Intellectual property refers to any creation that is a result of human intelligence. These creations of the intellect include copyrightable works (music, literature, art, and trademarks and service marks) and patented works (inventions, and distinguishing features such as logos, package designs, and corporate names, among others). In times past, it really wasn’t an issue, but with the advent of digital technology, works of intellectual property can very easily be copied and distributed without regard to the rights of the individual who created such works.
Alexander and Hanson (2012) present both sides of the issue, while making a stronger case against current copyright laws being an effective protection against unauthorized copying and distribution of original intellectual property works. Ecarma (2003) presents one facet of Wildavsky’s theory of culture to explain that fatalism, as a cultural manifestation, is one of the forces at work in the discussion of whether copyright laws (laws that are promulgated by the “powers that be,” in this case, legal policy) are capable of curbing copying and distribution of works of intellectual property, and whether in fact these laws are enforceable in all cases. Fatalists would say no, that they are not, and that to attempt such an enforcement would be impossible under the current patchwork of copyright laws, none of which adequately address the uses of digital technology and its ability to copy and distribute works of intellectual property readily and freely by anyone who might wish to do so.
Finally, Olasky (2013) makes the oblique case that innovation in journalism (which is itself intellectual property) is an “arrogant” undertaking, but is nearly ubiquitous in spite of whatever penalties or consequences may come to those who engage in such behavior. He rails against this kind of innovation, because God appears to be left out of the equation, but he concedes that, from a secular viewpoint, the kinds of innovation that we are discussing are held in high esteem by new journalists and journalism students, and that there appears to be no end to this.
The Case Against Copyright Laws Protecting the Ownership Rights of Intellectual Property
It is important to understand that anything created by a human being as a result of his or her intellect, as described above, is, in reality, his or her possession to use as he or she sees fit. The property belongs to the perso and n who created it. That is a commonsense distinction, and seems on the surface to be an unassailable right, unless the creator of the property assigns rights to others, such as the case with literature, when the writer assigns either first use rights or all rights to the publisher, in which case the publisher then can use the work as the publisher sees fit. The same is true with other works of the intellect. Possession and use initially belongs to the creator of the intellectual property, and others can use the property only if the creator assigns the right to do so to others. On the surface, that is the way that intellectual property rights work.
When copyright laws and patents were introduced, however, digital copying and dissemination of intellectual works was not an issue, because the technology did not exist. In the early part of this century, however, that technology does exist, and it is nearly impossible to know who is copying and disseminating the work. Technically speaking, the assignation of rights to the work still belongs to the creator of that work. Practically, however, the work belongs to anyone who wishes to use it, for whatever purposes that use might entail. There are also limits on copyright and patent, and after a certain designated period of time, the work becomes part of what is known as the public domain, in which anyone is free to use the work in any way they see fit, because rights to the work no longer exist.
The Bible, for example, was never protected under copyright law. Copyright laws did not exist when the Bible was created, and from the perspective of the 21st century, even if it had been, the right to the work would have expired long ago. Alexander and Hanson (2012) examine this copyright and patent issue from both sides. In answering the question of whether copyright laws protect ownership of intellectual property, the authors present the affirmative view that the point of copyright is to protect the original ownership of intellectual property, regardless of how the intellectual property can be obtained by someone other than the original creator. On the negative side, there is an examination of social networking sites, such as Facebook and YouTube, and how these sites nearly universally ignore copyright laws because they are so difficult to enforce. Their conclusion is that ultimately, these networking sites will stop altogether trying to enforce copyright laws, because doing so would be a very expensive undertaking and would consume a great deal of time, which is also expensive (pp. 259-260).
Ecarma (2003) quotes Wildavsky, the theorist who discusses the role of culture and its influence on media. Wildavsky states that, “there is no point in their having preferences on public policy because what they prefer would not, in any event, matter” (1987, p. 7, in Ecarma, 2003, p. 56). Wildavsky here is referring to the culture of fatalism which is a viewpoint that those who are apathetic toward culture are the ones who are likely to “give in” in any discussion of what the “powers that be” prefer, and fatalists are those who would allow these “powers that be” control the outcome of any policy issue. That is in agreement with the negative viewpoint presented by Alexander and Hanson (2012, pp. 259-260).
Olasky (2013), while not addressing this issue directly, still has something to say (obliquely, to be sure) about those who would circumvent the law for their own gain, and how the secular world views them. “The most innovative journalists… often [are] the most arrogant, slow to recognize that their leaps forward [are] taking them in circles. Yet it is these journalists who are held up to journalism students as giants of the field” (Chapter 3, para 2). Curiously, perhaps, and ironically, Olasky’s book is available online in its entirety for free. But because the work is his, he is free to do as he wishes, and if he wishes to offer the book at no charge online, that certainly is his right. But in his doing so, he tacitly allows others to use his work as they wish, to copy it, distribute it, or anything else anyone might wish to do.
Finally, I have to agree with Alexander and he Hanson (2012) when they make their case that full compliance with copyright law is certainly expensive and time-consuming, and given the digital technology that is abundantly available today, enforcing existing copyright law is nearly impossible. So, I would have to answer the question in the negative. Copyright laws, as extensive as they are, do not protect ownership of intellectual property.
