Grok and Korg I

For this assignment, I am comparing and contrasting blog posts made by myself and two of my classmates about Intellectual Property Rights.

My Post

In my post I approached the dilemma of considering Intellectual Property Rights from the perspective of the creator. I argue that there is a distinct difference between being influenced by the work of another and stealing it. I argue in favor of some degree of intellectual property rights because of their ability to protect and preserve the interests of artists and other creators.

I do not think that Intellectual Property Right laws are perfect, but I do think they should not be entirely abolished. I think these laws are increasingly important with the growing influence of the digital world.

Chelsey Zibell

In her post “Intellectual Property and Indigenous Art” Chelsey also argues in support of Intellectual Property Rights as a way to protect the work of artists. She likewise makes the distinction between stealing and being inspired by the work of another.

Chelsey does a very fine job of acknowledging the alternate viewpoints while also supporting her perspective. One of the big topics in the debate around Intellectual Property Rights is the question of how far these laws should extend. Many claim that it is unfair for them to extend beyond the lifetime of the creator. However, this argument is not so easily made when cultural appropriation is at issue as it is in Chelsey’s example.

After reading Chelsey’s post, my understanding of Intellectual Property Rights has shifted because i have realized that this issue is in fact more complex than my basic understanding of it.

Kevin Klott

In his post, “IP, Friend or Foe?” Kevin presents both sides of the argument about Intellectual Property Rights. Ultimately, he reaches a conclusion that is similar to my own: that IP in its current form is neither a true friend nor a true enemy.

He asserts that although we love “free” stuff, nothing is ever really free because somewhere a creator is paying the price. In this instance IP is beneficial because it can help to protect artists and their families. From the counter position he brings up the claim made by detractors that IP can stifle creativity. However, his stronger argument is when he attests that patents encourage lawsuits rather than creativity, which is a fairly valid point.

As with Chelsey’s post, Kevin’s brings up another side I hadn’t fully considered. Patents are becoming a problem because they are misused for the gain of others, who are not the original creators, and because they are the cause of many lawsuits. I do not know a great deal about this topic, but I suspect learning about it is important if I am to properly understand the debate surrounding Intellectual Property Rights.



About The Author

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *