The real issues at hand....

In reading the blogs from a few of my class mates regarding this week's discussion topic, I found the polarity of opinions very interesting. One blogger felt that it is OK to download music illegally, and justified it by placing it under the umbrella of "file sharing". Another blogger, while fully sensitive to the implications of illegal downloading was somewhat confused by the two terms, "illegal downloading" vs. "file sharing".

In my mind, the two terms are different:  Illegal downloading is acquiring an object for free that otherwise should have been paid for. File sharing is simply sharing information online. I don't think there is any harm in sharing files if those files were acquired legally. I think the question that does fit under the same umbrella is whether the files you are sharing were intended, by the author, to be shared at no cost.

Something else I found interesting in a couple of the blogs I read was an attitude of "..this is what my generation does, and if you don't like it then you need to change your system". An artist makes h/er living by using their skills and expertise, just as we make our living(s) using our skills and expertise. Would you consider it fair if your boss decided he didn't want to pay you? The fact of the matter is it's illegal, and furthermore you would not be able to make a living. You would pursue the appropriate legal channels to ensure payment for your services.

A third, and much larger issue, that perhaps confused the discussion even further, is the question of what should be protected and to what extent. This is where the waters start to get a little murky on some levels. For example, if you use a quote from a book that is protected under copyright law, it is perfectly OK as long as you put it in quotation marks and give attribution to the author. Yet the debate rages on whether it's OK to sample beats from various artists' songs to create a new song that you call your own. In the former you are paying homage to the author by using h/er words in your own literary piece. However, in the latter it is considered copyright infringement or stealing. If attribution were given, would that make a difference? Or is it simply a matter of how the two institutions approach copyright? Or, is it something different all together? Perhaps this is where the greed of corporate America comes into play, which is the larger debate needing to be explored.

I wanted to identify these issues separately in an attempt to simplify the various areas of debate. The first two issues I mentioned are pretty much straight forward, at least in my mind. The third issue, I believe, is where the conversation needs to be focused. A couple of cases in point include Hollywood's global monopoly on entertainment. A second case is that of pharmaceutical companies who would rather gain financially than to collaborate with the larger scientific community to perhaps discover cures for diseases for the public good. As Kim mentioned in class, no research is currently being done to find a cure for Aids because there is more money to be made by not finding a cure. These are the types of issues I feel need to be addressed. These are the corporate giants that are hiding behind patents and copyright laws for their own financial gains, rather than caring about what's best or the people. The same dynamics are at work in the insurance industry. It is practice to find legal ways to deny coverage or to drop you altogether.

These are the areas we need to focus on. These are the areas that need change. How to go about making these types of changes is difficult because of all the powerful players involved. But it is certainly a stepping off point for discussion.

Who are they protecting anyway...?

After reading Information Feudalism, the current political climate came into perfect focus. What is it about humankind that lead them to take laws, that are clearly intended for the welfare of the public, and skew them in favor of their own private interests? Furthermore, what is it about American politics and corporations that make them feel they have the right to dictate to the world the laws of copyright, intellectual property, and patents? Is this an extreme case of ethnocentrism or just greed? OR, perhaps both?

From the very start of this debate American interests were arrogantly put ahead of the rest of the world. For example, America took issue when foreign countries translated and published American authors' work. They called it 'piracy'. However, the same America would not allow foreign authors to be protected in the US unless their work was published here at the same time it was published in the "country of origin". "The London Times saw this as an attempt to make New York the centre of world publishing."

In the same vein, Hollywood began their global monopoly of the entertainment industry as early as the 1920s. The political leaders of the time, and since, have been in complete support of this complete domination all in the name of money. As the author(s) recall, "trade follows the film". Hollywood has been given so much protection based on intellectual property that they dictate the level of competition allowed in foreign countries completely independent of the US government.

Drahos:
 "The end game for Hollywood is no restriction on its capacity to reach any type of screen in the world at any time and place".

"...the output of the US film and TV industry serves to dilute national cultures".

In view of this, I ask again. How can one country claim this kind of global control? Hollywood is an independent, international cartel endorsed 100% by the same people who create the laws concerning intellectual property, copyright, and patents.

Drahos suggests that his use of the word "feudalism" in the title of this book is too harsh. However, I'm not sure I agree. It is very clear who the controlling power players are in this scenario; the conglomerates who own the rights. These conglomerates, or monopolies, are way beyond acting in the interest of the welfare of the public. Using Hollywood as the most extreme case, they have no competition therefore they can charge what they want, which goes against everything we know about laws concerning monopolies. And like the pharmaceutical companies, they are allowed to copyright most everything they do.

The question now is when will these corporate giants, monopolies, conglomerates, etc. sink their daggers into the free flow of information that travels across the internet? Drahos has already made the point of the importance of knowledge. With that, I digress for a moment. Again, not a new concept, question, or speculation, but if all of the research scientists were allowed to share their research/information with each other instead of being forced to tuck it away behind patents, imagine how much further the world would be with respect to cures for any number of diseases.

So, how long will the free flow of information remain free? The US has already forced imposition of its intellectual property laws on Sweden, a country that doesn't have any such laws, and doesn't, by international agreement, have any obligation to do so. However, Sweden obliged. Will the regulation come in only the form of Hollywood protection, or will it come in other forms? This story has yet to be written, but somehow I fear the outcome. The US powers that be are very good at disguising their greed by wearing masks proclaiming concern for the good of the people. My only question now is...which people?