ICIS – Katie's view

Jonathan Lethem’s “The ecstasy of influence: A plagiarism” is a fascinating read.  He makes a very compelling argument that art should be shared freely, and that the first copyright laws were only enacted to encourage development, not to permanently keep works out of others hands or mouths.  By bringing artists such as Shakespeare and brand-named like Band-Aid into his argument, he makes it seem like no one would be harmed if plagiarism were to be allowed.  The only problem is, that I don’t buy it.

It seems ironic to me that a writer for one of the longest standing newspapers is the one writing on plagiarism.  A man, who presumably was paid in advance, is writing about how art should be free, for a news source that is bought on newsstands.  While Lethem is paid upfront for his work, the very artists who he wishes to strip of their rights are not.  Lethem argues that copying a movie is not the same as steeling a handbag, because he is not depriving anyone of their right to the movie.  He is wrong though.  He is depriving the money owed to the people who paid tons of money upfront to produce the film.  They do not get paid unless people pay to see their film.  If he wants to see the film, he should give these artists their dues.

I am the daughter of a computer engineer.  My father and the various companies he has worked for, spend a lot of time and money upfront to produce computer software.  If this software is copied instead of bought, as it should be, then my father and his companies will have lost years of work and thousands of dollars.  They are real people who produce things that are copyrighted.  Without these copyrights, my father would not have produced new technology.  He would find a job that pays him for his work.

While I agree with Lethem on some of his finer points, like that improvements on old ideas are creative forms of plagiarism, and that copyright laws have been extended beyond their original intentions, I cannot agree with his general sentiment.  Call me old school, but if you borrow someone else’s idea, I believe they should get credit for it.

It is truly the information age.  You cannot turn on the TV, computer, or radio without being inundated with news and information.  Even if you try to stick your head in the sand, you will see major news events appear in Facebook feeds and tweets. It is truly unavoidable. Micah Sifry, the creator of Personal Democracy, writes a book entitled “WikiLeaks and the Age of Transparency”.  In an excerpt of his book posted on the Huffington Post, Sifry describes how wiki webpages such as wikileaks have changed society in a way that is irreversible. While The Huffington Post is a left leaning website, it is an excellent source of news, and one of the major online news outlets, and Sifry’s article has a strong message: WikiLeaks has opened a new chapter in history.  Even if this particular website is shut down, the idea of publicizing government’s indiscretions has become mainstream.  Citizens of the United States and other countries want to believe that their government is still innately good, and they will fight to force their governments to maintain the standards that they idealize.

In his book, Assange, the creator of WikiLeaks, calls for transparency within the local governments.  In his wiki website, he encourages ordinary citizens to post documents that expose illegal government actions.  These types of exposures, he claims, will keep Governments honest in the future.  In his own words he says “I encourage you to not become martyrs, but instead to intelligently understand how far you can push government into doing something that is just, by exposing injustice.” As someone who has a camera in her office, I know that fearing what others will think can keep you from doing questionable acts.  Even though I know my boss almost never checks the cameras, I would never risk losing my job by not letting him know I was running late or wanting to take off a couple minuets early.  If the government had a “big brother” of concerned citizens looking over it’s shoulder all of the time, there would almost definitely be less controversial activities within the government. In reading this article, I cannot help but be reminded of the movie “A Few Good Men”.  There is the question of how to best defend our country.  Do ordinary citizens who are being protected by the armed forces get to criticize the way that they are being protected?  Do I get to lay in my bed and say that the men who put their lives on the line every day are doing it wrong?

After watching the video of American troops killing Iraqi citizens on WikiLeaks CollateralMurder.com, I see how the call for transparency works.  It astounded me to see our Army men begging to shoot at a van that was collecting dead bodies.  What harm did this van pose to our troops or our war?  They were only collecting the bodies of dead citizens. Even if these soldiers thought that the men they had killed were carrying weapons, I still do not see how it was just for them to murder those who were collecting the bodies, or how they could shrug off their shooting of two children.  In a recent news article on MSN (http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/12/10141790-army-officer-recommends-court-martial-for-manning-in-wikileaks-case), I see that the man who is accused of leaking this video is being charged with 22 crimes, yet the murders appear to be going unpunished. That being said, I also think that government officials who have been cleared for confidential information should be held to those standards.  Leaking classified information can weaken the institution as a whole.  For various reasons there is a wide variety of information that cannot be public knowledge, and while a single person in that link might not see the big picture, even small pieces of information can displace a larger goal.  Because the truth is, I do not want to know what our troops have to go through to feel safe.

I agree with Sifry’s assertion that society has moved in direction of not only wanting transparency, but demanding it.  A page in history has been opened that cannot be closed.  The question is, can you handle the truth?