Intellectual property - Personal Statement Example

?In the essays presented here from The Informed Argument, the five highlighted present the idea that intellectual property shared is intellectual property that is now collectively owned. While we should do our best to give credit where it is due and to be mindful to properly cite and give homage to the original author, it is often difficult to separate out which thoughts belong to the individual and which thoughts are now more collectively owned. One person’s work inspires another person’s work and before you know it, it is a melting pot of ideas, influences, and thoughts. Although no one is suggesting that we simply do away with paying people for their ideas or crediting the originator, each author is making the point that the lines of ownership are blurry and they are getting more so all the time. Ralph Caplan’s essay, “What’s Yours?” asks the central question: what really belongs to you? It is a timely and relevant question in our current climate of continual public sharing. So much is on the table for the consumption of all and the digital age has made so much accessible that once was available to an exclusive few, it can be difficult to know where the lines are. Caplan takes the argument many steps forward, however, and begins asking, ‘where do the rights of the individual artist or creator end and the rights of the public begin?’ He makes his point clear when he points out the ludicrousness of some of the more inane copyrighting arguments. “Disney having used ‘Snow White’ and other public domain materials for major productions, anxiously seeks to protect forever the sanctity of Mickey Mouse, which strikes some people as a Mickey Mouse idea” (2004, p. 215). Caplan’s discussion points out that it is difficult to make hard and fast rules when we’re talking about intellectual property. How do you place ownership on ideas when our ideas influence the thinking and ideas of others? He shares an illuminating experience upon listening to Suzanne Langer lecture on signs and symbols. to make his point: I was disappointed to find that she really had nothing more to say on the subject than I had already said in a lecture of my own. Driving home, I figured out why. My ideas were as good as hers because they were hers to start with! I had absorbed them from reading her books! (p. 216). Caplan’s point is that when you share your intellectual ideas, you want people to be informed, changed, and guided by them. When we go about trying to mandate which thoughts belong to whom, we get into murky territory when we’re trying to be part of a world of scholarship. Lowry points out that one of the problems of technological advancements that move at the speed of light is that it is difficult for other industries to keep up with them. For example, the music industry trying to keep up with—and keep from being put into a financial jackpot—coming technology and predict which advances will catch on has proven difficult. Downloading music was a hot topic for a while, but now beyond that we’re faced with the ringtone problem. The popularity of ringtones is evident whenever you are in public place where cell phones are allowed—and sometimes even where they aren’t. But if that wasn’t enough to convince you, consider this: “Billboard now compiles a regular chart of the 20 ‘Hot Ringtones’” (2004, p. 239). For an industry that is struggling to remake itself and to survive in the new economy, paying attention to potential money-making markets is important. But as Rio Caraeff, vice president of Universal Mobile Music points out: “Ringtones are all about personalization. They are self-expression” (p. 239). So is it any wonder that teenagers are sharing ringtones for free? Should people have to pay for a sliver of music they admire and love? Isn’t it an artist’s dream to make music that so deeply impacts someone that they want to hear it every time their phone rings? Think back to the days when we all used cassette tapes and could tape songs right off the radio. Is this really that different? If I download a track onto my phone, I own it. If I take a sliver of it and create a ringtone, should I have to pay for it again? Here again, we have the release of intellectual property—in this case, music—into the public sphere and the idea of ownership becomes murky. In “Them Damn Pictures,” Doug Marlette tries to make the argument that sharing your intellectual property is critical to our wellbeing as a society. Although, he is arguing against censorship, Marlette’s point is also applicable to idea of who owns intellectual property. If The Colbert Report or The Daily Show wants to use a political cartoon to help create a segue or context for a segment they want to do on their show, should they have to pay? Once the cartoon appears in the newspaper, should anyone who sees it have to pay? Or would it be better to share those freely among us to increase critical thinking and awareness about important social issues? As Marlette points out: “There is something about cartoons, which are by definition unruly” (2004, p. 344). Marlette makes the point that trying to impose censorship on satire and political cartoons is detrimental to society at large. He pointedly reminds us of our rights, including free speech. He reminds us that often “the U.S. media and the public official entrusted with defending our freedoms wimped out” when the going gets tough and a cartoon or political statement has offended someone, these entities often throw in the towel and cave. Again, we have the idea that intellectual property is meant to be shared and that once it is, it is owned by all. When it is censored, we all lose something valuable that belonged to us. In “Copyright Crusaders,” David Gibson points out that copyrights are motivated by money, not by what’s good for us all. He walks us through the popular poem, “Footprints in the Sand,” which has questionable authorship, yet has sparked a serious controversy regarding ownership. He makes the point that this poem is so well known it has nearly become public domain by virtue of familiarity. He points out the “gauntlet of Footprints mugs, calendars, greeting cards, and mousepads” where you may have encountered this inspirational verse. There is currently a lawsuit about claimed authorship, but it really about the millions generated by the numerous items sold with this verse appearing on it. Gibson makes a similar point to Caplan, Lowry, and Marlette: at what point does shared intellectual property cease to belong to its author? At what point do we stop asking people to pay for something and allow them to be inspired and moved by it? In “The Responsible Plagiarist,” Abigail Lipson and Shelia M. Reindl make serious points about the practice of plagiarism. We like to think that people plagiarize out of laziness or a desire to steal someone else’s work and thoughts and present it as their own. But Lipson and Reindl make the point that more often than not, students plagiarize out of a desire to do meet what they perceived to be the expectations of their teachers. They point out that “there is a virtually uniform understanding among college students that plagiarism is wrong” (2004, p. 221). These authors point out that so much of what students are taught in schools involves parroting what someone else thinks or believes. They sit through lectures and try to embody and embrace the beliefs of their teachers and professors. So when they sit down to write papers, they want to please their instructors. How better to do so than to espouse the very beliefs the instructor has spouted? If an author or piece was recommended by their professor, then putting forth the beliefs and thoughts of that person as truth is going to please their instructor, correct? It is similar to what Caplan pointed out: when we read someone’s work, we absorb it. It seeps into our consciousness and becomes part of the fabric of our thoughts. How then can we separate it back out and give the author credit? The authors here are not trying to say that we shouldn’t use citations or give authors credit. Of course, we should. But they do make a good point about intellectual property that has been shared with others. The lines become blurry and it is confusing even to students who are doing their best to be conscientious and properly cite. Getting credit for one’s work is important. Indeed, it often motivates people to stay committed to their tasks of discovery, working on hard problems, or creating something new. We want to always honor authorship and hail those who create things we find worthy. But we live in a world where sharing intellectual property is easier than ever before. As a result, it is becoming harder and harder to discern whose thoughts belong to whom. The five authors showcased here make their points about a variety of genres, settings, and situations. However, the central point of their discussions is this: once intellectual property is ‘out there’ it is no longer yours. You may get credit for having brought it into the world, but you lose control over what happens to it and how it impacts and influences the work of others. Ownership becomes a very gray area in today’s world of hyper access. References Caplan, R. (2004). “What’s Yours?” In Robert P. Yagelski, Robert Keith Miller (Eds.) The Informed Argument. (214-216). Belmost, MA: Wadsworth. Gibson, D. (2004). “Copyright Crusaders.” In Robert P. Yagelski, Robert Keith Miller (Eds.) The Informed Argument. (217-220). Belmost, MA: Wadsworth. Lipson, A. & Reindl, S.M. (2004). “The Responsible Plagiarist.” In Robert P. Yagelski, Robert Keith Miller (Eds.) The Informed Argument. (217-220). Belmost, MA: Wadsworth. Lowry, T. (2004). “Ringtones: Music to Mongols’ Ears.” In Robert P. Yagelski, Robert Keith Miller (Eds.) The Informed Argument. (238-240). Belmost, MA: Wadsworth. Marlette, D. (2004). “Them Damn Pictures.” In Robert P. Yagelski, Robert Keith Miller (Eds.) The Informed Argument. (244-248). Belmost, MA: Wadsworth. Read More