Reconsidering Copyright and Intellectual Property Law
$19.95 Buy and instantly download this paper now
The paper discusses how the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and other pro-copyright organizations have lobbied vehemently in favor of strict, rigid, and traditional copyright protection for intellectual property. The paper then presents the argument that copyright laws should never go beyond their intended purpose of helping the original owner of the intellectual property because to do so would inhibit creativity. The paper goes on to show why the fear that Napster and similar file sharing applications are creating a black market of intellectual property robbery is ridiculous, and also explains why copyright laws actually inhibit creativity instead of stimulating creativity by protecting the artist. The paper contends that copyright laws have gone overboard and should never be employed in so strict a way as to inhibit the glorious creative projects that arise out of borrowing, sampling, or collage.
From the Paper:The fear that Napster and similar file sharing applications are creating a black market of intellectual property robbery is ridiculous. For one, the owners of long-term copyrights are "rarely the original artists," (Keegan). The RIAA, big pharmaceutical giants, and megalomaniacal movie producers own the copyrights, not the artists that actually created the material in the first place. Therefore, large, impersonal corporations bent on profiteering and not necessarily dedicated to the creative process are the ones benefitting from copyright law. It was not always this way, as Vaidhyanathan points out. At the beginning of the twentieth century, copyright laws were tilted more in favor of the consumer and not the producer. However, the producers were getting rich and amassed considerable lobbying power and political clout that remains strong until this day. "In an attempt to redress that antiproducer imbalance, courts, the US Congress, and international organizations have succeeded in tilting the body of law dangerously the other way. Groucho Marx is gone, but AOL Time Warner Inc., is more powerful than ever," (Vaidhyanathan 2).
Furthermore, copyright laws work the opposite of the ways they are purported to operate. Far from stimulating creativity by protecting the artist, copyright laws actually inhibit creativity. All creative works are a form of pastiche or collage in one way or another. Bob Dylan, for instance, willfully demonstrated the value of a cut-and-paste approach to music and poetry.
Sample of Sources Used:
- Cline, Austin. "Copyrights and Creativity." Retrieved online: http://atheism.about.com/b/2003/07/17/copyrights-and-creativity.htm
- "Copyright and wrong." The Economist. 8 April 2010. Retrieved online: http://www.economist.com/node/15868004?story_id=15868004
- "But Dmitry did no wrong." The Economist. 2 Aug 2001. Retrieved online http://www.economist.com/node/719084
- Keegan, Victor. "Shorter copyright would free creativity." Guardian. 7 October 2009. Retrieved online: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/oct/07/shorter-copyright-term
- Lethem, Jonathan. "The ecstasy of influence: A plagiarism." Harper's. Feb 2007. Retrieved online: http://harpers.org/archive/2007/02/0081387
Cite this Argumentative Essay:
Reconsidering Copyright and Intellectual Property Law (2013, May 02) Retrieved December 07, 2023, from https://www.academon.com/argumentative-essay/reconsidering-copyright-and-intellectual-property-law-153066/
"Reconsidering Copyright and Intellectual Property Law" 02 May 2013. Web. 07 December. 2023. <https://www.academon.com/argumentative-essay/reconsidering-copyright-and-intellectual-property-law-153066/>