CONFUSION in the world of Copyright!
The Internet has opened the doors to many opportunities for all its’ users. We are now able to do, what the unthinkable was 10-15 years ago, by simply connecting on to the Internet. The information one can obtain is endless. However, where do you draw the line of what is intellectual property and fair game? I think this distinction has become more difficult to define as the Internet has become so endless with its’ capabilities.
I know that throughout my highschool and college experience, I’ve been told over and over again by my teachers to “site your sources, and give credit to the person who’s ideas you use that aren’t your own�. Copyright has always been a very confusing matter for me. It’s difficult to determine, in my opinion, what is classified as copyright work and what is not. The clip on “Creative Work� helped to clarify the matter for me a bit clearer. In this clip, it discussed how complex copyright became in 1980, when laws were passed which claimed that works become copyrighted automatically, the moment that they are made. Hence, any scribbling done on a cocktail napkin, is copyright work; the moment the individual places the pen down. These laws made it more difficult for individuals to know how to allow other users to use their work. That is when creative commons was developed. Creative commons was developed to complement copyright. Basically it allows co-authorship to take place. What I took from this is that every piece of information posted on the Internet, in books, on napkins, etc is copyright work. Fair game is what is referred to as creative common. However, when someone comes up with an idea, and doesn’t put it in writing, how is one to justify if that idea is copyright or not? I think this is where things begin to become too complex and confusing.
However, it becomes unclear to me where you draw the line of “intellectual property� when you are on an online forum such as Wikipedia. Obviously, there has to be some leeway as to what is considered copyright material on this site, since anyone and everyone is allowed to edit any particular subject or topic. I think that if a site wants their materials to be copyrighted, they should use some of this built-in copy protection system that you are unable to interfere with, as Lessig mention in his interview.
MP3 downloading sites, in my opinion, definitely are jeopardizing the artist’s work and “intellectual property�. However, I think that there needs to be some regulation, made from a legal standpoint, to stop this from happening. It would take far to long to try and fine, every individual downloading free music; therefore, they need to start by going after the people that are creating these sites, for thousands of users to exchange music.
Comments
I think you are right on with the idea that technology has definately made the copyright subject a much more difficult one. However, is it possible that the increased technology will also be a reason for a permanent solution of copyrighted problems in the future?
Posted by: Peter Szesterniak | April 8, 2007 5:46 PM