Artists and Culture: Empowering the Former to Foster the Latter

Abstract

Neither side of the intellectual property debate can define what is best for culture or society. Instead, an artist's control over her work, enforced by intellectual property rights, allows culture to spread and thrive. It isn't necessary for self-appointed defenders of culture to decide what is in the best interests of the artist. Furthermore, digital delivery of content should not dilute the rights of artists. Citing the history of intellectual property law, and the subsequent flourish of culture in the U.S., illustrates that giving artists a limited monopoly on their work encourages future creation. In the U.S., our views and laws on intellectual property stem from philosophers of physical property. William Blackstone, heavily influenced by John Locke's idea of property as an inalienable right, first gave us the concept of the Blackstonian bundle, an idea vital to intellectual property. The Blackstonian bundle compares individual property rights to a bundle of sticks, which can be leased sold, traded or given away. Culture has thrived even as artists alternately extended and withheld sticks from their Blackstonian bundle. The copyright debate has gathered momentum with the widespread adoption of the Internet to distribute content. However for respected scholars to argue that depriving a creator of potential revenue for her work is harmless to the artist shows a true disrespect to all artists, and a dangerous compulsion to put the desires of the masses ahead of the rights of the individual. Instead, the Internet has created an increase in niche markets because of the falling cost of distribution and production of online content. Therefore, creators of specialized content now have the ability to profit from their work.