Intellectual Property

Spencer Dawson

The main purpose of intellectual property rights is to protect the rights of people who create creative works. Intellectual property was originally created to protect individuals from larger entities which sought to exploit them. Now, the intellectual property rights are hindering the individual and benefiting corporate interests, thus harming society.

In the beginning, publication was limited to major publishing companies. There simply was no other way to share creative works than to go through the expensive publication process. The main reasons for this expense were, and still are, advertisement and distribution, not production. The main reasons for this expense were, and still are, advertisement and distribution, not production. In the world of today, these costs can easily be bypassed, thanks to the internet.

Because of the influence of the internet, artists have the ability to circumvent record companies and book publishers, which are notorious for hampering artists' creativity. Through the internet, artists have the opportunity to freely share their gift with the world with little overhead, thereby lowering the barriers of entry. This in turn, increases the amount of creative material available to the public and also increases the sharing of ideas, leading to better creative works which in turn benefit society.

The lack of artist compensation is often raised at this point, for "if an artist doesn't get paid directly for his/her work, he/she will not produce creative works". This argument is valid, but the common interpretations, for the most part, miss the point. It is a given that artists should be compensated for their work, but not in such a way that it restricts the freedom of the compensates. The idea of paying for creative works before reading, listening to, etc. is ridiculous. Do painters charge people to look at their paintings? Of course not, for if they did, far fewer people would buy paintings. This, however, is how a great deal of books and music are sold today. Without the freedom to listen to any song by any artist before buying an album, consumers are trapped in a game of russian roulette, in which they risk losing their money to an undeserving artist.

The best way for a artist to receive compensation for their works is for them to be paid after their work has been fully experienced, which can only happen with the freedom of information. This payment could come in at least two forms: direct payment to the artist, or indirect payment to the artist, in the form of buying one of the artist's albums, which has been made by a company which only handles production and distribution, allowing for lower prices and higher artist royalties. While there may be people who would abuse the freedom of creative works, the damage would certainly not be greater than the benefit of the free trade of creative works.

If the free trade of information, be it factual or creative, is restricted, it is not only the consumers that suffer, but also the artists. This is why society must forget the lies taught to it by those profiting from the acceptance of those lies, and find its own truth.