CR06

This week's lecture was certainly not the most exciting, but it was very eye opening especially to the corruptibility and overall greed that can be found in industry. Unfortunately we had to learn about the power of patents and copyrights, but better than coming across them farther down the road. Though it is sad that many large companies expend copious amounts of money just to sit on ideas but it is their right to do so, and since they are the owners of it, they can choose to withhold someone else profitability off of the same or similar idea. I also found it interesting the amount of technical and legal jargon that a designer must be accustomed to when working with a client. Of course it is to be expected when drawing up a contract, but it seems that the more we look into the process of design, the more complicated it becomes. We talked about lags in the process, and now it's perfectly understandable how such lags can exist. There are so many spots in which either the client or the designer can get snagged up in a small detail, whether it's the price of the service or the many steps in bringing a product to life to just the technicalities of looking/researching patents (for industrial) and copyrights (for visual communication). It's a wonder that anything actually gets to production. But it seems manageable and I still look to pursue the profession.
Something that especially got under my skin both with the powerpoint and the film, is the term "intellectual property." Granted I could go into an hour debate on this topic I just want to say everything is stolen/inspired from something else. As we've said many times in this class, design is building upon or bettering something. Innovation happens, but design is about taking precedence and using it to create something better. The problem though is that people that pay or claim the idea is their's just seem limiting on both our potential in advancement (especially in the field of medicine) as well the simplest of ideas, as it seems everyone's out for a buck, or at least big business is. Taking this info from my MacroEcon class, yes it is important for money to be circulated through companies, and big business having more resources to allocate and expend on research is a good thing, but when they deny the little man from pursuing what may be a revolutionary idea (that they are sitting on) or something that could become the inspiration for other bigger ideas, they restrict man's ever lasting drive to come closer to perfection. Intellectual property is fine and dandy, but if you can't do anything with it, it is simply an idea/dream, and until it can be fulfilled no one should have right to an idea. Throughout history we see products being built at the same time but in different countries. The first engines were able to be put in production in the US as well as France in a very close time table, so ideas are found/developed by more than one person, but its the person that does something with it that should be able to call it theirs.
As for the movie I'd like to say that I'm entirely for the idea that they conveyed, but it comes down to how far they go. I like mashups from time to time, and I can understand that it's art, but I disagree with the statement that the music of past was believed untouchable, it's not, but I feel they should be respected. They are well known and liked for a reason, and though some mashups can be good, some can pervert the idea and message being delivered by a song. But being so opposed to the idea of intellectual property I have to support that once something has been released into the world that it should be public domain, as it is just that, in the public's hands.