The whole notion that copyright and intellectual property exist in the effort of protecting the individual's rights in completely archaic and definitely are not supported in the global economy. The latest Viacom case proves that the only winners in intellectual property/copyright are lawyers and large companies.
All musicians know that they are enslaved to Big Media. In their case, they have little to no alternatives. But for them it's like their next hit of crack (which I think the Big Media companies support anyway in a literal sense to keep most of these artists stupid and weak; I mean, I've heard stories in Japan how many puppet artists are drugged up to keep them under control and it's no secret about the so called sex-drugs-and rock n roll lifestyles of celebrities that demand these people in needing money which screws up their lives). Also, people working for companies who build their own tools end up losing their inventions once they sign contracts with non-compete clauses and company ownership clauses. Then you get the medical profession which is completely hampered by patent disputes, preventing more companies from coming out with vaccines. A while back Intel's former CEO had criticized medicine with this argument.
Copyright and intellectual property were supposedly used to allow people to take ownership of what they create back in the day when kings ruled the land. Individuals, not mega corporations. But what we're seeing in the global economy (especially American politics) is the return to feudalism, where we're simply enslaved again to the owners that we work for.
Right now, over at TechCrunch, I see a lot of spammers, people who fear their activities with YouTube, and those even supporting the notion of copyright and the judge's decision in NY over this. However, I find it ironic that because of so-called copyright infringement technology like YouTube that, for instance, Japanese game shows had become so popular, it's now going to be produced in America. So without YouTube, these Japanese game shows would be hidden gems in Japan, while Hollywood runs around producing another creative-less crappy reality show. And isn't even further ironic that it's Hollywood literally copying the format (more or less) from another source? Are the Japanese studios going to receive proper compensation or even recognition for this? Or remember that horrid movie Stealth? That was a blatant ripoff of Macross the Movie. I don't recall seeing any credits being given to the makers of Macross. Or lets go to movies like Lost in Translation or Babel. It's known the shots of Japan in those movies were taken in gorilla-style because obtaining a proper license to film in Japan is quite difficult. So those activities in themselves are considered illegal, yet they're being perpetrated by the same industry which is 1) breaching users' privacy unlawfully; 2) suing users for perceived violations of law.
The world really needs to re-examine the whole issue of copyright, patents and intellectual property. I'm not talking about the constitutionality of them. I'm talking about the real purpose of them in the first place. In reality, artists, engineers, scientists, etc. are not the ones being protected by the law. The firms are using these people as puppets to protect their own interest. But individuals are losing out at every turn as well as society.
Personally, I would like the world/court systems to at the very least:
- Demolish the usage of the word "intellectual." You can't call what Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, Justin Timberlake, or MTV put out "intellectual." Call it a cold hearted asset because that's the only thing the court is protecting. Something intellectual means something smart from someone talented and smart; not a tool, not a puppet. In this case, it doesn't insult a truly talented person's intelligence when their capabilities are not protected by a court system, but some figure head for these capitalist machines.
- Don't ever associate copyright protection, etc. with individuals. These days individuals aren't the ones being protected. Just the lawyers and companies. People cannot use this argument anymore because it just isn't true.
- Make it illegal for companies to use the defense of protecting their artists' property. Companies can only say that they are protecting their assets because individuals in the post-feudal world basically have no rights without being subordinated to a large company to pay them off for pennies.
I hope that the judge realizes that what he's done is perpetuate favoritism for one company whose sole purpose this entire time is to simply benefit their shareholders and executives. And I'm not talking about Google/YouTube. I doubt that this judge realizes anything except the money that Viacom is handing him in the back parking lot to make these decisions. But that's the US court system these days.
Sphere: Related Content
Trackbacks: (Trackback URL)
