Intellectual Property Right Holders and IP Users in Collision Course

John Logie’s “Parsing Codes: Intellectual Property, Technical Communication and the World Wide Web” raises some salient issues about the conflict between intellectual property laws and public in general and IP holders and users in particular. He argues that with the revision of Copyright law and enactment of new IP Acts like The No Electronic Theft Act of 1997, The digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, The Sony Bono Copyright Extension Act of 1998, and The TEACH Act, the IP laws have become more stricter and insular than ever before and general public’s access to artifacts of knowledge has become more and more limited. This has put the copyright holders and the general public in a collision course. The former is campaigning for more stricter laws for infringement cases while the latter is demanding for more flexible or ‘thin’ IP provisions.

Regarding the implication of new Acts to technical communicators, Logie says that “in the past decade, the penalties have grown exponentially, and technical communicators now face a creative landscape loaded with legal landmines” (232). In fact, anything creative under the sun is copyrighted now. So, for technical communicator who works often times with existent models, templates, images and other resources, the stakes are really high. Technical writers therefore should campaign for more porous and flexible IP laws that foster new creativity while also ensuring enough protection for the creators.

But current IP laws are more favorable to the copyright holders. Logie quotes Gurak in this regard who contends that “current trends in copyright legislation is very much out of balance, favoring the author or creator…over the public” (234). So general public including technical writer is deprived of the sources of information and education. This, for Logie, is a horrible state. Therefore, he calls on technical writers to use their rhetorical skills and technical expertise to fight for people’s access to artifacts of knowledge and information thereby ascertaining the formation of informed citizenry. Technical writers are in a better position to do that because, as Logie thinks, “With the advent of the Internet and the World Wide Web, the opportunities are manifold for communicative practices to move several steps ahead of the law of institutional policy” (240). Since IP laws always chase the technology, the Technical Communicators can reap the benefit of their skills to make the resources available to the public before the state enacts new law tp contain the loopholes at the least. Are we ready to fight what Andrea Lunsford calls ‘hyperprotectionism”?