Respecting Rights

= Respecting Rights – to avoid doing wrong= The idea of natural, or universal, human rights developed over the centuries. An explicit and detailed definition of such rights, and the encouragement of a widespread acceptance of their universality, was set forth in the non-binding UN Declaration of 1949:

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Their are 30 articles. Article 17 deals with property rights.

If a man builds a boat, does it belong to him? If he sells it to his neighbour, does it become the property of the neighbour? That is a rather simple matter, because it deals with a material object.

Intellectual property rights are not so obvious, as “IP” is not a physical object. The question remains: If someone makes an effort to create something, does that person have a right to ask to be compensated for her/his creation if it gives some benefit to someone else who enjoys its use? What is fair compensation? Can one argue that willing buyers (of a non-essential product or service) are being wronged because the price is too high?

Is someone being wronged when someone sells unauthorized copies of an artistic creation without paying anything to the creator? What if I like an author’s work so much that I make dozens of photocopies of her most wonderful book of poems (that she took years to write) and give them away to my friends? Should I care that she is as poor as a church mouse?

=Balancing the desires of the consumers with the needs of the producers= While a “maximize return on investment” enterprise will set a price that generates the greatest overall profit, an independent musician, for instance, may be willing to lower her/his total revenue by greatly reducing the per recording price so that many more people will want to buy the album. The musician wants his songs to be heard by as many people as possible while still earning a decent living and treating everyone fairly. With today’s technologies, this is possible, but only if we do away with large, conveniently located retail stores where costs for space and for sales staff are intrinsically high.

If, by means of new technologies, prices for recorded music can be greatly reduced, will everyone – music producers and consumers – get along happily? Some people, we understand, prefer not to pay for anything, even if the prices are very affordable. They will always look for ways to get what they want for nothing. If they become the majority, then most of our singers, songwriters and musicians will never be able to leave their day jobs, and our society will be the poorer.

=What IP law is supposed to accomplish = The original purpose of IP law was not to ensure high profits for large corporations and media conglomerates, which did not exist when such laws were first drafted. The idea was to encourage creative output by ensuring that it is the producers of original work (or those who have bought the rights from those producers) who have the exclusive right, but only for a certain period of time, to earn money from the sale of that work. This is the basis of patent law: after the patent has expired, the “know-how”, which was published before the patent was granted, will be in the public domain, advancing economic opportunities for others and for the nation as a whole. It is possible for a business to acquire the rights to intellectual property, whatever its kind, and not distribute it to the market. This, however, may go against the spirit if IP law, as its intent is to encourage the creation of new works. Maybe a “use it or lose it” clause should be added to patent law so that a company cannot be allowed to gain control of new technology and then suppress it because the promotion of the innovation will threaten current investments in less effective technology. Should a company (or the artist herself) that owns the rights, say, to one artist’s songs be obliged to distribute those songs – to satisfy the desires, needs, etc. of a certain public? No holding back allowed, and no hording to create a pent-up demand in the market that makes possible higher prices and greater profits?

=An alternative to corporate marketing?= With the advent of widely available electronic communication, it is now possible for an individual artist to deal directly with those who want to enjoy her/his creations. Artists that form their own jointly owned marketing cooperative can do even better – but only if the “consumers” agree to pay artists for their work instead of just grabbing it.

=A world in which we are encouraged to be consumers= At this point in human history and in this part of the world, creative works have largely been "productized". In the widespread absence of a connection to the inner life of creativity and true individuality, corporations have largely succeeded in hypnotizing people into acting like soulless, robot-like consumers. That is the mark of a materialistic society.

The most ardent consumers are the ones who want to consume more and more, without limit. They do not realize that true and deep satisfaction comes from being a producer, not a consumer. Some want to have unlimited access to music, movies, games, etc. – at no cost, if possible – as if consumption is some kind of right that has not yet been recognized by the UN Declaration.

=Cultures where all are producers= This has not always been the case, and the situation is quite different in "more retained" cultures. Unlike where we live – where possession of money and the latest shiny objects has, for many, become the highest goa­l – there are still places where people base their identities on the kind of people they are, not on the variety and quantity of the things they possess. In "intact" cultures where a connection to the inner life has not been lost, music is something that all people produce, not something they only consume. People who produce are naturally more appreciative of the work of other producers.

=Professional artists must earn a living, and good artists should be able to earn a good living= Artistic creation may be satisfying, but it is also hard work. Those with unusual creative gifts who create exceptional art, music, or written works will devote their lives to their art. Unless they are strongly supported by the state, wealthy patrons, or foundations (which does not happen around here), they must earn a living from their artistic production. In an age when much of artistic creation can be reduced to digital files, the livelihoods of our artists can be threatened if we decide that they have no rights over their work.

=Getting along together — and being happy= Property rights is only one small part of what amounts to a “social contract” in which people reach some mutual agreement as to how they will live together. The formal embodiment of that agreement is a set of laws, but in practice a social contract goes further and includes mores and etiquette. Laws are of little value if they do not reflect what the majority of people believe and hold dear in their hearts. A good country is a country that is inhabited by good people.

When it comes to the broad range of interactions among people, it takes two things to make a country a good place to live in.

The first is that each one recognizes her/his own rights and also the rights of others – and agrees to act according to that recognition.

The second is that each one also recognizes her/his responsibilities: to oneself, to individual others, to the body politic, and to the environment which is shared by all. Although we may avoid feeling hassled if others respect our rights, our lives are only happy and fulfilled when we live up to our responsibilities — to ourselves and to others.

-Hanavi Hirsh