Copyright

I've been doing some research on copyrighting for our final presentation and I'd like to step back and look at this from a philosophical standpoint.  What are the current copyright laws and what are the hegemonic considerations that inform this laws?  Moore (2011) stated that early references to "intellectual property protection dates from 500 B.C.E." (p. 1).  Copyright legislation was introduced in response to proprietary aspirations, and protected "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression" (p. 1). Over the course of our history, we have established boundaries intended to protect property, whether it be physical or intellectual in nature.  Recent debates over digital copyright law has fuelled further discussion, however, at the core, the arguments are fundamentally the same.  The concern here is over protecting the notion of 'what's mine is mine.'  We value proprietary rights.  We value the 'American Dream.'  The dominant North American teachings subscribe to a life of study, work, marriage, and owning property complete with a white picket fence and whatever other luxurious assets one is able to procure.  We reinforce these messages in our media, government policies, and daily conversation.  We are taught to accumulate as much resources as we can in our life, often at the expense of others and/or the environment.  We do not know how to work together for the sake of a collective.  We do not know how to share.  We do not know how to put the needs of others or the environment ahead of our own.
Copyright law exists because we all participate in a proprietary model, regardless of whether we believe in it or not.  The model is so deeply rooted, that I question whether or not we are conscious of it.
Now, do we need protection?  I suppose that depends on who you talk to.  Consider Microsoft versus Linux, proprietary versus open source.  While Microsoft's motives are clear being held accountable to their shareholders, Linux's motivations may be less so.  Linux's mandate "protects and advances Linux by marshaling the resources of its members and the open source development community to ensure Linux remains free and technically advanced" (About Us, para. 2).  What's in it for them?  Here lies the problem.  We are conditioned to perpetuate the profit motive, so when we encounter something altruistic, does this garner suspicion?  Linux's motives seem to challenge conventional ways of doing things, however, ironically they too hold copyrights to their product with the disclaimer, "distribution of substantively modified versions of this document is prohibited without the explicit permission of the copyright holder" (gap_alpha1, para. 1).
It seems that our capitalistic values are so deeply seeded that we must not only copyright to protect our property and intellectual rights, but also copyright our intentions not to copyright.


About Us (n.d.). The Linux Foundation.  Retrieved from http://www.linuxfoundation.org/.
Gap_alpha1 (n.d). The Linux Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.linuxfoundation.org/.

Moore, A. (2011).  Intellectual property.  The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. p. 1-15.