Intellectual Property Rights and the Regulation of Culture - Coursework Example

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE REGULATION OF CULTURE Concept of Immateriality The theory of immaterial labour refers different aspects of labour. On the one hand, regarding information component of commodity it refers to the changes in workers labour procedures and processes in companies and other aspects of work increasingly use computer control and cybernetics through horizontal and vertical communication to improve, develop and expand the tertiary and industrial sectors (Krysa, 2006). Besides, regarding the production of cultural content in a commodity, immateriality refers series of activities and functions involved in fixing and defining artistic and cultural standards, consumer norms, fashion tastes, and public opinions (Shershow, 2005). The intense changes that have occurred in these strategic sectors have fundamentally modified the management, composition and regulations of organization of production (Coté and Pybus, 2007; De Angelis and Harvie, 2009; Dyer-Witheford, 2005). In addition immateriality has been greatly involved in functions and roles of intellectual’s activities with the contemporary society (Buchli, 2014; Styliaras, Koukopoulos and Lazarinis, 2011). Classical definition of Immaterial Labour Post-industrial economy characteristics are presented with forms of immateriality in production, advertising, fashion, production of software, photography, audiovisual production and cultural activities (Krysa, 2006; Shershow, 2005). These immaterial labour combine various skills such as intellectual skills regarding cultural information content, imagination, composition of creativity, as well as technical and manual labour and entrepreneurial skills in social management and corporation ( Buchli, 2014; Styliaras, Koukopoulos and Lazarinis, 2011). This immaterial labour composes collective forms that exist as networks and flows. Immateriality exists in organizations cycle of production and the society and territorial levels. These cycles of production occur in capitalist and dissolves back into the flows and networks to promote enrichment and reproduction of productive capacities (Krysa, 2006). Precariousness, mobility, hyper exploitation, and hierarchy are the outspoken traits of the immateriality of labour. Therefore with the existence of immateriality of labour it increasingly becomes hard to distinguish between work and leisure. In a sense, work and life become inseparable. (Buchli, 2014; Styliaras, Koukopoulos and Lazarinis, 2011). In addition, immateriality is characterised by factual managerial roles such as certainty in the management of social obligation and the extraction of social cooperation within immaterial structures. The quality of immateriality of labour is defined by professional capacities that are the possibility of construction of the cultural-informational substance of the product and the capacity to manage its action (Buchli, 2014; Styliaras, Koukopoulos and Lazarinis, 2011). Thus immateriality appears as an actual transformation of living labour. Immateriality of labour creates a new association between production and utilization (Krysa, 2006; Shershow, 2005). The activation of both social relationship and productive cooperation with the end user is materialized by the process of communication. The function of the immateriality of labour is to help in the continual innovation and modernism in the forms and circumstances of communication therefore in consumption and work. It gives structure to and materializes consumer tastes, the imaginary and consumer tastes that in turn develop into powerful producers of tastes, needs and images (Coté and Pybus, 2007; De Angelis and Harvie, 2009; Dyer-Witheford, 2005). The distinctiveness of the commodity created through immateriality is the fact that it cannot be destroyed during consumption, but it enlarges, transforms, and produces cultural and ideological consumers environment ( Buchli, 2014; Styliaras, Koukopoulos and Lazarinis, 2011). In addition the commodity does not create the physical capability of labour power; alternatively it results in the transformation of the person who uses it. Immateriality produces social relationship including innovation, consumption and production and capital relation (Krysa, 2006; Shershow, 2005). The self-sufficiency of the synergies of Immateriality The cycle of immateriality considers social labour power as independent and capable to classify both work and the relations with production entities (Buchli, 2014; Styliaras, Koukopoulos and Lazarinis, 2011). However, Industry does not create new labour power but takes and adapts it. Industries manages new labour power assumes the independent association and entrepreneurial activity. Immateriality operates within the structures of business that the industrial centralization of allows (Krysa, 2006). The new phenomenology of labour, communication, the potentiality of synergies, the subject autonomy and the new dimensions of the organization were either foreseen or foreseeable by theories foe material labour were indispensable. Currently, micro-economy revolts against macroeconomy, and there is corrosion of the classical model of an irreducible anthropological reality. On the other hand, system theory eliminates constraints in the market and offer pride to organizations to the new phenomenology of labour and specifically the emergence of immateriality (Krysa, 2006; Shershow, 2005). In developed systemic theories, businesses conceive ensemble material and immaterial factors, both collective and individual that allow for authorization of a particular group to attain its objectives. The achievements of the organizational process need voluntary and automatic instruments of regulation. It becomes likely to look at issues from the social synergies point of view and immateriality takes on board. Immateriality of labour leads to propositions of organization theory both in neoclassical and system theory of school. Immateriality production cycle The notion of immateriality assumes and causes an enlargement and extension of productive cooperation that encompasses the production and imitation of communication and thus most critical contents: subjectivity (Krysa, 2006). If Fordism incorporated consumption into the reproduction of capital cycle, post-Fordism incorporates communication into it .( Buchli, 2014; Styliaras, Koukopoulos and Lazarinis, 2011). From an economic view, reproduction of immateriality cycle disjoints the production-consumption association as it outlines the virtuous Keynesian circle by the Marxist reproduction schemes (Coté and Pybus, 2007; De Angelis and Harvie, 2009; Dyer-Witheford, 2005). Large-scale industry and services To distinguish the new traits of the production cycle of immateriality, we compare the production of services and large-scale industry. The cycle of immateriality production demonstrates the reasons behind the post-Taylorist production and the examination of social relationships and how industry and services reformulate and restructure even the classical production (Buchli, 2014; Styliaras, Koukopoulos and Lazarinis, 2011). The aesthetic model The production procedures of social communication are the immediate process of valorization. Previously communication was organized by means of institutions and language of ideological since it is invested with communication, industrial production by an organization that uses new production modes (Krysa, 2006; Shershow, 2005). The Aesthetic model involves reproduction, author, reception and reproduction. The model explores the aspects the traditional economic categories that constitute special differences of post-Taylorist production. The aesthetic model is transformed into a sociological model that limits and creates difficulties in sociological transformation brings (Buchli, 2014; Styliaras, Koukopoulos and Lazarinis, 2011). In these steps of subsumption and socialization within the intellectual economy product tends to presuppose the type of a commodity. The subsumption of the process in capitalist logic and the alteration of its products into more desirable commodities. The brief deliberations allow us to start questioning the creation and diffusion of the model to intellectual labor and oversee the concept of creativity (Coté and Pybus, 2007; De Angelis and Harvie, 2009; Dyer-Witheford, 2005). Beneficiaries of the transformation in immateriality of labour In 1970s was characterized by great transformation regarding manual labour and how the procedures involved are apparently being defined as intellectual. Moreover, new communications technologies have consequently been a theme for subjectivities affluent with knowledge. Not only does intellectual labour been a subject of capitalist production but mass intellectuality has produced a combination of capitalist production and self-valorization. The previous dichotomy between manual and mental labour, material and immaterial labour has consistently failed to grasp new production activities (Coté and Pybus, 2007; De Angelis and Harvie, 2009; Dyer-Witheford, 2005). Over the last Twenty years, restructuring of factories and industries has led to an inquisitive paradox. The numerous unique post-Fordist theories have been implemented to defeat Fordist worker and to ensure recognition of intellectuality within the production process. Currently, the large modernized company have promoted a degree of responsibilities of workers pertaining decision-making. The transformation has promoted capitalism through information and communication technologies, the impact of globalization, information and communication technologies, and changing modes of economic and political of workers in affluent societies are occupied in insecure, irregular and irregular labour. The last decades have been characterized by a variety of trials to make broad changes in modern capitalism that have resulted in discussions of shifts concerning post-Fordism, network society, post-industrialization, new economy, liquid modernity, new capitalism, information society and risk society (Coté and Pybus, 2007; . De Angelis and Harvie, 2009; Dyer-Witheford, 2005). Writers who put pressure on the role of creativity examine all ‘creative’ work into all the areas of economic life. By contrast, scholars who are interested and concerned in the cultural industries focus on the growth of the particular industries that creation of cultural outputs. These industries and businesses have undergone a major expansion in recent years (Buchli, 2014; Styliaras, Koukopoulos and Lazarinis, 2011). Artists, for instance, media workers and other active cultural laborers, have continued to be summoned as ‘model entrepreneurs’ by government and industry figures. They are also fabricated in the more critical discussion as exemplars the shift away from the stable philosophy of ‘career’ to more informal, discontinuous and insecure employment is perceived to be iconic. Even though, there has been a discussion of the occurrence of ‘free agents’ and the rising tensions, the work–life balance has lately emerged as a novel subject for thinking and prevailing in life and labour. They draw closer at once from the influential body of work linked with autonomist Marxist intellectuals in France and Italy more so – from post-operaist opinionated activism, for instance the one seen in the Euro enlistment in the beginning years of the 21st century (Coté and Pybus, 2007; De Angelis and Harvie, 2009; Dyer-Witheford, 2005). Precariousness relative to work refers to contingent, insecure, flexible work, casualised and temporary employment, piecework and home working, freelancing. In regard, precarity indicates both the duplication of precarious, insecure forms of living, unstable, and, concurrently, new types of political fight and unity that go beyond the traditional representation of the trade union and political party (Krysa, 2006). This double meaning is fundamental to understanding the ideas and politics connected with precarity; the new instant of capitalism that produce precariousness is seen as not only unfair but also as offering the possible for new subjectivities, new communities and news of types politics (Coté and Pybus, 2007; . De Angelis and Harvie, 2009; Dyer-Witheford, 2005). The objectives of this special section is to convey three bodies of thoughts collectively– the exertion of the ‘Italian laboratory’, with Antonio Negri, Franco Beradi, Michael Hardt, PaoloVirno and Maurizio Lazzarato; the protester writings about precarity that have emerged in online journal sites for instance Fibreculture and Mute; and the promising research on artistic labour being created by sociologists and others (Lazzarato, 1996; Dyer-Witheford, 2001). It is outstanding how little relationship, until now, has existed between the theory and activism prejudiced by autonomous Marxists and experiential research and the collected seeks to develop, beginning a discussion of the diverse traditions. Each of these strands comprises, in a sense, developing field that is in the course and not yet steady in the approach understood by scientific sociologists (Coté and Pybus, 2007; De Angelis and Harvie, 2009; Dyer-Witheford, 2005). The purpose here is not to relate one perception to another, but to bring these thoughts into a discourse in which sometimes tricky and challenging (Lazzarato, 1996; Dyer-Witheford, 2001). In the contemporary business world, originality is visualized as a wonder stuff for changing offices into powerhouses of significance while intellectual property the productive prize of creative attempt is increasingly considered as the business of the 21st century. Subjectivity has been concerned to attach changes in the institute of capitalism to changes in subjectivity, and this signify, in a bold and crucial project that reverberates with and harmonizes the research of other sociologists and important psychologists more so those apprehensive with the subjectivities required by modern neoliberal capitalism (Lazzarato, 1996; Dyer-Witheford, 2001). Today, largely restructured company, an employee role increasingly involves several levels, the capability to choose among diverse alternatives and thus an extent of responsibility concerning decision-making. The notion of interface used by sociologists from communications provides a reasonable definition of the actions of this type of worker as a border between different functions, different employees and staff, between different and hierarchal levels (Coté and Pybus, 2007; De Angelis and Harvie, 2009; Dyer-Witheford, 2005). The contemporary management techniques are in search of an employee who is fully devoted to the company or the factory (Lazzarato, 1996; Dyer-Witheford, 2001). The employee’s subjectivity and personality are susceptible to institution and command. It is through immateriality that the quantity and quality of labor are structured. This change of employee’s class of work into a more labor of control, handling information, into a decision-making capability that engages the investment of subjectivity, impacts employees in unreliable ways according to their ranks within the industry hierarchy. A Potential Politics is nonetheless present as an irretrievable process. Work is therefore defined as the ability to stimulate and control productive cooperation. In this stage, employees are anticipated to be active subjects in the harmonization of the assorted functions of production, as an alternative to being it as an uncomplicated command (Coté and Pybus, 2007; De Angelis and Harvie, 2009; Dyer-Witheford, 2005). Therefore, a collective learning process develops into the compassion of productivity since it is not anymore a matter of finding diverse ways of creating or arranging already available job roles, but of identifying new ones. On the other hand, temporality has resulted in takeover of life by work and labour dictated by oppressive deadlines and punishing schedules that have become intensely exploitative though they may be as a result of passionate engagements, self-expression, creativity and opportunities for socialization with friends, people and co-workers with whom you share similar enthusiasms and interests (Coté and Pybus, 2007;De Angelis and Harvie, 2009; Dyer-Witheford, 2005). However, not every cultural worker share critique of productivism, therefore, the meanings that cultural workers provide should be central, and the productive dialogue should be able to be established between sociological work and autonomism on cultural labour (Lazzarato, 1996; Dyer-Witheford, 2001). Intellectual property rights roles in underpinning the growth and expansion of immateriality from cognitive capitalism Capitalist knowledge economies apply intellectual property (IP) rights as a way of enclosing knowledge and as a strategy by which to ensure the monopolization extraction of rents from privatised knowledge. It is ideologically justifiable as exclusive Intellectual Property rights offer incentives for individuals, businesses and companies to undertake research and develop, improve new services and products (Coté and Pybus, 2007; De Angelis and Harvie, 2009; Dyer-Witheford, 2005). Therefore, they promote and enhance innovation and invention: these exploitation of the exclusive property right supposedly supports economic agents to pursue projects and operation to innovative research and ideas, which community will be a beneficiary (Lazzarato, 1996; Dyer-Witheford, 2001). However, intellectual property rights do not spur is that an accurate description of the function of IP rights in capitalist knowledge economies? Do they really encourage innovation? The body of the intellectual property (IP) has been provided over 15 years in developing systems used in different organization and companies globally. Intellectual Property right provides a long-term strategy for protecting the Intellectual Property through the use of patent registration (Coté and Pybus, 2007; De Angelis and Harvie, 2009; Dyer-Witheford, 2005). It is the registration that has hindered further innovation in contemporary. The development of these technology transfer and licensing of companies, and business will be underpinned by the use strong Intellectual property protection presently headlined by numerous patents globally and a portfolio of other patent applications (Lazzarato, 1996; Dyer-Witheford, 2001). Debates over the distinguishing economic, social and political and social affordance of the present age converge in assemblage of intellectual property options. The Intellectual property rights have prevented the paradigmatic growth agenda for the production, development and rights of immaterial property for instance, Information Privatization, Network Distribution, Immaterial exceptionalism, and Ecological De-colonization. In addition these paradigms in immateriality of labour have affected institutional topologies, ontological foundations, and normative presuppositions regarding immaterial labour (Lazzarato, 1996; Dyer-Witheford, 2001). These four options for the production, invention and rights of immaterial property have resulted in the underpinning of growth of immateriality in developed economies in the post-industrial period (Coté and Pybus, 2007; De Angelis and Harvie, 2009; Dyer-Witheford, 2005). These paradigms have a distinct challenge to conventional understandings of innovation and invention affecting the general growth and rise of immateriality. The astonishing question that arises is ‘Whose Property? ’ creating a normative framework. Intellectual Property rights on technological inventions, innovation, and productivity has developed rapidly. According to the United States statistics from Bureau of Labor, there has been a gradual fall in the annual growth in factor productivity from 1.2% to 1% in the last two decades that is from 1970-1979 to the present (Coté and Pybus, 2007; De Angelis and Harvie, 2009; Dyer-Witheford, 2005). Of great concern, there has been a dramatic increase in patents though there have not been a simultaneous increase in productivity or invention or innovation. No matter the indicator of productivity, inventions or innovation, the use of immateriality has significantly been underpinned by the rising implementation of the intellectual property rights. It has empirically affected the immateriality of labour since many patents that serve to improve and increase productivity and innovation depending on the number of patents issued for registration (Coté and Pybus, 2007; . De Angelis and Harvie, 2009; Dyer-Witheford, 2005). Moreover, it is always voiced by proponents of restricted Intellectual Property rights in the protection of patents in that they promote and enhance the communication of ideas which in turn, promotes and spur innovation and productivity (Lazzarato, 1996; Dyer-Witheford, 2001). The argument against the promotion of development and expansion of the immateriality of labour is that if patents never existed most inventors would keep their inventions undisclosed so that competitors would not make a replica of their idea (Lazzarato, 1996; Dyer-Witheford, 2001). From this perspective, the elucidation to the quandary is a trade between the creator and the public: the inventor discloses his innovation and community provide him the right to develop it entirely for a given time span, for example, twenty years (Lazzarato, 1996; Dyer-Witheford, 2001). Thus, the argument goes, to the degree that they reinstate socially detrimental trade secret; they promote the dispersal of innovations and ideas deterring the growth of immaterial labour. In certainty, patents have the opposite impact specifically, encouraging unawareness and non-communication of thoughts and ideas (Coté and Pybus, 2007; . De Angelis and Harvie, 2009; Dyer-Witheford, 2005). Existing as a standard practice, 'companies and businesses normally inculcate their engineers developing and inventing products to steer clear of studying accessible patents so to avoid subsequent and successive claims of obstinate infringement, which promotes the possibility of paying extra damages' . The real role of intellectual property rights applies to cognitive capitalism and explains the use of intellectual rights in the capitalist market (Lazzarato, 1996; Dyer-Witheford, 2001). However, more there is a positive impact of patents on creativity and innovation since capitalist companies essentially use patents. In regard, capitalist knowledge economy, intellectual property rights are used principally as a way to signal the value and worth of the company to probable investors and to avoid market entry by the competitors so as to have strategic value separately even if they are integrated into profitable product (Coté and Pybus, 2007; . De Angelis and Harvie, 2009; Dyer-Witheford, 2005). It takes a heroic leap for any of these applications for patents to be productive. On the other side, there is an overabundance of cases in which the effect of patents on innovation and productivity has been unquestionably detrimental (Lazzarato, 1996; Dyer-Witheford, 2001). In regard, patents become a means for sharing the profits without any contribution in the actual process of innovation. As such, they depress innovation and comprise a pure misuse for the community having an immense effect on the immateriality of labour (Coté and Pybus, 2007; . De Angelis and Harvie, 2009; Dyer-Witheford, 2005). The employment of intellectual property rights in capitalist knowledge markets makes it deliberately clear that in the long run intellectual property rights decrease the incentives for present innovation because current innovators are subject to steady legal act and licensing requirement for previous patent holders (Krysa, 2006). It has become understood, bearing in mind that technological innovation is fundamentally a growing course (Coté and Pybus, 2007; . De Angelis and Harvie, 2009; Dyer-Witheford, 2005). Although patents and intellectual property rights have no impact and an adverse effect on technological productivity and innovation particularly from the legislator's view, it has greatly influenced the growth and rise of the immateriality of labour in developed markets (Lazzarato, 1996; Dyer-Witheford, 2001). In conclusion, the autonomous Marxism contribution has greatly theorized the experience of immateriality of cultural labour during post-Fordist capitalism and it has identified various forms of contemporary practices such as Intellectual Property rights around the precariousness in defining the characteristics of contemporary life (Coté and Pybus, 2007; De Angelis and Harvie, 2009; Dyer-Witheford, 2005). In addition, autonomous Marxist theories have created inspiration and critique of modern capitalism, restored dynamism in capitalism, and create more emphasis on the ability to create new labour forms. References KRYSA, J. (2006). Curating immateriality: the work of the curator in the age of network systems. Brooklyn, NY, Autonomedia. SHERSHOW, S. C. (2005). The work & the gift. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. BUCHLI, V. (2014). An archaeology of the immaterial. STYLIARAS, G., KOUKOPOULOS, D., & LAZARINIS, F. (2011). Handbook of research on technologies and cultural heritage: applications and environments. Hershey, PA, Information Science Reference. MILLER, D. (2005). Materiality. Durham, N.C., Duke University Press. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10217186. LAZZARATO, M. (1996). Immaterial labour. Radical thought in Italy: A potential politics, 1996, 133-147. GILL, R., & PRATT, A. (2008). In the social factory? Immaterial labour, precariousness and cultural work. Theory, culture & society, 25(7-8), 1-30. COTÉ, M., & PYBUS, J. (2007). Learning to immaterial labour 2.0: MySpace and social networks. Ephemera: Theory and politics in organization, 7(1), 88-106. DYER-WITHEFORD, N. (2001). Empire, immaterial labor, the new combinations, and the global worker. Rethinking Marxism, 13(3-4), 70-80. DE PEUTER, G., & DYER-WITHEFORD, N. (2005). A playful multitude? Mobilising and counter-mobilising immaterial game labour. fibreculture, 5. DE ANGELIS, M., & HARVIE, D. (2009). 'Cognitive Capitalism'and the Rat-Race: How Capital Measures Immaterial Labour in British Universities. Historical Materialism, 17(3), 3-30. FORTUNATI, L. (2007). Immaterial labor and its machinization. ephemera Jg. DYER-WITHEFORD, N. (2005). Cyber-Negri: General intellect and immaterial labor. ROSSITER, N. (2006). Organized networks: Media theory, creative labour, new institutions. Rotterdam: NAi Publishers. ROSSITER, N. (2003). Report: Creative Labour and the role of intellectual property.Fibreculture Journal, 1(1), 1-15. GILL, R., & PRATT, A. (2008). In the social factory? Immaterial labour, precariousness and cultural work. Theory, culture & society, 25(7-8), 1-30. DE PEUTER, G., & DYER-WITHEFORD, N. (2005). A playful multitude? Mobilising and counter-mobilising immaterial game labour. fibreculture, 5. Read More