What is Starbucks Up To?
Who should have the rights to works of art and literature? If the rights should be reserved to the artist or author, for how long should the monopoly be preserved? Should the works enter the public domain, to benefit all of the people instead of a select few?
These questions were hotly argued at the founding of our country, with the vast majority against any form of monopoly and in favor of the public good. But it was clear that a total lack of protection would discourage art and literature, so a compromise was found, protection for a limited time. The copyright period of 28 years seemed reasonable.
But the holders of the copyrights were often the publishers of the works rather than the original artists. This became more the case when the art, augmented by technology, was music or movies. The publishers of these works were multi-billion dollar industries and they were not content to lose their monopolies after so short a period. They bought legislators and, gradually, had the monopoly period extended to the life of the author plus fifty years and, soon, to an almost indefinite period. In doing so, they created a new legal entity, intellectual property. They have gotten their purchased lawmakers to pass legislation making it illegal to produce equipment or software capable of reproducing encrypted copyrighted programs and giving themselves, the monopoly holders, the right to invade the homes and businesses of those they suspect of infringing on their monopolies and to commit acts of vandalism against them.
Not long ago, three women went into a Starbucks establishment with a disposable camera. Each took a few pictures of the other two. The manager came over, explained that everything inside a Starbucks is copyrighted and that copying it without permission is illegal, then demanded that they surrender their camera. Other similar incidents have been reported.
On the face of it, it seems stupid. But it may have been a very smart move.
There is no such thing as bad publicity, and Starbucks got plenty of free publicity from their strange actions. It was worth doing for the publicity alone.
But what if Starbucks really believes that the current tendency towards copyright monopoly is wrong. What better way to focus attention on the situation than to show how ridiculous it can be?
Message Board
Comments (1)
When a company so completely saturates its market, I do believe there can be bad publicity. When you're at the top, there's only one way to go. Ask Microsoft if it enjoys all the recent free (bad) publicity.