is there such thing as "intellectual property"?
isn't the very idea that any person or group could absolutely possess such intangibles as ideas, clever turns of phrase, songs, or any such thing rather ridiculous?
under the current economic scheme it can be rationalized that since we must generally make our living through the sale of some commodity or other, those products of the mind or imagination which cannot be passed across a counter in exchange for cash must be somehow converted into transferrable units, and their distribution protected under the power of law. it can be rationalized that such measures are necessary to protect the livelihoods of artists, writers, musicians, inventors, et cetera, who spend their lives producing intangible things. the point seems valid, but only when the need to commodify is taken as a precondition.
let us consider music, over which innumerable copyright battles are currently being fought by short-sighted, parasitic record companies, who clutch at sand as it passes through their fingers, and profess to own the desert.
how can anyone possess a song? if i create a new melody does it belong solely to me? can i demand payment from those who might find themselves humming it absentmindedly? can i prevent others from improving on my work, interpreting it differently than i intended or expected, performing it with their own hands, or enjoying it whenever and wherever they please? it seems not at all, for a melody is nothing more than the vibration of air at particular frequencies; any air will do, and anyone is capable of recreating those particular frequencies through the use of suitable instruments. it might be argued that record companies are only seeking to protect their right to profitably distribute the expensive recordings they have financed, but if that were the case why are people sued for publicly playing or remixing another's song without authorization? perhaps some are concerned that others will perform their original work better than they themselves, and thus reap greater glory and reward from it, but if such a thing should occur isn't it a joy that the work has been raised to a higher level of expression, made more beautiful, it's power to move and inspire amplified through the efforts of those other than its primary creator? shouldn't the originator in such a case be glad to have planted a seed that flowered and was so admired as to have been imitated and reinterpreted by others? pitiful indeed is the work of art that does not inspire imitation.
a song is only an idea for the arrangement of sound, and ideas are not unlike children, once they are loose in the world one cannot predict nor imagine how they might be reshaped by others or turned to purposes contrary to what we intend. they don't belong to us.
why doesn't the wider artistic world follow the example of jazz, a genre which delights in endless reinterpretations of established songs? true artistry in jazz lies primarily in the expressiveness of each individual performance, and a single song may be performed endless different ways with endless different shades of feeling unique to each performer.
it has become generally accepted that music and art are commodities like any other, and must be protected against theft from those who would enjoy their pleasures without paying the prices demanded by copyright holders. those who cannot afford to purchase great libraries are limited to the meagre pleasure of what their financial means allow, or else flaunt the law. record companies in particular have become far more concerned with the jealous guarding of copyrights than with the seeking out of relevent, quality music, while works with further potential are "protected" in legal compartments, collecting dust while they might otherwise be further polished, recontextualized, and made to shine brilliantly in new hands.
how can anyone possess a collection of musical notes and charge for access to it? it is something like being a restauranteur and charging guests a high premium for recipes without troubling over the quality of the food, and wasting a lot of energy making sure no other establishments are serving the same dish! the composition of original music requires special talent to be sure, which ought to be rewarded, but it's the execution of compelling performances that calls for the sort of sustained effort that sets apart true artists from idle tinkers. isn't the true vocation of a musician the performance of music? the live transmission of emotional energy from one human to another, the nuance and feeling of which vary greatly from performer to performance? why concern oneself with the ownership of songs, or seek to protect them through copyrights? ought not musicians labor to put such skill and feeling into their performances that they can't be so easily recreated or imitated by others? a song may be performed badly or beautifully, but can it be possessed?
is it not the same with other arts, and indeed even with the products of industry? it's well known that petroleum companies have for decades systematically purchased the patents to promising new technologies, which might have long since resulted in engines of incredible efficiency, or even transformed transportation as we know it, in order to prevent a decrease in demand for their earth-befouling product. a patent is only an idea for a new way of going about things, so how should a solely self-interested group of individuals be granted the right to dictate how the entire human race will go about it's business, or allowed to dictate which ideas may be pursued or not? is this the way to move forward as a race of supposedly intelligent beings? at the collective mercy of a few covetous sociopaths who can't bear the thought of suffering even the slightest financial loss, even though the comfort of billions might be greatly improved and our shared culture raised to a higher level of refinement?
fortunately we've entered a new technological era in which such ill-suited ideas of "intellectual ownership" can no longer be adequately defended from the undermining influence of free digital transmission. let us embrace the idea that works of an intellectual or artistic nature inherently belong to everyone, and that placing restrictions on the dissemination of ideas poetic, practical or otherwise is bad policy for us as a race of beings. let not the complacent and greedy hinder us by laying aside our collective intellectual wealth for their own purposes.
certainly there are faults to be found in this line of reasoning. what of the composer of great genius who innovates new forms of music but is a shy performer? what of the brilliant writer who distills the essence of the human soul into words with great power, but is powerless to prevent those words from being downloaded freely by millions of internet users? what of the inventor from whose ideas opportunistic companies would gladly reap great profits without paying due compensation? how should the interests of these individuals be protected without copyrights, patents, and the like? these are valid questions, but let us begin a search for answers by fundamentally examining the adequacy of our savage economy before we unquestioningly seek for ways to prop it up and justify it in the face of shortcomings and contradictions.
if we're to properly prepare ourselves for a challenging future full of promise, shouldn't every one of us be allowed unrestricted access to our collective intellectual wealth? shouldn't each one of us be glad to contribute something to that stockpile? if our business practices cause us to bicker amongst ourselves over intangible things, shouldn't we consider reforming the way do business with one another?
perhaps "intellectual property" is only an important sounding, but ultimately very stupid idea.