Understanding value of creativity

English: Radio Antenna at Kelvedon Hatch ( M K...
Radio Antenna. Image via Wikipedia

As an innovation manager I must defend the copyright. It is impossible to promote innovation if the society does not establish a correct way to protect creativity and prevent the unfair enrichment through other people’s work. But we must understand well the creativity process in order to select the best option to do that.

It is well-known that when a song is selected to be performed in a movie, the author must be paid for it. The movie would be using the composer’s creativity to produce an economic benefit although they have paid for the record. But this could make us to think about other things: Why does not the use of a Ferrari in the movie imply to compensate the designers for their creative action although they have paid the car? Probably, the vehicle was selected by its design, was not it?

This paradox can be understood if we analyze how the creation process is producing value. Songs belong to the same industry as movies, the entertainment industry, but cars proceed from a different one, the automotive industry. When an industry is been developed, the different agents agree the way that the value is incorporated to the final product and how the benefit must be distributed. Car Manufacturers are interested in their own business and do not seem interested in an additional retribution of the designers, and they consider it some kind of free advertisement that will increase the benefit of all agents.

Recent debate about copyrights in the digital world is a consequence of a new scenario, the merger of two different industries, telecommunication and entertainment. Telecommunication industry seems interested in its own business while entertainment industry is imposing their scheme of value distribution without understanding well how technology is adding value to their products (the benefit from this added value can belong to its new providers and it cannot belong to the old ones), and without perceiving that the old retribution scheme can be seen by the users less legitimate as they think. Users are paying to access internet with a large bandwidth and for the users, internet and its contents is the same thing. Users understand that if they have bought a car (computer) and are paying the fuel (internet) they must not to pay for the rent of the landscape along the road.

This is a good environment for agents with acquired benefits that do not correspond, as we have seen recently. Then, the fight against piracy can be done better analyzing a new retribution scheme instead of trying to put limits to the value for the user that technology can add to the entertainment products only because this new value is provided by technology and not by the creativity process of some artists or its industry. Innovation can provide higher benefits to all agents of the joint industry.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s