I begin with a quote by John Perry Barlow from “The Economy of Ideas: A Framework for Rethinking Patents and Copyrights in the Digital Age.”

The enigma is this: If our property can be infinitely reproduced and instantaneously distributed all over the planet without cost, without our knowledge, without its even having our possession, how can we protect it? How are we going to get paid for the work we do with our minds? And, if we can’t get paid, what will assure the continued creation and distribution of such work?

( Barlow, 1993)

Whenever we discuss appropriation we often link it to the borrowing or stealing of ideas. What I think is interesting about Barlow is that he looks at this concept from a different angle. He views it from the perspective of property; what you create is your own no matter where it comes from. He also brings another element to the table. He discusses ideas as comodification and how comodification works in the new digital age. I think it is important to examine how peoples work is being distributed in the digital age and how this affects the artist. Barlow claims that the original idea belongs to the person who first brings it to the market or to the public. Here is my problem, once it is brought to the market, what will people do with it? As seen in the quote by Barlow, now a day anything can be infinitely reproduced and instantaneously distributed, so what does that mean? Does this mean that any work I create will no longer be sacred because it will be accessible to everyone via the internet? Will the idea of an original copy seize to exist because everything is done digitally now therefore you can never have an original copy because it gets lost in cyerberspace? Or does it simply mean I will never make money off my work? I often wonder how the digital age will affect originals. In an era where plagiarism and copyright are such issues, is it possible to claim anything as your own original idea or are we always influenced by something? These are questions I often ask myself and which Barlow tries to answer. He believes it is up to government to help stop the stealing of information. Yet at the same time he believes that without the exchange of information there is no life. I tend to agree with this thought. Everything is information, therefore in stopping people from thinking and responding to other people’s ideas, are we then stopping the flow of information. Information is not something that should be bought and sold, if should be free. We should be able to think and brainstorm without fear. We should not fear that people will assume our ideas are not our own, we should not fear that someone will steal our ideas without paying. There are copyright laws for a reason, and although Barlow claims information should be free, I feel that this comes with problems. Instead of information being free of cost, I feel that information is something that can be exchanged. Although it does not come with monetary value, it comes with the idea that you are exchanging your information for someone else’s. Therefore the flow of information is still free, but everyone is still able to gain something from it. This helps with the idea of authorship. I feel that what a true author or artist truly wants is to get their ideas and views out to the public. Sure money helps them survive, but if the information is not there, then there is no money. On the internet, if we exchange information for information, then their work still gets recognized as their own. Take for example music. There have always been issues about downloading illegal music on the internet. What seizes to go unrecognized is the fact that even though people are not directly paying money to the author or artist, none the less, the artist’s music is still getting recognition which can help the artist in other ways other than record sales. It helps get the artists name out there, it enables people who would not normally listen to their music listen to it, it makes the radio stations play their music, and it helps with ticket sales to concerts. If the media knows an artist is popular online, and puts them into the spotlight, then the artist is able to make money through special appearances. I have always believed if the person is a true fan, then being able to download their music will not stop them from buying the actual tangible artifact. I think that even though our society is use to a world where information is at their finger tips via the World Wide Web, we still desire the ability to own the actual object, whether it’s a CD or a book. This type of ownership, even in the digital age will never seize to exist. That is why to me, worrying about control over the distribution is not an issue, because when one door closes another opens. If your material is made more readily available to the audience, there are also benefits to that. Maybe they are not recognizable right away, but soon enough we will all feel the positive affects of letting information flow.

Laura