A quick thought:
As a consumer, one has rights. One has the right to choose, one has the right to discern, and one has the right to ignore. But it seems to be a never ending fight in keeping out the unwanted noise when making a decision. Afterall, once you decide that you want something, how do you decide which something you want? And, how much does it matter which something it is as long as it “works” in the capacity right for you? This may be a valid line of thinking when it comes to products, but we must also consider experiences. Experiences are different than products in that they are not identical and reproducible, and they do not get used and re-used. Experiences are unique and transient, and they are simply accessed, and then remembered. If one is to market for an experience, the goal of the marketing campaign isn’t to make it seem useful, it is not something that gets used. Instead, the goal should be to make it accessible as it is something that everyone should have access to. Why does this difference matter? Because, as even the UN has pointed out, marketing for use-based objects borders a dictator style. See Special Rapporteur on Cultural Rights at the 69th session of the General Assembly. What people begin to consume is not self led, but market led. Individual expression and exploration gets dampened because marketing has gotten to sophisticated that is cloudes our decision making process in ways we can’t even perceive. How can we instead design for true free choice? Can IP law be structured in a new way to give access to ideas and wonder? Maybe IP as a protective measure should be reframed. Can we say that our right to free choice is infringed upon by the market of, well, marketing? But can we say that we fall that easily victim to marketing that we allow it to infringe upon our right to free choice by allowing ourselves to be so swayed by it? Where does responsibility lie?
Finding the Overlaps 