The myth of "original creation"

Techdirt has an inter­est­ing arti­cle up about the myth of the “orig­i­nal creator” — the idea that copy­right and IP pro­tects indi­vid­ual cre­ators work­ing in a vac­uum come up with new, unique ideas that are not based on any­thing that pre­cedes them. This is, as any author, musi­cian, or inven­tor knows, not the way it works in practice.

It’s nice to see more and more peo­ple rec­og­niz­ing and speak­ing out about these things. The idea that there is a sin­gle “author” or “cre­ator” who deserves to get money any time any­one else builds upon his or her works is some­thing that should be seen as increas­ingly ridicu­lous as peo­ple rec­og­nize that all works are cre­ated based on the works of oth­ers, and it’s inher­ently silly to try to charge every­one to pay back each and every one of their influ­ences in cre­at­ing a new work.

via The Myth Of Original Creators | Techdirt.

Even though many peo­ple think of this idea as foun­da­tional to the jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for copy­right, it is not only not the way cre­ation hap­pens, but also ignores the fact that many copy­right and patent own­ers are not the orig­i­nal cre­ators of the work. A jus­ti­fi­ca­tion of orig­i­nal cre­ation actu­ally sup­ports a “moral rights” approach to IP — taken more by Europeans, and espe­cially the French — not the American approach, which focuses on own­er­ship of rights and mon­e­tary rewards for sup­port­ing innovation.

Related arti­cles by Zemanta

• Does Copyright Foster or Hinder Innovation? (inpro​pri​a​per​sona​.com)
• Copyright as Antidote to DRM (inpro​pri​a​per​sona​.com)