Compare 2 Arguments - Essay Example

The internet has led to the emergence of the information society, whose mode of operation is purely based on information flow and access, (Lessig, 565-567). Technology has had a phenomenal impact on how people relate and carry themselves. This demands that information be available in a digital space or environment where it is fully accessible to all. This would make the world more innovative, (Lessig, 565-567). The idea of copyright laws has extremely restricted the used and flow of ideas. It is true that every person who comes up with a discovery should be appreciated in a way.

The problem is when this appreciation goes to the extent of limiting the ingenuity. This is where the world is because of multiple copyright laws. The world is full of scientists who built on the discoveries of other scientists. People do not ask for permission from Professor Einstein or even Shakespeare before quoting their work as Lessig had used as examples. The result is that better discoveries have been made, (Cole 87-89). This means that, anyone who used that piece of work without the necessary permission does not have to be sued for it.

What would happen if this was the case with every other creation or discovery? The world would be a better place. There is a growing concern that the world is becoming too commercial to nurture new and upcoming ideas. The reasoning behind copyright laws and patenting was to give the founders exclusive rights over the intellectual property. That is a bit different from trying to stifle development of intellectual property. The two contrasting opinions, must meet somewhere. The rationale behind protecting intellectual property must not exceed the need to give incentives for more discoveries.

This is because advances and new creations are meant to make life better than it is or was. This is the real issue. Most copyright work comes from the derivative work, (Lessig, 565-567). Discoveries are built upon previous discoveries. According to the economics theory of property, property attracts less interest when it is freely available, (Cole 87-89). Indeed open source property does not attract a lot of attention as Julio Cole mentioned. Therefore, intellectual property laws create a situation where necessary ideas are monopolized so that they can be appreciated.

That may be correct in some ways. Indeed, the introduction of intellectual property laws was meant to be a positive move to the young scientists and artists out there. However, this idea has mutated into something counter- productive altogether. According to Lawrence Lessig, the discoveries are made a very personal affair, as opposed to offering solutions. This can also be seen in newspapers and other forms of media which highlight lawsuits against people from musicians and other artists. As Cole says, free culture may not be the answer.

Some people argue that ingenuity cannot be paid through money. If Einstein and Shakespeare were too concerned about intellectual property laws, then they would have put a stop to the many upcoming scientists and writers who build on their work and ingenuity, (Lessig, 565-567). The critical question is, to what extent can copyright laws go? And are they absolute? Those who believe in a free culture push for the period of patents and copyright property to be lessened. If it is possible, then it can be done away with depending on the opinion of the innovator.

Discoveries must be seen as a response to human global challenges,