![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Rambling philosophical musings ahead.
I've been downloading music again. Before anyone gets the wrong idea, I don't mean pirated stuff... these are mp3s (filk to be specific) that the artists themselves have placed on websites for download or have otherwise authorized the free distribution of over the internet. It's gotten me thinking about the concept of intellectual property again. And, I'm forced to admit, I really don't think I get it. The concept, I mean. At least, my idea of intellectual property doesn't much resemble the ideas of others that I have talked with.
I'm not quite sure how best to explain that statement, so I think I'll start by taking a moment to describe my view on intellectual property. Or rather, my view of a more ideal model of handling intellectual property. I've thought for a while now that intellectual property should be handled using more of a socialist model. Artists, scientists, and other professional creators of intellectual property should work directly for the community, placing their work immediately into the public domain in exchange for a scalable stipend in direct proportion to the perceived value placed on their individual work by the public. My reasoning for this is twofold: first, I believe that both scientific knowledge and works of art (the two main forms of intellectual property) should belong to humanity. Science because it has the potential to uplift the human condition and works best when able to freely draw upon the greatest pool of information available, and art because it performs similarly for the human spirit and works best when given the greatest repertoire to both incorporate and draw inspiration from. Secondly, I realize that artists and scientists require both the capacity to support themselves through their work and also the potential to increase their personal fortunes through their work if it is of sufficient value to the public. That is why I suggest that the stipend should be scaled according to the value placed on the work by the public, rather than simply suggesting a fixed allowance of some sort.
I have reason to believe that this model is workable, as elements of it have been in place before. At one point, for example, artists had patrons who supported them in this manner... this model merely replaces the individual patron with the community as a whole. Yet, speaking with others about this concept, I have found that there is considerable resistance to this model from the artists themselves. I still haven't fully understood that.
As I recall, the major objection was to the element of the work going into the public domain and other artists having the capacity to use it in whole or part in their own work. It was felt that the works of art (in this case a character in fiction) was too personal, too much a part of the artist, to let anyone else use in their own works. On one hand, I partially understand the emotions involved in that position, but on the other I think of examples of popular works in the public domain being reused by others in their own work and I cannot support ever-increasing restrictions on what material enters the public domain, which is where we are at now. One of my favorite episodes on Star Trek: TNG was when Data acted as Sherlock Holmes. Many good movies are remakes of older legends or fairy tales.... from Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves all the way to Robin Hood: Men in Tights. ;-) Indeed, the entire world of fan-fiction (something I truly enjoy reading quite often) blatantly violates current intellectual property laws and treats the material as if it were in the public domain... I would like to see a world where that could be done openly and legally, and where the artists who use characters in that way get similar (if lesser) recognition to those who actually created them. Yes, the work may be less original since it uses pre-made characters, but it also provides a service to the public by suggesting answers to the questions the original artist often leaves unanswered... the what-ifs. What if the character did something different in x-situation? What if the character was secretly gay? What if he died? What if he lived in another time? With the exception of the gay question, I know that certain comic-book series' used to write entire what-if comics addressing the answers to some of these questions.
Here's a what-if for you.... what if the rest of the world of intellectual property took a lesson from them? What would our world be like then? For an answer, perhaps take a look at the flourishing doujinshi industry in japan and their symbiotic relationship with the professional publishers that their works are often derived from. Personally, I believe that I would like that world... and I still don't really get the position of those who would not, though I am trying.
I've been downloading music again. Before anyone gets the wrong idea, I don't mean pirated stuff... these are mp3s (filk to be specific) that the artists themselves have placed on websites for download or have otherwise authorized the free distribution of over the internet. It's gotten me thinking about the concept of intellectual property again. And, I'm forced to admit, I really don't think I get it. The concept, I mean. At least, my idea of intellectual property doesn't much resemble the ideas of others that I have talked with.
I'm not quite sure how best to explain that statement, so I think I'll start by taking a moment to describe my view on intellectual property. Or rather, my view of a more ideal model of handling intellectual property. I've thought for a while now that intellectual property should be handled using more of a socialist model. Artists, scientists, and other professional creators of intellectual property should work directly for the community, placing their work immediately into the public domain in exchange for a scalable stipend in direct proportion to the perceived value placed on their individual work by the public. My reasoning for this is twofold: first, I believe that both scientific knowledge and works of art (the two main forms of intellectual property) should belong to humanity. Science because it has the potential to uplift the human condition and works best when able to freely draw upon the greatest pool of information available, and art because it performs similarly for the human spirit and works best when given the greatest repertoire to both incorporate and draw inspiration from. Secondly, I realize that artists and scientists require both the capacity to support themselves through their work and also the potential to increase their personal fortunes through their work if it is of sufficient value to the public. That is why I suggest that the stipend should be scaled according to the value placed on the work by the public, rather than simply suggesting a fixed allowance of some sort.
I have reason to believe that this model is workable, as elements of it have been in place before. At one point, for example, artists had patrons who supported them in this manner... this model merely replaces the individual patron with the community as a whole. Yet, speaking with others about this concept, I have found that there is considerable resistance to this model from the artists themselves. I still haven't fully understood that.
As I recall, the major objection was to the element of the work going into the public domain and other artists having the capacity to use it in whole or part in their own work. It was felt that the works of art (in this case a character in fiction) was too personal, too much a part of the artist, to let anyone else use in their own works. On one hand, I partially understand the emotions involved in that position, but on the other I think of examples of popular works in the public domain being reused by others in their own work and I cannot support ever-increasing restrictions on what material enters the public domain, which is where we are at now. One of my favorite episodes on Star Trek: TNG was when Data acted as Sherlock Holmes. Many good movies are remakes of older legends or fairy tales.... from Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves all the way to Robin Hood: Men in Tights. ;-) Indeed, the entire world of fan-fiction (something I truly enjoy reading quite often) blatantly violates current intellectual property laws and treats the material as if it were in the public domain... I would like to see a world where that could be done openly and legally, and where the artists who use characters in that way get similar (if lesser) recognition to those who actually created them. Yes, the work may be less original since it uses pre-made characters, but it also provides a service to the public by suggesting answers to the questions the original artist often leaves unanswered... the what-ifs. What if the character did something different in x-situation? What if the character was secretly gay? What if he died? What if he lived in another time? With the exception of the gay question, I know that certain comic-book series' used to write entire what-if comics addressing the answers to some of these questions.
Here's a what-if for you.... what if the rest of the world of intellectual property took a lesson from them? What would our world be like then? For an answer, perhaps take a look at the flourishing doujinshi industry in japan and their symbiotic relationship with the professional publishers that their works are often derived from. Personally, I believe that I would like that world... and I still don't really get the position of those who would not, though I am trying.
