Intellectual

Property:
Redundant?
A NT H ONY RE A D

“Information wants to be free” is a slogan among many Internet users. Will

copyright, as we understand it, survive in the digital age and does it
matter?
The term ‘copyright’ is becoming increasingly redundant. Copyright laws can no longer guarantee the
intellectual property of a person, as the power of the Internet has made information freer and more
liberal to use as one wishes. If current intellectual property laws remain, there will be a chasm of
difference between those who want to keep the current system and those who want to abolish it.
Alternative options exist for those who wish to keep some rights to their work but allow others to
interpret and use it, but there seems to be a level of arrogance associated with traditional copyright, real
and perceived.

The Invention of the Copyright

Intellectual property began with the 1967 establishment of the World Intellectual Property Organisation
(WIPO). The WIPO website describes intellectual property as “creations of the mind”, and breaks this
down into two parts, “industrial property…and copyright” (WIPO 2008). Industrial property includes
inventions and trademarks, whereas copyright means literary and artistic works. However, the term did
not come into popular use until the Bayh-Dole Act that was passed in the US. This act states that
universities, small businesses and non-profit organizations will have full rights over their intellectual
property (Cornell University 2008). The ideas behind intellectual property date far back, as ideas related
to this concept can be found in the Talmud. The book declares “prohibition against…the theft of ideas”
(NYSun 2005). This may paint the law as safeguarding anything one thinks at any time, but this is where
the confusion begins. The ‘intellectual property’ is not really property at all.

These laws protect “the original expression of the idea, not the idea itself” (!P Australia 2008). In essence,
one can copyright the drawing of a logo or the sheets on which a story is written, but cannot copyright
the idea as it resides in their mind. If someone hears another person humming a tune on a train, then
goes home and writes down that tune he heard, he would have copyright over it. The other person may
cry foul that his tune was used, but because he did not have it physically written somewhere, he has no
rights over it whatsoever. This rule applies to industrial property as well, where if a invention idea is
overheard and patented before the original person gets a chance to use it, it is technically not his to
patent. These laws may seem rough to those who are unlucky enough to have an idea stolen, but laws
cannot copyright the mind. It simply is not possible. One cannot think something, and automatically call it
copyrighted, since verifying the mind’s actions is nigh impossible. However, information is a different
beast altogether.

Is Information Truly Free?

The phrase “information wants to be free” is a difficult concept in itself. It contains many words that are
vague in nature, and perhaps this is why Internet users enjoy it, for the vagueness of the statement is a
licence to break copyright laws. The dictionary describes the word ‘information’ as “knowledge derived
from study, experience or instruction” (Dictionary.com 2008). This presents a philosophical question:
what is knowledge? It cannot be knowing the truth, for knowing the complete and objective truth is
never possible. We only ever experience the universe through our senses, which are representations of
the truth. Everything is a perception, and therefore nothing can be truly designated as ‘knowledge’, or
even ‘information’, since the meanings of these words (and these concepts) lie in perception. One man’s
knowledge is another’s experience.

The next two key words make the phrase even more obtuse and vague. The word ‘want’ indicates a
desire to possess or do something. Are we saying that information has a consciousness that makes
decisions relating to its actions? Some may say yes. In a lecture on quantum theory and philosophy,
Robert Miller states that if two identical particles are sent flying in opposite directions, and one is
measured for spin, then the other, at that exact moment of measurement, acquires an equal and
opposite spin. “There’s an instantaneous link across astronomically vast spaces”, Miller states (2008, pp.
6). In other words, information travels instantaneously. While this is mind-blowing stuff, it doesn’t say
that information is sentient. Lastly, the word ‘free’ is a tricky concept, for nothing is ever truly ‘free’.
Everything is connected to everything else is one way or another, but mostly through language. Think of
it this way: can any word exist without another? Look up the definition of ‘information’, and you will find
a bunch of other words, formed into a phrase, to describe it. To truly understand, one needs to look up
the meaning of all those words as well. And so on. All these terms indicate the phrase ‘information wants
to be free’ can be misinterpreted and used for personal gain. Perhaps it should be changed to ‘we want
information to be free’, for that is what many Internet users really mean.
Ignoring Intellectual Property and the Consequences

There are many examples of how intellectual property rights are being ignored in modern times. Perhaps
one of the largest examples was the battle between Napster and various bands/artists to remove their
work from the Napster online database. Metallica, Dr. Dre and Madonna all discovered that various
musical works they had written were being disseminated and downloaded for free by Napster users. One
of the issues with this form of file-sharing is the ability to “make…perfect copies…and send them around
the world at the speed of light”. However, Ku makes a good point that the Internet can make it “possible
to control information to an unprecedented degree” (2002, pp. 264). The reason why these bands and
artists were so riled up about this issue is that they assumed their music was being stolen. What they
didn’t recognise is two other major points: one, the wide dissemination of their music meant they were
gaining a much higher level of recognition than ever before; and two, if they really wanted to control
their music to a high degree, they had the tools available on the Internet to do so.

Ryan describes postmodern culture as “random cannibalisation of all the styles of the past” (1990, pp.
396), and this is another example of why intellectual property laws are being outmoded. There is a
culture of appropriation occurring all over the Internet, and nowhere is this more apparent than on the
social media zeitgeist, Youtube. It seems as though immediately after a song or video clip is released, the
wider Internet community gets their hands on it and changes it around to give it a new meaning. One
only has to look at the proliferation of fake music videos floating around Youtube for popular songs to
realise how far this has gone. Even Dove’s ‘Evolution’ advertisement was taken and twisted into a
damnation of exactly the same concept (Youtube 2008). ‘Mash-ups’ of albums by high-profile artists are
being released without consent all the time. One only has to look at the backlash from EMI against
Danger Mouse and his Beatles/Jay-Z mash-up ‘The Grey Album’ to see how major music corporations are
still against the idea of appropriation and pastiche. From all this we can see that existing intellectual
property laws are outdated, but Internet users still have no right to completely steal other’s work to use
without permission. However, there are alternatives to move forward into new areas of copyright law,
without the total monopoly rights that existed before.
The New Alternatives

One such way of identifying work as yours, without the heavy copyright restrictions, is to utilise Creative
Commons licensing. Instead of the traditional copyright phrase ‘All Rights Reserved’, Creative Commons
licences fall under the heading of ‘Some Rights Reserved’. Their website states that “balance,
compromise and moderation…have become an endangered species” (CC 2008). Users of this copyright
have the choice to keep some rights while allowing other people to use their work, but to always
attribute the original work to the original maker. Trent Reznor, of Nine Inch Nails, has released his last
two albums under Creative Commons licensing, created a remix website (where fans can remix NIN songs
and upload them for everyone to hear), and even states to “share *The Slip+ with your friends, post it on
your blog…give it to strangers, etc” (NIN.com 2008). Another form of new copyright law is to give rewards
directly to inventors, and then they allow their invention to pass straight into the public domain. A
system where one could choose between traditional copyright law and the rewards system would be a
healthy alternative, when used in tandem with Creative Commons (Shavel & Van Ypersele 2001, pp. 525).

In conclusion, we can see that the traditional intellectual property rights system has been outdated by
the advancement of technology, reproducing systems and the proliferation of the Internet. While these
rights and laws are outmoded, it still is no excuse for people to use other’s work without permission.
Problems have reared their head, but no-one seems to be able to come up with a direct solution. Perhaps
either a Creative Commons-style licensing system could work, or a choice between total copyright and
rewards. Copyright will not survive much further into the digital age, as we have seen. Will it matter? No,
not if a new system is implemented that satisfies the criteria of the Information Age as well as the people
inside it.
References

Cornell University Law School 2008. ‘§ 203. March-in rights’,

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/usc_sec_35_00000203----000-.html, accessed 18/9/08.

Creative Commons 2008. “About”, http://creativecommons.org/about/, accessed 19/9/08.

Dictionary.com 2008. “Information”, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/information, accessed

19/9/08.

IP Australia, ‘What is Intellectual Property?’, http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/ip/copyright.shtml, accessed

18/9/08.

Miller R 2008. ‘Do I exist separate from things? – Samsara and Schrodinger’s Cat’, Lecture 6, RMIT
University Melbourne.

NIN.com 2008. ‘The Slip’, http://dl.nin.com/theslip/signup, accessed 19/9/08.

Ryan J 1990. ‘The Problem of Pastiche: Patrick Suskind’s Das Parfum’, The German Quarterly, Vol. 63,
No. ¾, pp. 396-403.

Shavel & Van Ypersele 2001. ‘Rewards versus Intellectual Property Rights’, Journal of Law and
Economics, Vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 525-547.

Shih Ray Ku R 2002. ‘The Creative Destruction of Copyright: Napster and the New Economics of Digital
Technology’, The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 69, No. 1, pp. 263-324.

The Sun New York 2005. ‘Fighting for Intellectual Property Rights’,
http://www.nysun.com/business/fighting-for-intellectual-property-rights/22289/, accessed 18/9/08.

World Intellectual Property Organisation 2008. ‘What is Intellectual Property?’,

http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/, accessed 18/9/08.

Youtube 2008. ‘Evolution’, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYhCn0jf46U, accessed 19/9/08.

Youtube 2008. ‘Slob Evolution’, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0u0wWOMIsE, accessed 19/9/08.