Plagiarism:a critique of the rapacious perpetual copyrights - Essay Example

? Plagiarism: A Critique of the Rapacious Perpetual Copyrights Details: al Affiliation: Submission Plagiarism: A Critique of the Rapacious Perpetual Copyrights History is marked not so much by ideas argued but by the add-on impact to the knowledgebase for a better society. Novelists glance at the stuff of the world to compile their portion of artwork, and in the process appropriate themselves the obvious, still with a near conviction that literary stories should always eschew “features that serves to date back their content.” The sheer numbers of parodies with claims of originality attached is infinite, yet mysterious. Needless to say, the character of the modern era hinges upon what requires no defense. Man is born into a world littered with incoherent realms of texts and images. It only serves intellectual curiosity to question the construction of contemporary copyright, which is taken as a law, universally recognized with moral absoluteness akin to the biblical right to life, or as the inherent natural law of gravity (Drahos, 1998, p. 20). In actual sense, it boarders neither. Rather, it is a tenuously forged term, endlessly revised with defective incarnations that bound and justifies infringements on almost everything from failure to pay royalties by Girl Scouts for the campfire songs they sing to the research violations on patented human genes (Scherer, 2002). Like a birthright revered in every corner of a writing world, the infinite fee-oozing copyright practices stretches the modern ambitious art out of the familiar grounds into strange territories. Whatever trademark violations attached to the artistic appropriation of intellectual property, to tiptoe away the common signs into some towering irrelevance seems far worse. There is no doubt that the advent of technology has come with a revolutionizing effect, and the musical world is just but a testimony of a metamorphosis on course. It has not only enabled a kind of an “open source culture” with myriad possibilities of reworking pre-existing melodic fragments, but has also enshrined a systematic sound duplication effect that no longer permits the allure of ownership. From the recombinant “versions” of the Jamaican deconstructed old music in the seventies, the endless, gloriously impure social process is a sort of a forgone public common with a generative effect of innumerable hours of soul soothing music. Intuitively, artistic vocations are brought to light by the nascent gifts of nature, and that finding one’s niche in the broad field only formalizes one’s approval of the pre-existing discourses; a notion well affirmed by surrealism: the possession of unspecifiable intensity already dulled by everyday utility. As dubious as the word “copyright” may seem, going by the numerous conceptions from the varied academic quotas, it remains a tightly knitted guard to the encroachment in the sphere of “intellectual property.” Notwithstanding the jitters, it remains a “right” but in no absolute sense; technology has proved this in the affirmative—making it rightly a government-sanctioned monopoly on use, i.e. “use-monopoly” with a definite prohibitive touchline on the profiteering culture. In the realms of academia, economics to be precise, monopoly is an outright infringement to the public good with notable bully effects on consumers and competitors alike (Hirschey, 2009). It is a dreaded, suspect term with a pernicious connotation that every well-meaning economists and more so the decent citizens would not want to interact with in business cycles. Simple analysis catches this concern and simplifies it to the doubtful: the much well-regarded “welfare triangle” in monopoly markets creates artificial scarcity with additional topped-up prices on the consumables. A more recent analysis alludes to a distorted end of the bargain courtesy of ineffective production methodologies fueled in part by a government’s mandated-favor purchasing treatment that excludes everybody else, thus resulting into an eventual, constructed social surplus waste (Hirschey, 2009). Oh yes, there is another twist: the invisible pernicious hand of total blockage to entry with the consequential effect of concentrating wealth in the hands of the chosen few. The software industry vis a vis the Microsoft serves a better picture. Noteworthy, the ever burgeoning numbers of copyrights calls to question the validity of originality of every new product in the market. John Kelly, IBM’s intellectual property strategist, notes that the United States certifies almost 3000 patents annually. Given the loopholes inherent in US Patent Office policy, the numbers can easily be magnified to a record 10,000 8 patents (Boldrin & Levine, 2008, pg. 81). Microsoft, a leader in the software industry, has mastered the game and is always ahead of its competitors; the company has over 20, 000 patents, yet adds approximately 1,000 a month. With such fascination, it is virtually impossible to navigate the copyright thicket without a sliver touch on the other, thus making a huge chunk of their numbers [copyrights] “artificial legal devices”, or rather mere social waste. Hence, the forceful opening up of Microsoft technology hitherto sealed-off for perfect remuneration. According to Schumpeter’s theory of “dynamic efficiency”, perpetual copyright—monopoly in practice—has only set in motion “creative destruction” —a powerhouse that works tirelessly to erode the hitherto tightly held singularity (Schumpeter, 1911). It is evidently clear that the “welfare triangle” of a former pioneer entrepreneur (such as Bill Gates) is not as large as it was at inception; all courtesy of a contagious power-drive to innovate. To be sure, the situation is rightly a wasteful insanity than the multi-billion nuclear weaponry of the cold war era, which at least made sense with the “threat of mutual assured destruction.” With the “everything patentable” virus seemingly striking in all directions simultaneously, artists and their proxies find themselves trapped in reparation web with fixing jibes at their very own best audience members for any probable lauds of their work. Judge Michael B. Mukasey ruled on August 10, 2005 that Thomas Shine, a student at Yale School of Architecture, had all the legal rights to seek compensation from David M. Child for alleged “improper appropriation” of copyrighted artistic expression of the Olympic Tower’s twisting and undulating diamond-shaped facade” (student’s project) into the latter’s Freedom Tower’s architectural design (Lubell, 2005). Could it be that none had ever thought of a ‘twisting tower project” by the time this fellow was still in class (1990s)? A similar form of legal blackmail was also evident in George Selden’s patent of a “road engine”; a de facto that for a long time attracted a 1.25 percent compensation package on every automobile traded in the United States. With “creative destruction” limiting operational membership and licenses to the few chosen billionaires (Graham, 2004, p.1-2), the U.S. automobile industry developed into a rogue oligopoly that concerned citizens disapprove of as unworthy, legal intellectual ownership/monopoly that overlaps to the sphere of public good. While such cases may sound a little exaggerated conspiracy to find widespread favor of tearing into the copyright protected markets, many are true accounts of well documented bits of control battles, with more resurfacing every single day. One such example is the encounter over the aromatic Basmati rice. Armed with an already granted patent sanctioning inclusive rights over production in North America, RiceTec, a Texan based company has battled a decade long suit lodged by the Indian government claiming originality of the same (Rai, 2005). Indeed if left unchallenged, the patent would have not only endangered India’s exports to the US, but the local farmers also risked incarceration for growing seeds for their subsequent farming. So, there are restrictions on improving even the already known? How outrageous the virus! Contrary to the belief that the copyrighted innovations, however genuine, are under constructive use, almost 90 percent are rather licensed for strategic positioning with the hope that some commercially viable investment will surface to utilize the innovation at some cost. A case in point was the Honeywell’s autofocus camera patent that generated $127.5 million in compensation from Minolta in 1991 for alleged copyright infringement. Yet the idea in contention was not in use even by the patentee, Honeywell (Honeywell Inc. agrees to settle patent dispute, 1992). Intellectual monopolists are well aware that preserving their interests requires trading in restrictive products that at times are less useful to the consumer” (Biddle et al, 2002). Apparently, operating under “a monopolist” is akin to putting up with the bully methodologies of a strange religious sect, where they have it or no way; mistakes made may as well be vigorously repeated until “they” make/find a cure. More worryingly, this greedy lot invades, grabs, partitions and ends up enclosing what’s rightly everyone’s. That a language is a shared common, owned by no one, not even by a pioneer community is much of a freer knowledge than any possible imagination. That a language is a shared “thing” makes it an inventory asset, encroachable by everyone; a socio-cultural institution with only definitive characteristics to “a people” as part of a larger whole. The partitioning and the subsequent closure of the commons, are thus, rather unfortunate occurrences sanctioned due to a withered spirited commitment from the populace to their defense; the everyday raids that never happen in panorama but in glimpses for perfect notice (David, 2000). Don R. Swanson, a former dean of the University of Chicago's Graduate Library School rightly remarked of “undiscovered public knowledge” that only awaits assemblage by those with the drive for a journey across specialties (Swanson, 1986). That medical research, by and large, may have significantly addressed, or perhaps solved standing problems is a reality. So often, it needs/takes simple systematic survey of the scientific literature to that very necessary end. To this end, the validity of rooftop claims of originality and the huge taxpayers’ funding that often suspends the worthy precursors stretches the mystery even further. That monopoly is a social evil is well accepted. A perfect, perpetual intellectual ownership with attached endless remuneration is, therefore, nonsense; the evidence adduced herein serves no less than a tipping iceberg. The society is being mugged with regressive inefficiencies under our very watch, more so by numerous documentaries that serve little that dust gathering in our very own tiny shelves. This is a society of self-centeredness encapsulated in bad practices capable of swallowing an entire culture for the benefit of the haves. Copyright is a temporal fit for progressive science and useful art, which is fair enough. Nonetheless, limitless patenting serves the contrary. It is important to echo once again that property rights, whether physical or intellectual, are suspended by political discourses via legislative agenda. As Drahos (1998) notes: “The emergence of well defined, secure property rights was a part of a much broader historical process in which absolute monarchies and their legitimating political philosophies lost their institutional dominance to be replaced by the institution of the modern state and secular political philosophies that recognize the rights of individuals within and against the state”( p. 23). It is, thus, incumbent upon policy makers of the 21 century governments to move with speed and embrace a world where interactivity with ideas is assured; for anything on the contrary are just but attempts to block the inevitable in an era of digital technology. Intellectual property legislations in place were enacted on the basis of passive consumption models that have been rendered obsolete by the interactive media. The world’s economy is now majorly modern-technology driven where yesterday’s ways of life are of little relevance. That every text or conversation is a woven echo of a culture with crosscutting threads of both traceable and anonymous references is all but a patched art-work that sums the definitive lingo of plagiarism. For ideas that goes with every argument are secondhand, either consciously or unconsciously sourced from a million “originals”, and that the discoloration, this texts herein inclusive, are mere mental temperament revealed to whip support via fashioned phrasing. After all, millions stand taller with unique abilities, and a firm grip on grammar is just but among the many; what do I care if some future Green cobbles my handwork into a nice anthem? The case for perpetual copyrights is but a denial to free flow of the essential, natural gift-aspect of the Creative Art. You, (my) reader(s), are welcome to digest, ingest or otherwise rebuff my arguments. I invite contextual placing from my audience (s), for the words read above were never mine anyway. Whatever inclination, a man has a right to own opinion; my blessings. References Biddle, Peter, et. al. (2002). The darknet and the future of content distribution. Available from http://crypto.stanford.edu/DRM2002/darknet5.doc Boldrin, M. & Levine, D. K. (2008). Against intellectual monopoly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. David, P.A. (2000). “Tragedy of the public knowledge 'commons'? Global Science, intellectual property and the digital technology boomerang.” In Research Memoranda 003, MERIT. Retrieved from econwpa.wustl.edu/eps/dev/papers/0502/0502010.pdf Drahos, P. (1998). The universality of intellectual property rights: origins and development. Retrieved from http://www.wipo.org/tk/en/activities/1998/humanrights/papers/word/drahos.doc Graham, Stuart J.H. (2004). Behind the patent's veil: Innovators’ uses of patent continuation practice, 1975-2002 (GaTech TI:GER Working Paper Series). NW. Atlanta: College of Management, Georgia Institute of Technology. Hirschey, M. (2009). Managerial Economics (12th ed.). Mason, OH : Thomson/South-Western. Honeywell Inc. agrees to settle patent dispute. (1992, August 22). The Seattle Times. Retrieved from http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19920822&slug=1508758 Lubell, S. (2005, August 16). Architect's lawsuit over freedom tower moves forward. WTC News. Retrieved from http://archrecord.construction.com/news/wtc/archives/050816lawsuit.asp Rai, S. (2001, August 25). India-U.S. fight on Basmati Rice is mostly settled. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/25/business/india-us-fight-on-basmati-rice-is-mostly-settled.html Scherer, F.M. (2002). The economics of human gene patents. Academic Medicine, 77 (12), 1348–1367. Schumpeter, J. 1934 (1911). The theory of economic development (English version). New York: McGraw-Hill. Swanson, Don R. (1986). Undiscovered public knowledge. Library quarterly, 56 (2), 103-118. Read More