I very much appreciate being able to consider this argument from a variety of viewpoints and areas of focus. we each took very different approaches to how we reacted to the statement and, while there was some crossover in our sourcing, none of our arguments really focused on the same aspect of copyright. I think this is, in many ways, telling to the depth and breadth of the “copyright” issue.
Although I’ve been in employer/creator relations such as Bob described, when working for the federal government it is made crystal clear from day one that no copyrights can be sought on work created for the purposes and intents of completing your job. Given that the government is funded by tax dollars, I took no issue with this mandate. I can see, however, when a creator works for a larger corporation that these relationships need to be explicitly defined and never allow the employer to “[take] the artist or creator for granted;” as Bob notes, those circumstances are “unacceptable.”
Bob’s point about corporations, rather than individual creators, as the drivers for copyright legislation really struck a note. While I agree wholeheartedly that this is the case and my first inclination is to rail against corporate money-making practices to the detriment of the wider public, I hesitate to go fully there. I wonder, as in many instances involving big money, if the individual simply has insufficient financial resources (or a backing team of lawyers) to drive the same legislative lobbying. It’s certainly something to think about. Finally, and along these lines, I love the comment Bob made about giving “legal teeth to Creative Commons.”
I found Kevin’s argument interesting in that it really conceptualizes copyright in a markedly different way from my own perceptions. The idea of physical and tangible ownership (Zittrain’s argument that the government would not come to our home and remove a rug we owned after a certain period of ownership) is not one I had considered, as such. Further, he makes a compelling point that a creator would want their work to benefit their descendants (Twain, quite the family man, was a perfect example of this).
While I understand the concept of “ownership” and protection of the financial interests of future descendants Kevin’s argument is getting at, I don’t believe it holds to the letter of the law for original copyright legislation (discussed in my initial post). Copyright was intended to provide incentive for the creator to create by protecting their ownership, and allowing them to recoup costs and earn royalties, for a time; in return, society benefitted when that knowledge was released and further innovation could occur.
Although we all tackled it in very different ways, I do see the theme of benefit emerging in all of our arguments. Clearly, in conversations regarding copyright, we need to be clear about who reaps the benefit (creator or the public) and for how long that should be. From my historical standpoint, and as mentioned in my initial post, there needs to be mutual benefit, wherein creators are incentivized to create, but knowledge is shared in such a way that society benefits through the ability to build on these creations.