Growing Boundaries to creativity

The days of the pony express are long gone. Information can now reach the furthest places on Earth in less time then it takes for me to get up and piss. While this phenomenon of technological expansion is, of course, centered on wealthier to middle countries, it is important to consider the constantly growing body of creativity that is produced within those countries. By "creativity" here I am referring to intellectual property such as text, art, music, and practically any other medium that is conceived by an individual as an "original idea." It's important to note that the concept of original idea is something in itself that warrants a discussion. What exactly is an original idea, and even can there be such a thing nowadays? For the process of simplification and laziness I will leave the original idea concept alone and focus my ramblings on property rights as limitation to creativity.

The biggest threat to creativity stems from the need to restricts rights to creative works. On the outside this may seem logical, sophisticated even. Preventing people from profiting of a work created by an individual without the individuals consent is clearly half of the motivation required to create (outside of pure talent, which only goes so far in putting bread on the table), in which the other is financial gains. In the real world it's not that simple though, not much is. An extremely complicated set of guidelines existing to oversee intellectual property rights is proof of that. Where once upon a time creative work went from the creator to the consumer with relatively few intermediaries now their is waves of publishers, producers, distributors, and so on all with a stake in the financial success of a piece of work. This naturally creates the motivation to establish strict copyright laws since many peoples income depends on the work.

The genius of Walt Disney lies in his ability to burrow from existing works to create something his own. Mickey Mouse was derived from a cartoon that came before called "Steamboat Willy." This is creativity at work and this is where the battle ground lies in intellectual property. I believe the copywrite system empowers the middle man as well as greedy creators of work who attempt to prevent any inkling of inspiration from their work in the production of derivatives. For instance the RIAA sued the girl scouts for singing songs around the campfire, http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/July-August-2003/feature_zittrain_julaug03.msp

As long as there are such difficult barriers to entry in the creative field, one in which new artists cannot burrow existing ideas or are sued if they do I fear a decline in the body of creative work. Creative work that both innovates and appeals as well as offers the creator compensation that is not in the form of royalties for building of others' work. Even the average individual should be aware of the limitations placed on them by intellectual property rights since they are not excluded from lawsuits simply by not making money of the questionable creative material that they produce.

A line however must be drawn between what is actually plagiarism as opposed to interpretation. Piracy is clearly wrong. I personally don't agree with the way the music industry handles this issue nor the attack they cast against file sharing networks, the epitome of idea exchange in the 21'st century. Moreover the exorbitant prices of music, like $13 for a CD or $.99 for a song puts music out of the hands of individuals who are even capable of paying that much when, opportunity cost, is taken into account. These facts help justify the rampant piracy on college campuses even if they don't make it acceptable.

There is good though that is coming out of the greed of those taking advantage of the current property right system. The free culture movement release works into a public domain, for others to use. Organizations such as Creative Commons offer free licenses to creators of work that vary in the level of rights they give to the public.Other licenses like the BSD licence and the Free Art License aim to achieve the same independence from the restrictive intellectual property licenses and the "all rights reserved," provision.