Some people have heard this from me before, but I believe
that Copyrights and Patents are the source for much ethical confusion,
especially in combination with the internet. While I understand the idea of
patents and think it is ideally good, it’s also a horrible practice.
From
my understanding, the purpose of a patent is to protect the ideas and
inventions of an individual or company. Copyrights are similar but for works of
art. Since I have a desire to publish some things in the future, I do like the
idea of having some protection for my work. On the flipside, as I read more and
more, I see that ideas I have developed independently have already been thought
of before. On one aspect, I think it is amazing that I can come up with the
same ideas as a well known author before reading his works. Also, this follows
Sherlock Holmes maxim of “what one man has created, another can discover.”
However, now the “Copyright” can act against me. Even though what I have made
is a result of my imagination without even knowing about the other person’s
work, I would be considered to be “stealing an idea.” Therefore I would not be
getting any credit for the time and effort I spent developing it myself.
Likewise
for patents, a company can develop a very strong product only to find after its
release that some random person had a patent for one idea used in the process.
It can be seen today in the extreme. Some companies only survive because they
file a lot of patents that they have no intent on developing, but other
companies don’t know they exist. To their knowledge, it’s an original idea. The
result is a big hindrance of progress.
Of
course, as mentioned before, the whole process exists for protection and honest
business practice. Especially in the competitive world, companies like to steal
ideas they think that can make a profit. If they could, companies would steal
the ideas without giving due credit to its original thinker. The problem is
that “there is nothing new under the sun!” At some point, people need to let
things run its course and let something better get built. I know they are
working on that, but the process is still a hindrance and costs resources.
Now
the part that is really confusing is Copyright. When it comes to stuff like
music, movies, or books. How does it work, especially with something like the
internet? One reason why I don’t like to share my music is because this issue
is so gray. As I said before, I would like to get some of my stuff published as
well, so I can’t be a hypocrite and give away someone else’s works for free
when I paid for them. So far, my understanding is that there are a few licenses
you can use when you buy a song. So my music sharing really only goes as far as
I know it won’t go further.
Those licenses can be really confusing. Back
in the day, you were buying a physical copy of a song or show. The concept of
sharing was the same as before. Yet with the emergence of digital and easy
copying abilities, what can we do? Then when it comes to rereleases, do you
have a right to get that version for free? I will actually argue that you
don’t, for the logic of the physical copy. When you buy that copy, it’s the
result of work someone has done. When a new version is released, it’s the result
of more work. That’s probably not expressed well, but that is as simple as I
can put it at the moment.
So
what can you do with that copy? That is where it starts getting more confusing.
I think you should be able to make a copy for insurance reasons, after all,
you’d be doing work still to keep what you bought. After all, with digital
stuff, you can’t repair it like you could with a watch. However, if you sell
the original after copying it, the copy should be gone too. In this regard,
I’ll agree with the EU when they said that digital games should be able to be
sold, as long as it is removed from the original owner’s hardware.
Now
translations are tricky. There are a lot of people who watch tv shows online
with fansubs. I used to do it myself. Yet again, when I started thinking about
my own ideas and dreams, I stopped since it seemed to be against it. However, I
realize too that the reason why I was watching them fansubbed was not only
because it was better, but because there seemed to be no hope of them being
localized here. Even if they were, it’d be long after my interest would have
faded, which it did for some series because the official companies took so long
to release them. When the series is targeted at middle schoolers, they are not
likely going to still want to read it when they are in college. So why make
production that long?
So
the problem with fansubs is that the original creators can’t make any money
from them. Some people might recognize this as the argument against used
products, but that’s another topic. Now what happens when a person does in fact
buy the original? Should he be able to use the fansub? I think so. After all,
at that point, the fansub of a book is being used to enjoy the work bought from
the original creator somehow. This is also extends the practice of finding
someone who can translate what you have before you, but using the internet to
do that. Also, the translators are doing work. It may be based off the work of
other people, but it still is work, and people would pay for such work. After
all, how different is that from a company who makes profits off selling iPhone
cases? They didn’t make the iPhone, but they made a product based off it. If
they want to give it out for free, then let them. Sure it is reliant on that someone
bought the phone, but the internet can’t check for credentials that you bought
the original product either. That basically is dependent on the honor system.
The
idea of Copyrights and Patents follows the ideal that only certain men can
develop a certain idea. It also comes from the concept that many people steal
ideas to make a lot of money without giving due credit. To an extent this is
true. However, it also neglects that people can develop the same ideas without
knowing that someone already has, just like the story of calculus who is
credited to two separate geniuses, Newton and Leibniz. It also is used as
hindrance rather than an aid to progress. While we can’t get rid of the system,
because it does serve some good purpose, perhaps we can fix it from the abuse.
