The perspectives I got from
reading Barlow vs. Shapiro and Varian are basically new vs. old. Barlow is adamant
about the restructure of old intellectual property laws that can only really
apply to the physical, such as tangible objects and inventions. He claims that
the old laws have no place in a modern world built on the Internet and virtual
ideas. Barlow is concerned primarily with digitized property and the legal who,
what, where, when aspects of virtual content. He even describes old law as a
boat that is only being kept afloat with political rearrangement, harsh
warnings to those that do not abide, and ignorant denial.
“True,
I don't get any royalties on the millions of copies of my songs which have been
extracted from concerts, but I see no reason to complain. The fact is, no one
but the Grateful Dead can perform a Grateful Dead song, so if you want the
experience and not its thin projection, you have to buy a ticket from us. In
other words, our intellectual property protection derives from our being the
only real-time source of it.”
-John Perry Barlow
On the other hand, Shapiro and Varian as I
mentioned, are all about old law. They believe that in the midst of the chaotic
progression that abstractly describes our technology, the fundamental models of
economy that were established in the early 20th century still apply
today. If one is feeling lost with the ability to decipher what is happening
now with the Internet (economically) and what will happen in the future, just
take a look at the major events that happened roughly one hundred years ago. Shapiro
and Varian claim that even though technology is drastically changing the value
of information, the economy behind it is still the same.
“The
technology infrastructure makes information more accessible and hence
more valuable."
-Shapiro and Varian
I would say both of these authors are right and
wrong since they are at two opposite ends of each other. If they combined their
ideas and used a little of both, the old laws to help restructure new laws,
they would be right where I stand on the matter. Having taken an economic
class, I believe that some economic models
will always be true, such as supply/demand and the Pareto distribution. However,
many other economic laws, along with several other laws pertaining to the
progression of technology (digitized property), must be restructured to meet
the needs of intellectual property, digital rights, and economic change.
I do understand where you are coming from but I have to disagree with both. I think both Barlow and Shapiro and Varian aren’t thinking big enough. But that seems to be a big problem in the United States. As it is becoming more and more apparent that the world is too small to revolve around America. US law needs to become global. We may be divided by seas or borders but we, the world, is now connected in new ways that 50 years ago wasn’t. The internet is a way of bridging seas, countries, and languages. Collaborations on technology, mediums, music, movies, etc. are now able to happen on a global scale. The US needs to start discussing what happens when the world becomes one. When the US laws on creative and intellectual property become irrelevant. Everyone needs to start thinking global in order to move forward and step in the a logical and un-incriminating future.
ReplyDelete