When I first read the assignment guide for the week, I had no idea how compelling and interesting I would find the materials to look into. When I was watching the film this morning, I found myself completely and totally absorbed by what I was watching. The debate on copyright is definitely an interesting and complicated one and both film examples this week did an excellent job of stating their beliefs on the matter. It all comes down to this: is it possible to own an idea? Ownership is defined as the state or fact of owning something--but an idea isn't really a "thing". An idea is a concept, a thought--it isn't a car or an invention or a pet. You can't own it. Ideas are meant to spread; to inspire others to innovate and create something based on that idea. That's the founding principle of creativity. Both film samples advocate for this principle. Less law and less guidelines will encourage creativity and innovation, whereas our current state only inhibits our ability to make something new. I really loved the films and was surprised at how engrossed in them I became. They are fabulous vessels for discussion in my own mind and in the classroom. Some questions that came to my mind for possible discussions were:
How many times/ways should something change before it becomes new again?
Is it possible for someone to own an idea?
What determines if something is ownable?
Should all art be free and accessible to everyone?
Does more freedom equal more creativity?
Have you ever violated copyright law?
Are ideas art?
Should inventions/medication be copyrighted to prevent others from developing similar technologies?
What should copyright NOT apply to?
What should copyright apply to?
How do you think copyright laws can be abused?
Yes, I agree that concept of intellectual property and owning an idea is complex and mind-blowing. One of the main points of the film is that copyright law were originally designed to protect the little guy - the artist, but within the last two decades, it became a corporate tool trying to project an out-dated business model by suing a bunch of individuals who downloaded music. I really liked that the corporate bullying that inspired artists (beginning with Radiohead in 2007) to create a new distribution model that is now redefining intellectual property and what digital art is.
ReplyDeleteIn the old business model, artists often made their cash flow by having someone else sell their art for them. So, musicians needed a record label for the national and international exposure. Of course, there is a long and complicated narrative that few artists actually made money after the record companies got their cut of the pie... but what copyright was intended to do was save a small artists if a corporation say... stole their songs.
One of the points of the film is that rolling stones stole at least a few songs from African American performers who were never paid (or probably paid very little), and still aren't paid on the royalty of those songs... yet, these same artists turned around and sued for song writing "crimes" that they themselves had committed. At that point, copyright is a tool of greed and control and manifesting power.
Sadara, I think your question - "Does more freedom equal more creativity?" is extremely interesting because I too have wondered this. My first instinct is to answer yes. But as an artist I had to think about - if all art were free, we would likely not have people working as artists because they would have no source of income. I think that we must recognize ideas and art as a type of property to ensure jobs for those working as creative professionals. If they could not make any money off of their work, they may not make it... and that would be sad for everyone!
ReplyDelete