« Wikiliving | Main | Wikiliving »

A whole new Ball Game

The internet has definitely caused a lot of chaotic matter when it comes to copyrighted materials. I think that John Barlow summed it up perfectly in his introduction of, “… everything you know about intellectual property is wrong,� because it has chanced so much over the past years due to the internet. Now-a-days, when people want to find information, the internet is for many, the number one place to search. But, as we all know, this is not limited to text based information, but rather all sorts of different types of intellectual materials. MP3 files have caused a lot of chaos within the music industry within the past five years. Today, when people hear a song on the radio that they like, instead of going to buy the album that they know the song is on, they download it off the internet instead. I know that on a personal level, it has completely changed the way that I value music. I haven’t bought a CD since my 7th grade year in school. Since then, I have continued to find ways to download music for free. While this is technically illegal and even seeing as I’m usually a law abiding citizen, I have no problem downloading music for free, simply because everyone does it. If I were the only one who had MP3 files on the internet, it might be a different story. But instead, in comparison to others, I have a minimal MP3 downloading record in comparison to others. I agree with Barlow’s comment that, “The source of this conundrum is as simple as its solution is complex. Digital technology is detaching information from the physical plane, where property law of all sorts has always found definition.� It’s a completely different ball game.

In terms of Wikipedia, I feel that people should realize that it is collaborative material without even having to read the fine print. They are contributing to the definition of something, and should expect that to possibly be re-used by other people in the future. However, there are other areas of the copyright business that are much more complicated in terms of having no distinct boundaries. For example, when people are doing collaborative work online, who gets the credit? If this blog that we write into every week suddenly became a huge hit for some reason, who would reap the profits it created? Would it be split between all of the contributors equally, or would Krista receive it all because she prompted us with the questions? And then it could even become more complicated as to who owned the material after that? Although I know that this situation would never happen, there are other similar copyright problems such as throughout the internet. I found that the movie we watched on creative commons was very interesting, but for some reason, I do not feel that it will completely take off. I just don’t think that business will take the time and necessary effort in order to make the work accessible for others to use.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/36823

Comments

I always thought music was free until I was old enough to buy my own CDs. We have all grown up with a radio playing tunes 24/7, and not paying a dime. So it is hard for me to every pay $1 a song or $15 for a CD with only a few good songs. I had napster and bearshare at one point, but now I just don't want to be "made an example".

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)