns to change the location following this vote), has stood out as a [...]