Artists know best what is in their best interests.

Common sense? One would think so. But common sense often seems to be missing in the intellectual property debate. There is a large body of scholarship in the free culture movement that argues first and foremost for preservation of culture, adding that protection of artists must be accommodated as best as possible once that culture is preserved.

This is a$$-backward, pardon my French. The very culture these self-appointed protectors are seeking to preserve is created by artists. Artists chose to extend intellectual property rights that permitted their works to enter the culture to begin with. If we want culture to continue to grow, the artist must be paramount. (We can dismiss artists if all we care about is seizing existing culture and freezing society at that point, but I don't believe anybody wants that.)

The best, most elegant and fairest way to preserve culture is to empower artists to pursue their own best interests rather than end users deciding on an artist's behalf what those interests are. An empowered artist will be motivated to have her art be part of the culture and will make use of her bundle of intellectual property "sticks" in a way that benefits both her and society. The self-appointed culture guardians should be working toward artist empowerment, not emasculation.

You can read more on this subject in a Progress on Point I wrote that PFF released today. It's called "Artists and Culture: Empowering the Former to Foster the Latter." Feedback is welcome.

posted by Patrick Ross @ 2:49 PM | Free Culture Movement

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment(0)