A legal, reasonable and glorified plagiarism era
Will you make a seat for the elderly on the bus? Will you find a way to return the owner when you pick up your wallet? I believe your answer is yes. Because these are proof of our kindness and moral affirmation. However, if asked: Have you ever bought or used piracy? Many people are afraid to open their mouths and be embarrassed. Copyright and patents are not only in practical applications, but also in knowledge. This means that everyone’s ideas and theories are unique. It is true that the society and the world now pay more and more attention to the so-called intellectual property protection, and even continue to promote related laws. But for businessmen’s profit-seeking and vested interests behind them, the relevant laws may be just to beautify or hide their plagiarism.
For most people who have succeeded, they will try to chase higher achievements. This includes more wealth and greater power. The government or interest group that has the right to speak in this world has set laws and rules for the rights and interests of a few people in many ways. Many ‘too big to fall’ companies have delivered amazing taxes to their respective governments and solved the employment problem for many people. These are the ‘beneficiaries’ of existing laws. For example, the Disney company is known to people all over the world and all ages. More and more seemingly beautiful original works have been distributed into different fields by Disney. Manga, animation, movies and more. Even if we live in the age of the Internet, we still can’t search and verify that the books that were published in the library 50 years ago and published in small numbers are the originals of the famous works. Many Disney and Disney’s work fans will insist that Disney has its own creative team. Disney is also a company that respects originality and intellectual property protection. These fans cannot see Disney’s plagiarism of the kernel. Even smart and knowledgeable people can see through the source of the original version of the existing work at one glance, but Disney has taken these plagiarized stories for its own benefit. And they spoke eloquently that they had not copied. They take advantage of the law and public opinion very well.
They are good at beautifying the products of plagiarism. I believe Apple is a more influential company than Disney. Creativity is probably the biggest impression most people have of Apple. When every generation of Apple’s mobile phones came out, the official slogan would be related to ‘redefinition’. Countless people rush to Apple products. Many Apple fans and Disney fans have the same thing: they insist that the technology brought by Apple must be the latest and pioneering. We can’t deny that Steve Jobs did bring innovation that changed the world when he was alive, but when his successor Tim Cook took office, more and more people complained about the lack of innovation ability of Apple’s updated products every year. Through data analysis, we can find that in recent years, users of Apple products have begun to think rationally and have given up their support for Apple. Because competitors gradually have features that Apple did not have or later. Fans don’t know that Apple is a ‘secondary developer’ of many original technologies. This credit is inseparable from Apple’s excellent and efficient public relations team.
We can find a phenomenon that consumers are more willing to pay for creativity. When someone is pioneering a field, it will attract countless people to imitate and compete. These latecomers certainly did not copy directly but rebuilt according to the existing model. I am from China. I believe most people in other countries in the world have never been to China. The impression of China is still there: world factories, plagiarism, not paying attention to copyright and inferior products. Times have changed, we have entered the 21st century 20s ’. China is no longer a country that survived by processing products for Western countries. We also start to innovate and create. As a latecomer, Chinese products began to threaten the high technology of developed countries. In 2019, the United States expelled Huawei, the leader in 5G network technology, from social media and public broadcasting to publicize that Chinese companies had stolen the most advanced technology in the United States. In addition, the products launched by Chinese technology companies in the past two years have also been hanged because they created features that American companies do not have. Without targeting political and national positions, this is simply a slaughter of innovation and creativity. This is the same as the Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg in Foer. (211) The difference is that one is on the bright side and the other is secretly. As a giant and overlord of social media platforms, Facebook has not had a strong competitor for many years since its inception. Whenever there is a potential threat, it will immediately attack the opponent. Means are acquisitions, or suppression by capital. Instagram was successfully acquired by Facebook. However, Snapchat, which came out in 2011, poses a huge threat to the status of Instagram. Facebook reintroduced its skills and wanted to spend heavily on Snapchat, but did not expect that Snapchat has not accepted this condition so far, and it has been operating successfully. Although Facebook’s products are positioned the same as Snapchat, their cores are completely different. Instagram is becoming more homogenous with Facebook, but Snapchat has changed the way people socialize with a new model. If the plagiarists in the world are like Facebook and Disney, there will be less innovation. In my opinion, it is an act that hinders the progress of human civilization.
Facebook’s algorithms make us think less and less, at least on the social media level. We handed our choices to a machine, a computer, so our brain’s workload plummeted. In the process, our creativity and inspiration for innovation will also be missed. Convenience brings us the benefits we can enjoy today but deprives us of our future development. There was no mature and applied algorithm in Picasso’s time that would lose his inspiration. At the same time, Picasso’s era before his death did not allow him to enjoy the benefits of success through his own art. ‘But if it is true that in the essential commerce of art a gift…it’s never really for the person it’s directed at.’ (242) When not chasing interests and rights, such artists have created the treasures of the world. Picasso did not commercialize his work, and he would never know that one day after his death, his work could sell for hundreds of millions of dollars. In my opinion, his masterpiece is irreproducible and cannot be imitated by algorithms and plagiarism. We have never heard of any contemporary artist who created a work of the same value by imitating Picasso’s style, and good imitators may have been heavily hired into the museum to copy. This is probably why his work is so valuable. This is also the value of creativity.
In this utilitarian era, the creator’s ideas and works seem to be protected, which is only superficial. Copyright is only the final dignity of creators. Copyright can only prove that ‘I’ created and invented this thing. People who buy copyright are the biggest gainers. Some people even insult the original work through more immoral means, and this is plagiarism. Many large companies or organizations, when they see the benefits behind something, first try to gain ownership and control of such things for a very low value. When owners are unwilling to sell the results of their wisdom to these groups, they will perfectly ‘copy’ a copy by various means. Then it will be widely advertised, claiming that they are original. The products they plagiarized were legal. ‘Yet Disney’s protectorate of lobbyists has policed the resulting cache of cultural…Disney and Contemporary Art.’ (241) When the plagiarist’s work is successful, they even intensify. They do not allow any work that could potentially harm their plagiarism. In this environment, originality is the one that loses the most.
“The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors … those for the repeal of the estate tax.” (245) Lethem told an awkward fact. Different organizations, companies and governments in the world want to acquire new technology, new ideas and new art. Monopoly these technologies while wanting more people to participate in these original works for better development. In my opinion, you can’t have things both ways. Nowadays, groups of different positions often cause the creators and plagiarism to happen constantly for their own interests. We need to think about how to solve this problem. Like Foer said, the algorithm brings so-called convenience to Facebook users, so that users do not need to think deeply. Similarly, as creators continue to be plagiarized and succeed in their work, the precious inspiration in their minds will only decrease.