Sunday, November 9, 2008
It’s Not that Common
Commons are a resource that allows anyone to use an object without asking for permission, because permission has already been granted. This system works in the digital context by allowing users to use programs, IPs, etc. without having to request permission from the content’s creator. The creator, in fact, gives up his rights for a good he or she senses in the wide availability of that product. According to Lessig, the framers of the Constitution even supported the ideas of Commons and wrote laws encouraging it. I know that I would benefit greatly from this system. However, what if I wore the shoes of the inventor? Sure, I would still want to create more content, but how long would it last? Would I still spend late nights and long weekends on something I know is of no profit to me? Even though the Constitution’s writers were in favor of Commons, they also saw the other side’s point of view and knew that the creative process would stall if it were not beneficial to them. This way of leading has lead to the introduction of intellectual properties. Looking at it from another angle, Commons tend to develop some of the most innovative goods. Wikipedia, despite its flaws, is a marvel in this digital age and one that most people would not want to go away. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that allows users to input information regarding a specific topic. This allows people of different expertise to fill in information about things others may only know sparingly. I doubt Wikipedia would be such a phenomenon if you had to pay a monthly subscription to use it. In the end, everything comes down to balance. Commons and IPs have to be efficient in coexisting if progress is to be continued.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The Commons are a great resource for continuing the creative arts and sciences in today's society. However, I disagree when reading the statement about how one might stop spending a lot of late night hours with their creation due to it will not be protected and is open to everyone. Say for example I were working on one of my "masterpieces", I would not care who my product was open to as long as it were completed to my satisfactory. Of course I would want to make a profit, but if the project I were working on did not make a profit I would be alright with it being open to the public. I would be happy with my work and then whoever would extend on my work through the Commons created more utility through me. The only way I would want a patent was if I created some sort of medicine that is very, very valuable to society and would be made by someone else if I did not patent my product.
Creative Commons is definitely a better way to continue and preserve the creative minds in this world. And it is a better alternative to Copyright. Copyright does perform its duty to protect the article. It is just that Creative Comments do it in such a better way that I would have no problem if it were to replace Copyright. The framers of Constitution do favor for the commons and it is correct for what they did at that time. But that does not mean we should still follow it, because time has changed, so does what the Constitution was made to protect. It is time to improve, the Constitution should be changed, but without jeopardizing what it is already protecting up until now. And creative Commons is a good way to implement it. Wikipedia is one of the products.
Another benefit for sharing your material is that it helps to meet great minds alike. This is true. If an engineer sees some machinery and has a better way to improve it, he could meet the inventor, who mut have the same creativity as him. In this way, a more productive output could be created, simply by matching creative minds together.
Post a Comment