Ever since printed materials became a major mass medium, concerns regarding the unfair copying of such materials were raised. Due to widespread literacy, such concerns became a bigger issue. Copyright was then created to protect the materials against unfair copying. From protecting printed materials in the early days, now copyright protects almost every mass medium that is available. Sound recordings, films, video games, photographs and even software are examples of mass medium that falls within the copyright law.
As technology becomes more advance, the significance of copyright is diminishing. Now, with the Internet, people are able to download and share such content with one another. In fact, “file sharing is now one of the most common on-line activities” (Oberholzer-Gee & Strumpf, 2005, para.1). With such an activity going on, the copyright law is often forgotten. Many files sharers do not realize that to a certain extent, they have infringed the copyright law. Mainly, most of them think that it is alright for them to share the files with people who have the same interest as them. Little would have regards for the law protecting the materials. “It is important for us to remember that copyright law is intended to proscribe a balance between the interests of the authors and the interests of the public” (Litman, 2003).
Content creators are becoming more protective over their works. As noted, “the copyright powers owned by creators have grown enormously in duration, scope, reach and force” (Manjoo, 2004, para. 4). However, with the advance technology and the use of the Internet, it would be difficult for them to protect all of their works. Even with the law, it does not stop the people from copying their work.
Especially with regards to audio and video content, the content creators are facing more problems protecting their works. File sharing such as peer-to-peer networks (p2p) increases the problems of the content creators. Such networks make sharing of audio and video content easy and common over the Internet. This causes the content creators to worry that the sales of their actual CDs and VCDs would suffer. Many entertainment companies start locking up both audio and video content so that people are not able to copy the contents. Even online music stores are affected by the entertainment companies. At the behest of the recording industry, most online music stores limit CD burning, copying music to other computers, and which devices can play the music, among other legitimate uses. (EFF, n.d.)
However, file sharing is not all bad. In the file sharing community, it is a common practice to browse the files of other users and discuss music in file server chat rooms. (Oberholzer-Gee & Strumpf, 2005, para. 3) By doing so, people are able to come into contact with others songs that interest them. This might in turn lead them to buying the album itself. Instead of killing file sharing completely to protect the content creators and control the public, both sides should compromise to reach a solution that would benefit all. The Electronic Frontier Foundation suggested a few ways that would accommodate both the interests of content creators and the public good. One of the ways would be “Voluntary Collective Licensing of Music File Sharing”. The concept is simple: the music industry forms a collecting society, which then offers file-sharing music fans the opportunity to "get legit" in exchange for a reasonable regular payment, say $5 per month. (EFF, n.d.) By doing so, fans are still able to share songs as long as a fee is being paid. The money collected gets divided among rights-holders based on the popularity of their music. (EFF, n.d.) This way, file sharing is not killed completely and right-holders get regular payment as well. Both parties would benefit from such a solution.
Group such as Creative Commons provides an alternative form in which the public get to have access to certain contents while content creators are still able to retain certain rights. Creative Commons offers six main licenses for content creators to select from. These licenses would allow “copyright holders to grant some or all of their rights to the public while retaining others through a variety of licensing and contract schemes including dedication to the public domain or open content licensing terms” ("Creative Commons," 2007, para. 2).
Other than that, copyright laws should also be made clearer to the public so as to let them fully understand the law. There are many misconceptions surrounding copyright and related technology and Internet law issues. (Brady, n.d.) It is only when the public understand the laws and takes away the myths and misconceptions, and then both the content creators and public would benefit from it. Otherwise there is not much use in having the copyright laws.
To conclude, both the content creators and the public must compromise in order to benefit from sharing and copyright. Alternative methods such as Creative Commons and the suggestion made by the Electronic Frontier Foundation are ways that benefit both parties. Content creators are able to retain their rights and public get to enjoy access of the content as well. Clearing up misconceptions about the copyright laws would also allow the public to be fully aware of what copyright is all about.
References:
Martin, Rebecca. Remix culture: a rights nightmare. (n.d.). ABC: Catapult. Retrieved January 31, 2007, from http://www.abc.net.au/catapult/indepth/s1645533.htm
Oberholzer-Gee, F, & Strumpf, K (2005). The Effect Of File Sharing On Record Sales.Retrieved February 1, 2007, from http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_June2005_final.pdf
Ovalle, C. (2005). “What is copyright?”. University of Texas at Austin, Course INF 312. Information in Cyberspace. Retrieved on January 31, 2007, fromhttp://sentra.ischool.utexas.edu/~i312co/3.php
Manjoo, F. (2004, April 8). The mouse who would be king. Retrieved on on January 31, 2007, from http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2004/04/08/copyright_culture/index.html
Litman, J. (2003, November 23). Sharing and Stealing. Retrieved on January 31, 2007, from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=472141
Brady, K. S. (2007). Copyright FAQ: 25 Common Myths and Misconceptions. Retrieved January 31, 2007, from http://users.goldengate.net/~kbrady/copyright.html
Copyright (2007, January 31). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved January 31, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copyright&oldid=104986965
Creative Commons (2007, February 2). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creative_Commons&oldid=105069529
History of copyright law (2007, February 1). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_copyright_law&oldid=104827533
Electronic Frontier Foundation. (n.d.). The Battle for Your Digital Media Devices. Retrieved January 31, 2007, from http://www.eff.org/IP/fairuse/
Electronic Frontier Foundation. (n.d.). A Better Way Forward:Voluntary Collective Licensing of Music File Sharing. Retrieved January 31, 2007, from http://www.eff.org/share/?f=collective_lic_wp.html
Creative Commons. (2007, January). Retrieved January 31, 2007, from http://creativecommons.org/
As technology becomes more advance, the significance of copyright is diminishing. Now, with the Internet, people are able to download and share such content with one another. In fact, “file sharing is now one of the most common on-line activities” (Oberholzer-Gee & Strumpf, 2005, para.1). With such an activity going on, the copyright law is often forgotten. Many files sharers do not realize that to a certain extent, they have infringed the copyright law. Mainly, most of them think that it is alright for them to share the files with people who have the same interest as them. Little would have regards for the law protecting the materials. “It is important for us to remember that copyright law is intended to proscribe a balance between the interests of the authors and the interests of the public” (Litman, 2003).
Content creators are becoming more protective over their works. As noted, “the copyright powers owned by creators have grown enormously in duration, scope, reach and force” (Manjoo, 2004, para. 4). However, with the advance technology and the use of the Internet, it would be difficult for them to protect all of their works. Even with the law, it does not stop the people from copying their work.
Especially with regards to audio and video content, the content creators are facing more problems protecting their works. File sharing such as peer-to-peer networks (p2p) increases the problems of the content creators. Such networks make sharing of audio and video content easy and common over the Internet. This causes the content creators to worry that the sales of their actual CDs and VCDs would suffer. Many entertainment companies start locking up both audio and video content so that people are not able to copy the contents. Even online music stores are affected by the entertainment companies. At the behest of the recording industry, most online music stores limit CD burning, copying music to other computers, and which devices can play the music, among other legitimate uses. (EFF, n.d.)
However, file sharing is not all bad. In the file sharing community, it is a common practice to browse the files of other users and discuss music in file server chat rooms. (Oberholzer-Gee & Strumpf, 2005, para. 3) By doing so, people are able to come into contact with others songs that interest them. This might in turn lead them to buying the album itself. Instead of killing file sharing completely to protect the content creators and control the public, both sides should compromise to reach a solution that would benefit all. The Electronic Frontier Foundation suggested a few ways that would accommodate both the interests of content creators and the public good. One of the ways would be “Voluntary Collective Licensing of Music File Sharing”. The concept is simple: the music industry forms a collecting society, which then offers file-sharing music fans the opportunity to "get legit" in exchange for a reasonable regular payment, say $5 per month. (EFF, n.d.) By doing so, fans are still able to share songs as long as a fee is being paid. The money collected gets divided among rights-holders based on the popularity of their music. (EFF, n.d.) This way, file sharing is not killed completely and right-holders get regular payment as well. Both parties would benefit from such a solution.
Group such as Creative Commons provides an alternative form in which the public get to have access to certain contents while content creators are still able to retain certain rights. Creative Commons offers six main licenses for content creators to select from. These licenses would allow “copyright holders to grant some or all of their rights to the public while retaining others through a variety of licensing and contract schemes including dedication to the public domain or open content licensing terms” ("Creative Commons," 2007, para. 2).
Other than that, copyright laws should also be made clearer to the public so as to let them fully understand the law. There are many misconceptions surrounding copyright and related technology and Internet law issues. (Brady, n.d.) It is only when the public understand the laws and takes away the myths and misconceptions, and then both the content creators and public would benefit from it. Otherwise there is not much use in having the copyright laws.
To conclude, both the content creators and the public must compromise in order to benefit from sharing and copyright. Alternative methods such as Creative Commons and the suggestion made by the Electronic Frontier Foundation are ways that benefit both parties. Content creators are able to retain their rights and public get to enjoy access of the content as well. Clearing up misconceptions about the copyright laws would also allow the public to be fully aware of what copyright is all about.
References:
Martin, Rebecca. Remix culture: a rights nightmare. (n.d.). ABC: Catapult. Retrieved January 31, 2007, from http://www.abc.net.au/catapult/indepth/s1645533.htm
Oberholzer-Gee, F, & Strumpf, K (2005). The Effect Of File Sharing On Record Sales.Retrieved February 1, 2007, from http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_June2005_final.pdf
Ovalle, C. (2005). “What is copyright?”. University of Texas at Austin, Course INF 312. Information in Cyberspace. Retrieved on January 31, 2007, fromhttp://sentra.ischool.utexas.edu/~i312co/3.php
Manjoo, F. (2004, April 8). The mouse who would be king. Retrieved on on January 31, 2007, from http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2004/04/08/copyright_culture/index.html
Litman, J. (2003, November 23). Sharing and Stealing. Retrieved on January 31, 2007, from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=472141
Brady, K. S. (2007). Copyright FAQ: 25 Common Myths and Misconceptions. Retrieved January 31, 2007, from http://users.goldengate.net/~kbrady/copyright.html
Copyright (2007, January 31). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved January 31, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copyright&oldid=104986965
Creative Commons (2007, February 2). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creative_Commons&oldid=105069529
History of copyright law (2007, February 1). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_copyright_law&oldid=104827533
Electronic Frontier Foundation. (n.d.). The Battle for Your Digital Media Devices. Retrieved January 31, 2007, from http://www.eff.org/IP/fairuse/
Electronic Frontier Foundation. (n.d.). A Better Way Forward:Voluntary Collective Licensing of Music File Sharing. Retrieved January 31, 2007, from http://www.eff.org/share/?f=collective_lic_wp.html
Creative Commons. (2007, January). Retrieved January 31, 2007, from http://creativecommons.org/
1 comment:
Decent historical overview of copyright and creative commons. Your solution for both parties is to increase public education. Noted and full grades awarded.
Post a Comment