Week 6- Copyright and Intellectual property

I believe that the web has made the idea of copyright and intellectual property a lot more complicated. The web is a global phenomenon, no matter where you are you can access sites from a different country and this is where problems are created. The documentary of Good Copy Bad Copy gives a great example of this. The U.S. has all these laws against piracy and copyright while Sweden does not have any. The U.S. attempted to shut down Pirate bay, a website that was based in Sweden and because of their laws the U.S. could not do anything because it was out of their jurisdiction. Unless countries agree on an international law that hinders piracy, copyright and intellectual property will be very hard to counter. Also websites such as YouTube have complicated the issue of copyright and intellectual property. As Lawrence Lessing, describes in his video How creativity is being strangled by the law, copyright infringes on people’s creativity. With today’s technology the way our culture works is that people use culture to recreate and re-express their ideas and share them with people.

I think the web will destroy the concept of copyright and intellectual property mainly because it is too hard to catch every person and because of the differences in laws between countries. I think a good way of using copyright and intellectual property for both the users and the companies is how both Wikipedia and Linux operate. Both are based on volunteers that bring in the content as well as edit it. As Tim Berners-Lee points out in The next web of open, linked data we should operate on linked data. By this he means that people should be able to upload data on the web and then other people go in and expand on the information, in order to continue to build upon that topic. Based on Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia does this by having volunteers put in information they have researched and then give other people the ability to edit as well as give them an opportunity to vote on to whether keep or delete a post. Linux as well uses a similar procedure. They allow people to send in program changes that will be reviewed by other users and then send to the Linux Kernel for a decision on whether to include the change in the new update.

I think Girl Talk and the producers of Good Copy, Bad Copy believe that intellectual property should be accessible to other people. Both described that they are not really stealing the music but rather using it to create new intellectual property. Also Good Copy Bad Copy makes a good point when they mentioned that people want to pay for the artist but not corporations. It makes it easy to illegally download something when you know neither the artist nor the corporation really need the money. But I also think it is important to note that just because you might download some movies or music that does not mean you do it always. For example if I think a movie looks really cool then yes I pay a ridiculous amount and go to the movie theater and watch it. Same goes with music I still pay and love to go concerts and see the artist in person.

2 thoughts on “Week 6- Copyright and Intellectual property

  1. nahikia1

    I agree that it is tough to stop the copyright infringement that is occurring outside of the United States, but that does not mean the internet is going to destroy the concept. If you were a beat producer and created a great beat that artists wanted to use in their song, would you allow them to use it for free? No, because if you did you would have nothing to show for all the effort you put into making it. If there are no copyright rules why would anyone ever create a beat if they could not make money off of the royalties or even selling the beat all together?

    They would not, and that is the point I am trying to make. Because of this there will always be copyright laws and requirements. I actually believe that other countries will harden their laws to help stop this problem.

    This all being said, I am ok with Girl Talk using other artists material as long as he is not making money off of his albums. If he were, he would have to pay royalties.

  2. watki155

    An important fact that you pointed out is the idea of copyright and intellectual property becoming more and more complicated—I completely agree with this statement. Differences in countries negate the ability of the United States of claiming lawsuits in terms of copy-written material or documents, and the ease of people having access of these things by the ways of the internet and the hundreds of websites that will allow people to ‘illegally’ download these documents. The idea of having websites identical or synonymous to Wikipedia points out the combination of an equal level of both copyright and intellectual rights and the idea of creativity—giving the people the open opportunity to express facts and openly add or edit documents to ultimately improve the world’s education on a particular topic. I also believe that creativity will complicate the issues of copyright and intellectual property—it is, in my eyes, a powerful component that is starting to become destroyed by it. It is always recommended to have a good mix of both, but it seems as if this world may want one or the other.

Leave a Reply