Ownership Dilemma

Cultural appropriation is becoming more and more prevalent as time progresses, and especially here and now in the digital age. The ability to pick up on another culture is as simple as turning on the TV or Youtube or walking into any market. And people love it. That’s why major corporations are so successful in marketing cultures foreign to us. It’s not enough for people to learn about others; they want to embrace new art, languages, practices, styles, among other cultural entities. The new things and ideas are often exotic and interesting to us. The film Guarding the Family Silver, relates the standpoint of certain Māori advocates on such acculturation. They feel that others (especially large corporations) should not be able to make money from the intellectual properties of the Māori people without their permission. It is their concern that certain elements, once removed from their indigenous cultural contexts, will become inconsistent with their original intent. These advocates wish to obtain some form of ownership, like a copyright, to control the way their knowledge is to be spread around the world.

Contradictory to this thought, the movie RIP: A Remix Manifesto explores the idea that all knowledge and intangible articles should be shared, that culture builds upon itself and this should not be controlled by the past. The filmmaker demonstrates this idea of suppressed freedom with his favorite music artist who creates “mash-ups.”  Unless this artist was able to come up with approximately $4 million, he would not have been able to legally create an album of his music. Another example given of such suppression is the patent on an important medication for HIV. Someone violated the law surrounding the patent and recreated the drug to sell it for a much cheaper price. This illegal action probably saved the lives of many people who would otherwise not had access to the drug.

There is a strong pull on either side of the argument, whether or not people should claim certain things as property, and exclude others from benefiting from them. What is right or wrong? The utilitarian set of ethics bases its judgment on the outcome of any action. Does the “intellectual property protections … contribute to the larger public good over the long run” (Ess 74)? The deontological ethics would approach the issue asking is it right or wrong?—not giving regard to the outcome the action might have or how many people it may or may not benefit. This is how the Māori advocates approach their dilemma. They feel it is only right that they have say in how their culture is used. The virtue ethics focuses not on the outcome, not on the rightness or wrongness, but on what an action will say about ones character.  Click here to read more on the relations between such ethics models.

I feel that RIP: A Remix Manifesto takes a utilitarian ethical approach to the problem at hand. They give many examples of how releasing music, creativity, medicine, and knowledge to the general public would be for the greater good of the public. And I stand there with the film creator. The system of ownership is too wound up in too many corporations. If a band makes an album, they should be the ones owning it and deciding how it is used, not some company that has no real ties to it. The idea of ownership has gone too far. People should have rights to ownership of many things. But the extent of these rights needs to be reconsidered, reconsidered for the greater good of the public– not for the greater good of gigantic-over-sized-conglomerated-corporations.