Last night we moved from the technology and science sphere to the intellectual property of culture. Lawrence Weschler, the director of the New York Institute for the Humanities at New York University (my alma mater), gave his passionate defense of free-speech and fair use of cultural products such as paintings, music, movies, and books.
Despite his admission that his views can be radical, his hyperbolic examples of restrictions placed on culture creators were pertinent. A big movie studio wanted $10,000 of the total $100,000 documentary budget to be paid for the use of a tangential mobile phone ring-tone heard in the background. Meanwhile, the theatres refused to show the documentary because of fear of litigation.
It seems that the actions that follow from our legal codes have gone beyond their original scope or intention. Unfortunately, after 5 days of discussing the IP-Innovation paradox, it is becoming clear that any good solution at reconciling the opposing sides should not help boost lawyer’s billable hours; adding laws is not the solution.
Culture is a different industry than science or technology. Cultural progress has been achieved through re-expressions and re-interpretations of original works. Of course, large media companies want to be paid for their incremental investment into the creative process. However, IP laws have had the effect of keeping the dinosaur-like media industry dependent on old technologies while the net-generation has adopted alternative modes, in effect bypassing the media corporation’s bank account. To be fair, some media companies are jumping on the bandwagon but the first-mover advantage has already been given to the crafty entrepreneurs who originally created the peer-to-peer software.
The representative from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), John Tarpey, informed the seminar’s participants about his organization’s initiative to build effective public awareness about piracy. And, it was done from my generation’s perspective—how novel! Whether WIPO’s resources are best spent on combating the theft of culture or the counterfeiting of dangerous drugs will be left for another time and place. Nonetheless, it is clear that media companies have acquiesced to this generation’s needs and wants.
While artists, agents, and large corporations figure out how to build parallel value-added technologies to entice consumers, young cultural interlocutors will continue to find their cultural commodities at the best price, $0. The biggest retribution for media companies is when all of Lawrence Weschler’s students come into class on day#1 wearing the putrid smells of Britney Spears perfume and Justin Timberlake cologne. He then may realize the somber effects of illegal downloading.
Despite his admission that his views can be radical, his hyperbolic examples of restrictions placed on culture creators were pertinent. A big movie studio wanted $10,000 of the total $100,000 documentary budget to be paid for the use of a tangential mobile phone ring-tone heard in the background. Meanwhile, the theatres refused to show the documentary because of fear of litigation.
It seems that the actions that follow from our legal codes have gone beyond their original scope or intention. Unfortunately, after 5 days of discussing the IP-Innovation paradox, it is becoming clear that any good solution at reconciling the opposing sides should not help boost lawyer’s billable hours; adding laws is not the solution.
Culture is a different industry than science or technology. Cultural progress has been achieved through re-expressions and re-interpretations of original works. Of course, large media companies want to be paid for their incremental investment into the creative process. However, IP laws have had the effect of keeping the dinosaur-like media industry dependent on old technologies while the net-generation has adopted alternative modes, in effect bypassing the media corporation’s bank account. To be fair, some media companies are jumping on the bandwagon but the first-mover advantage has already been given to the crafty entrepreneurs who originally created the peer-to-peer software.
The representative from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), John Tarpey, informed the seminar’s participants about his organization’s initiative to build effective public awareness about piracy. And, it was done from my generation’s perspective—how novel! Whether WIPO’s resources are best spent on combating the theft of culture or the counterfeiting of dangerous drugs will be left for another time and place. Nonetheless, it is clear that media companies have acquiesced to this generation’s needs and wants.
While artists, agents, and large corporations figure out how to build parallel value-added technologies to entice consumers, young cultural interlocutors will continue to find their cultural commodities at the best price, $0. The biggest retribution for media companies is when all of Lawrence Weschler’s students come into class on day#1 wearing the putrid smells of Britney Spears perfume and Justin Timberlake cologne. He then may realize the somber effects of illegal downloading.
0 comments:
Post a Comment