Sinnreich

I found Sinnreich’s argument that “the audience was born at the same time as music became a commodity” (128) to be interesting and really on-point.  In a consumer society, no longer are cultural participants producing and listening to music for reasons of social identity (as in pre-industrial societies), but instead acquiring music in order to be considered cultural participants.  This is incredibly true, especially when one thinks of how, in Facebook and MySpace profiles, music we “like” is linked up to others who enjoy the same music.  By placing that music there, and signifying that you “have” this music, play it, and listen to it, you communicate your “group affiliations and cultural attitudes.”  It’s an important musical/cultural phenomenon that I personally have not read much about, and Sinnreich’s description of this was particularly striking to me.

Barlow

In his Wired article, John Perry Barlow provides a fantastic comparison between understanding light in more than one way and understanding information in such a manner.  Just as light is understood as both a wave and a particle, information must be understood as an activity, a life form, and a relationship – and only by understanding this can one understand why information should not be chained down through burdensome intellectual property rights.  Throughout his description, I really found Barlow’s statement of, “Information is a verb, not a noun,” to be the most powerful, since that in itself could shoot down any argument that it deserves any ounce of intellectual property rights.  He writes, “Information is an action which occupies time rather than a state of being which occupies physical space, as is the case with hard goods. It is the pitch, not the baseball, the dance, not the dancer.”  For me, it’s a novel way of perceiving information, yet it makes more sense than seeing it as a “thing.”

Lessig (2)

First of all, I have to note that when I started reading this second part of Lessig’s book and he discussed the phenomena of the “chimera” (one person with two sets of DNA, or one animal), my mind immediately went to that creature by the same name in mythology…kind of interesting how genetics and mythological names here combine (unrelated © note!).

 

Anyway, when Lessig discussed “Balances” around page 211, the analogy he used to describe how “we’re focusing on the wrong thing” in the copyright debate was probably the best I’ve seen yet (adding gasoline to a burning fire instead of letting the fire burn itself out).  Policy makers are only making the “problem” of new technologies worse by trying to stop them, but these technologies are not even the real problem.  We’ve become blindsided by these various technologies and their ability to “violate” copyright, and are not paying attention to real cultural threats that have been set in place by policy makers and lobbyists…and frankly it’s scary.

Tehranian

Tehranian’s article demonstrated in the clearest (and yet most mind-boggling) terms how everyone “infringes” copyright, and how very often this occurs.  Beyond that, he confronts the issue that with our improving technology and eroding privacy, not only will we continue to “infringe” as we always have (and in greater numbers), but copyright violation enforcement will become all the more possible.  And we’ve already seen this happen with the large number of RIAA cases, which Tehranian also discusses.  This is a prime example of expanded enforcement of copyright laws, and while certain creators might herald this as a good thing, does it make sense in our current society?  The law/norm gap here certainly needs to be reevaluated.

Wu

After reading Wu, and considering the work of Lessig, I can say that Wu makes a fair and valid argument. He makes it easier to understand the state of the American government. The problem seems to be, as Wu argues, that the government is rightfully stuck on the ideology of democracy. Yet that makes it difficult to separate the actual issue from the ideology of how one feels it should be dealt with. I liked Wu because he clarified a side of the IP argument that is often criticized, cutting the "bad guys" some slack. In terms of the value of a product, I think this is interesting to consider when one thinks about incentive to create. I may utilize Wu's argument as a point of reference when considering whether incentive to create is necessary, and perhaps having sites like Creative Commons, shows a circumstance where the incentive is to share, and that copyright laws have not completed stifled creativity.

Lessig on AIDS

Lessig's Free Culture wraps up with an important and significant argument about the need for reform. It is incredibly frustrating to hear about the need of big businesses to keep tight restraints on Copyright laws, when these same laws are killing people. It is ludicrous, and unimaginable that lifesaving medication is selling for $1500 when it costs $1, it values cost of living over the cost of a life. Everything we've read in terms of maintaining the integrity of art and the artist has been important, and I do not mean to discount the needs of artists, but that seems like such an insignificant and petty argument when you consider the patent restrictions and subsequent lack of needed medication to AIDS patients. These politicians need to get a grip, and examine the situation at hand which is drastic and preventable--they need to take PRO-active steps, instead of running in circles to save money and relationships with drug companies. When Heller came to speak he certainly did not sound optimistic about the future of such reform, but hopefully some change will come soon.

Ethics v. Economy

"The people who have been led to believe that file sharing can be stopped with minimal intrusion are basically smoking crack."

In Pirate leader Falkvinge: "Our enemy has no intellectual capital to bring to the battle" Rick Falkvinge, the founder and leader of the Swedish Pirate Party, compares two different sides of the intellectual property debate. On one side, there is an economic component and a financial incentive when considering laws and policies regarding IP. On the other hand, IP related issues stir up debate from a moral/ethical standpoint. Falkvinge notes, "Early on in the debate, we dropped the economic arguments altogether and focused entirely on civil liberties and the right to privacy. This has proven to be a winning strategy with my keynote "Copyright Regime. vs. Civil Liberties" being praised as groundbreaking." The economic reports, according to Falkvinge, are debatable, contradictory, abundant, and ultimately it becomes a matter of credibility. The civil liberties and moral argument, is often not debatable. 

As we enter an increasingly surveillanced, "Big Brother" society, the issues of civil liberties and privacy have become more heated/readily discussed and debated issues. However, just as the Internet brings up new issues concerning privacy and surveillance, it also changes the business of media and the economic institutions/practices we are accustomed to. Is it okay/moral/ethical/justifiable/intelligent to consider and debate IP related issues on solely a moral and ethical platform based on the idea of civil liberties, or do we need to look more closely into the economic/financial side? 

I would argue, that yes, there more certainly is an ethical and moral aspect of IP that is difficult to debate, but the economic argument is often overlooked.