In response
to the frustration and confusion most young people suffer from the rules and
regulations of copyright, RiP: a remix
manifesto is a movie about fighting and arguing for the freedom to create,
reinvent, and build upon without harsh restrictions and threats of persecution.
But before I go into their argument further, I’ll define a couple important
terms:
Public
Domain: Information and sources available for public use. In other words, their
rights have expired or no longer apply. A good rule of thumb is to assume
something is in the public domain if published before 1923.
Creative
Commons: It’s almost like a handshake between the owner of the work and the
potential user. If the owner puts a Creative Commons license on their work, the
public is allowed to use it according to the terms of the specific license.
It seems
that individuals like Greg Gillis, otherwise known as Girl Talk (I’m trying to
see the meaning behind it but I have yet to succeed) and Brett Gaylor are
attempting to convince the public that today’s copyright takes away our
generation’s rights. They believe the rules are oppressive, leading to
ridiculous consequences like the fines the girl in the video had to pay back
(assuming the 22,000 she had to pay back was due to her downloading music). The
quote regarding the idea that if “piracy” is criminal, then “we have a whole
generation of criminals” really stood out to me, because in the end, it speaks
the truth. In accordance to the video, I do believe it is better to share
rather than restrict ideas. Downloading various materials “illegally” is so
common nowadays that I think the rules need to adapt to our generation.
However, I am not saying no rights should be given to owners of material. I am
in favor of Creative Commons Licenses, and I believe people should embrace them
more often as a middle ground between copyright and public domain.
Do you
think the regulations on copyright should be less restrictive and more open to
public use? What is your take on the idea of Creative Commons? Are the
consequences for “piracy” too harsh? What does a world a few years in the
future look like under copyright?
I think that consequences for "piracy" are far too harsh. You would never be able to catch everyone who pirates something, so the few that you do punish are being given unreasonably large consequences to try to make a point.
ReplyDeleteThe creative commons idea is a good one, but it seems like too little too late. In a world where illegal downloads are the norm, no one cares enough to find if they are given permission by the author to use their work according to their terms. They just download it and use it how they want.
The more you enforce a law that's already difficult to enforce, the more people are going to have an itch to break that law. And, if we are to assume that the quote you pointed out is true, then the entire nation (government included) would be serving jail time and paying fines for the rest of our lives. I would also say one should take into consideration the motive behind sharing content: is it for financial/personal gain, or are you just making a copy for a friend to enjoy at no cost/profit due to you?
ReplyDeleteI feel strongly that copyright laws should be less restrictive under most circumstances. If a consumer is attempting to use copyrighted work for personal profit or to take credit, then I feel the laws should be enforced. But I just don't understand the reasoning behind demanding fines of several hundred thousand dollars for downloading music. However, a system of public domain would bring up its own issues. There would no longer be any incentive for producing work as it wouldn't be protected in your name. I'm not familiar with the Creative Commons policy, but any middle ground sounds like the optimal choice.
ReplyDeleteI feel the regulations on copyright are way too strict. It takes lawyers years to learn all of the copyright rules, so to expect everyday people to know them doesn't make much sense to me. The piracy laws are also extreme. Think about it, if people could afford to pay 22,000 dollars in fines for music, they would just buy the music in the first place! 22,000 dollars is enough money to set someone back for the rest of your life. I have to feel for the artists though, after all they did create the music and it is their right to earn money for it. But then I rememeber how much money they make and I don't feel so bad (haha)
ReplyDeleteWith the need for everything to be copyrighted, I don't see how new things are to be created. That is how the world works, people feed off of eachother's ideas. It is a confusing subject though. Perhaps that is why their isn't much wiggle room for these problems, becuase there are too many cases from extreme to minimal.
I agree with Frankie that there really needs to be more of a middle ground between copyright and public domain. While I do think some of the rules in the copyright laws are far too complicated and the punishments far too harsh, I also understand that the law exists to protect the creative work of others. However, I am a bit confused when it comes to art. In my photography class, we recently learned about appropriation. This is a form of art in which one artist takes the work of another and does little or nothing to transform the image. When I asked the professor how copyright comes into play with this, she simply said that it is a new form of art, and as long as the new artist takes no more than eighty percent of the original, they are protected. I believe that this example goes to show how complicated the copyright laws are to understand.
ReplyDeleteFortunately, I think eventually a middle ground that is compatible with copyright laws and the public domain will be achieved, but it will take a while. Currently, the punishment for piracy seems a bit harsh considering most people do not understand the copyright laws in the first place. It seems to be the result of a good idea going too far, as the laws do prevent a lot of media stealing.
ReplyDeleteI do think that there should be fewer restrictions in regards to regulations on copyright. It is definitely something that is more difficult now, in our generation, than before, as technology is only getting better. It’s so hard to regulate who can use something and how they can, as well as if they are doing it illegally. Because of this, I think they should be a little bit more flexible and allow more opportunity for public use, as well as do more educating, seeing how majority of people aren’t abiding by the rules already. Unfortunately some of the musicians, like in Girl Talk’s case, aren’t getting profit off of his use of there music, which maybe there should be some kind of middle ground to fix this issue (among others). I just don’t think fining someone that much is necessary. Maybe there should be a type of license where the original artist could be compensated for possibly how much of there work was used, or how similar it was to the original, rather than fining someone each and every time they used it no matter what.
ReplyDelete