Note: This is an unedited appendix section from a draft of my senior thesis.
Before a well formed argument or discussion of any topic’s merits can be accomplished it is important to establish terminology. The terms used within this paper and the broader debate are important because they can sway perception through their inherent meaning. The author can therefore influence the reader’s opinion through the careful selection of terms. In the spirit of an open dialog this appendix presents an explicit explanation of my word choice, which is an explanation that is often absent from discussions.
The term “intellectual property right” and the words it embodies, including copyright, patent and trademark, has been besieged with countless connotations from various sides of the IPR debate. Non- profit consumer oriented groups may declare it as a content prison, while the private sector argues that it is a creator of jobs and a key to national growth. Within this paper I have settled on customer oriented terminology. Although certainly not unbiased, this approach represents an attempt to distinguish the inherent characteristics of terms. One example of term confusion is the implicit definition of right holders, creators and distributors.
There is a major difference between consumer and creator interests when compared to corporate benefits. A consumer is a person who uses content for personal use. A creator is a person creating content like a scientist or artist. A corporation, although recently defined by the U.S. Supreme Court as an individual, is not a creator by this definition, even if they hold the rights to content. The assumption that a business is a creator as defined by current law represents a cyclical argument not based on fair reasoning. Through this explicit labeling of actors I hope to revise the current model of intellectual property rights.
In addition to this intuitive approach to actors, other terms will be phrased differently. The term intellectual property rights will often be replaced with content restrictions. This label disregards the presumed inherent rights provided under current laws while recognizing the effect on consumers. This follows from John Farlow’s introduction to Cory Doctorow’s collection of articles, Content: Selected Essays on Technology, Creativity, Copyright, and the Future of the Future, in which he states that content is not a noun, but rather a verb implying a relationship. Furthermore copyright is intended to provide adequate compensation to creators. Not protect an inherent right. The constitution references these rights.