Some time ago, modern digital media, specifically that of the internet, moved swiftly and silently past our definitions of individual intellectual rights and the old definitions that we apply to creators of artistic or intellectual work.
Some seek to create new laws governing the new media using the old definitions. This will not work. In the past information properties were subject to a certain specific form of infrastructure and produced a specific substantial good. Printing presses printed books, painting was produced on canvas. Today virtually every American is a publisher, artist and journalist (albeit, obviously of varying standards.)
Information is no longer subject to the constraints of actual physical labor to produce it, besides typing and moving a mouse. This has rapidly increased it spread and use.
If books are available in public libraries for public use then should they be available digitally as well? Where is the line drawn between what is seen as 'mainstream' and 'ethical' journalism and the masses of bloggers? Do trademarks apply tradenames apply in the international world wide web?
I certainly don't pretend to have any answers but I know that there are many decent questions that we have to address before we can legislate rights on the Internet.
1 comment:
Shawn this is a very astute observation on one that deserves considerable attention. The Internet is changing the information paradigm. Digital reproduction changes they was we view access to information. I completely agree that we can no longer go at the topic with our old perspective. I love how you brought up the point of public libraries. Why is it that libraries can loan out a copy, even multiple copies of the same book without charging for the use of the item, but cannot digitize the item and provide multiple access athe same way. It is because the ease in which the information is accessed changes the nature of the situation.
Post a Comment