The public’s perception of copyright protection is often conflicted. On one hand, copyright is seen as a fair way to provide compensation for an author’s labor. On the other side, individuals want to access information easily and at the lowest cost. Unfortunately, both sides seem to be at a loss; the creators do not want to risk the possible corruption of their work and the public does not want to be limited in their access to information. The question is, is there a way to balance the interests of both parties and make every happy?
In an ideal world, everyone would have equal access to information. The public believes that free content should be a right not a privilege, especially in regards to the Internet. Yet, when the public is allowed free access to other people’s work, there is the risk that certain members of the public will take it and make adjustments to approve upon what was originally created. This ultimately drives down the demand for the creator’s original work because, lets face it, we as individuals always are in search for the next best thing. With that said, it is easy to see why content creators are so concerned with the preservation of their original work. However, these creators need to understand that not all possible uses of their work are abusive.
The original purpose of copyright laws was to benefit the public’s knowledge by promoting progress of the arts and sciences while giving creators exclusive rights to their creations for a limited amount of time (Why Copyright?, An Introduction to Copyright, n.d.). As a result, creators are allowed to benefit financially from their creations, which would in turn provide them with an incentive to continue creating. In the end the public benefits because they are given free access once the limited time has passed. However, since 1962, Congress has extended the term for existing copyrights eleven times, and twice for future copyrights. A copyright now lasts as long as the author's life plus 70 years, extending far beyond the “commercial life” of most creative work, which is only a couple of years (“The Mouse Who Would Be King,” 2004).
The relatively recent concept of file sharing has further decreased the willingness for people to pay for work. (The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales - An Empirical Analysis, 2005). Evidence of this can be seen in the music industry where sales have plummeted as a result of P2P sharing. There is no longer the need to purchase a CD when the songs are being pirated on the Internet and available to download for free. In reality, how can piracy be stopped when it is being indirectly encouraged by the constant expansion of bigger and better technology? MP3 players and iPods for example have only become repositories for stolen music. I agree with Simone's comment that "If there was some way to inspire people to stop patting each other on the back for stealing from others and to hold each other accountable, that would be an ideal solution."
One of the problems that exists in trying to find a solution to this conflict lies in education. There are many misconceptions surrounding copyright in regards to the Internet and the public needs to be better educated about the restrictions and the consequences of pirating. If people had a better understanding of these implications, it might help to alleviate the massive amount of pirating that occurs on the Internet.
The use of Creative Commons licensing should also be promoted as a possible solution. Creative Commons is a non-profit organization, providing free tools that let authors, scientists, artists, and educators easily mark their creative work with the freedoms they want it to carry (Creative Commons, 2007). This site offers creators a host of licenses under which to release their work to the public. These private rights protect the full work but allow for sampling and further reuse for educational purposes.
In conclusion, in order to balance the interests of content creators and the public there need to compromise and moderation. Legislation needs to stop making the issue so one-sided and consider the rights of the consumer. The copyright laws need to be more relaxed in order to better serve their original purpose, which is to benefit the public.
References:
An Introduction to Copyright. (n.d). Retrieved September 8, 2008, from http://sentra.ischool.utexas.edu/~i312co/2.php
Creative Commons. (2007, January). Retrieved September 8, 2008, from http://creativecommons.org/
The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales-An Empirical Analysis. (2005, June). Retrieved September 8, 2008, from http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_June2005_final.pdf
The Mouse Who Would Be King. (2004, April 8). Retrieved September 8, 2008, from http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2004/04/08/copyright_culture/index.html
3 comments:
I think you are right about people needing to relax, and allow information to serve the public, but how about the music industry? How would you want to affect that? Record sales basically don't exist because downloading is readily available.
I agree with you too about People need to relax and benefit the public with the informations that are created. If it's not because of the public, the creators or owners would not get any feedback about what they created and what should be done better for the next reproduction.
"If there was some way to inspire people to stop patting each other on the back for stealing from others and to hold each other accountable, that would be an ideal solution." I really like this quote but I believe that describes a situation that is nearly impossible to obtain. As you said in your post there will always be people looking to take the easy and cheap way out and the creators of the content will always be upset that their work is being pirated. I liked how you mentioned creative commons, at least it provides both parties with some middle ground. nice post.
Post a Comment