QOTW3: Sharing, Copyright and Creative Culture.

“Piracy is Crime”

Today’s internet is made up not just of text, but sound, video, animation and more. Every once in a while a new feature or application takes the internet by storm and not only changes the way many people use the internet, but, at times, even change the world beyond the internet’s borders.

So what is it that we should be concern about copyrights? It did all this by putting into effect a very simple idea- let people share their music with each other over the internet. Despite all the hype, technology and lawsuits, that is what it all comes down to.

People nowadays can make digital copies of their CDs by using piece of ripping software that turns CD tracks into digital files (Windows Media Player, I tunes. Etc) – most of these commonly files are in the mp3 music format. With the evil heart of some, copies of these CDs where made repeatedly and sold throughout the whole nation on the verge of being catching and prosecuted. Yes, so what if you are being caught? Thousands and thousands of copies had already been sold and distributed around the globe. If this goes on, what will happen to content creators? Music industries and moviemakers? This has to be stopped! If you want to make copies of your own, follow the rules and oblige the law.

The music industry were badly affected because of this. Remember the Napster case? Napster went to court on copyright violations. The court cases dragged on for a while, but ultimately Napster lost and was put out of business. It may resurface as a legal, for- pay music sharing service at some point. However, despite the lawsuits, the genie is out of the bottle. Other software and file-sharing networks enable people to do the same thing. (Ares, Limewire. Etc)

The first important thing that people cannot forget is that: copyright is important. Initially, the creation of copyright is to give creators of new music, video etc. special rights to their creation for a limited time. The purpose of these copyright laws is to ultimately benefit the public by promoting “the progress of science and useful arts;” that is learning and knowledge. With these laws being implemented, creators can benefit from their creation and earn themselves fame and money-, which is a form of incentives towards them. On the other hand, the public’s interest is also being taken care of. The public benefits because the authors and inventors continue creating original works that these creators may not have otherwise developed and because these creations are freely usable by the public once the limited time has passed. It is important to strike a balance between both the interest of content creators and public good. (Ovalle, 2005)

It proposes that we adopt a legal architecture that encourages but does not compel copyright owners to make their works available for widespread sharing over digital networks, and that we incorporate into that architecture a payment mechanism, based on a blanket or collective license, designed to compensate creators and to bypass unnecessary intermediaries. (Litman, 2003)

One important thing that can be done, which is mentioned by Jessica Litman from her article, is to encourage music file sharing, as a distinguish from merely tolerating it. To do that, it should incorporate some licensing mechanism that can cut through the thicket of overlapping and conflicting rights. In addition, the legal defaults of such system need to be reset to “share” rather than “hoard”. So long as shareable is the legal default, we do not need to make sharing compulsory. We can allow creators who would like to prevent their music from being shared to make an election. The system should allow customers, computers and software to ascertain, easily, whether music is being hoarded or shared, and thus encourage the design of computer software allowing the sharing of shareable music while making it difficult to share hoarded music. (Litman 2003)

Another way of treating this matter is to let the public know and understand the set of rules behind sharing and copyright related law issues. For example, letting the public know what a “Fair use” is all about; that is, doctrine that allows certain limited uses of copyrighted material without the copyright owner's permission. While there is no bright line test defining the scope of Fair Use,states four general parameters that must be considered: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including the commercial or noncommercial nature of the use; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount of the copyrighted work that is used; and (4) the effect of the use on the potential market or value of the copyrighted work. Fair Use commonly provides for educational and non-profit entities (i.e., schools and libraries) to disseminate copyrighted material. It allows students and teachers to copy reasonable amounts of material from books and other publications. Fair Use also allows journalists to use certain portions of copyrighted works in their reporting. However, keep in mind that the fact you are using the material for educational or journalistic purposes by itself does not give you carte blanche to use whatever you want. All four of the above parameters must be considered and the determination of what fits within the scope of Fair Use is complex. (Brady, 2004)

There are more of these set of rules that can act as a guideline for us, so as to not violate the law and remain a good public user.

A whole new application has sprung up recently: business peer-to-peer software. The most notable example is Microsoft-owned Groove software that enables people in corporations to create their own private workspace where they can share files, messages, and software. Multibillion-dollar corporations have already signed on and using the software. This could another alternative to accommodate both public and content creators’ interest. In addition, businesses also use Bit Torrent as a way to more efficiently distribute software. So ironically, a technology that started as guerilla music- sharing software might find fruition as a corporate mainstay.



Citations:

Ovalle, C. (2005). What is Copyright? Retrieved on February 3, 2007, from http://sentra.ischool.utexas.edu/~i312co/3.php


Litman, J (2003). Sharing and Stealing. University of Michigan. Social Science Research Network. Retrieved on February 3, 2007, from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=472141#PaperDownload


Brady, K (2004). Copyright FAQ: 25 Common Myths and Misconceptions. Retrieved on February 3, 2007, from http://users.goldengate.net/~kbrady/copyright.html
benbasket at 12:38 AM