This whole discussion of copyright, open access and authorship has caused me do some additional reading and form some strong opinions in favor of open access. Neil Netanel says a “robust society and participatory society” contains everything from union and churches to social movements and schools of thought. Creative expression fits neatly within this array of these groups. Netanel believes slimmer copyright laws would lead to a larger public domain, thus increasing public discourse. A large public domain provides the public at large to participate in the democratic process and manipulate the works available and create new and exciting work in the process.
Copyright laws reduce the size of the public domain and restrict the public to a nation of consumers rather than contributors. This leads to a culture where the few control the ideas and intellectual property, which is a dangerous prospect for a democratic society. William Fisher’s essay “Property and Contract,” he lays out a series of ideals that make an attractive intellectual culture. Those ideals include a rich array of artistic and creative public works and vast amount of ideas driven by public discourse and adding to the cultural diversity of the nation Without fairly unrestricted access to those ideas within the public domain and the freedom to use them at will, it thwarts the growth of culture.
Fisher, W. W. (2004). Promises to keep: Technology, law, and the future of entertainment. Stanford, Calif: Stanford Law and Politics.
Netanel, N. (2008). Copyright's paradox. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Very interesting! I also like public access and feel we need it more. But with my limited experience, I don't know what the arguments behind copyright law, and if there are any down side to public access. Would public access hurt anyone? And disadvantages?
ReplyDelete