QotW3: To copy or NOT to copy….

Introduction

Here we are, in the future that never seems to be present. Internet is blossoming and the vastness is only increasing and just as expected, the problems are increasing too. Everyday we are faced with a dilemma of using other people’s work, file or music. Copyright according to Research.com is the ‘right granted by statute to the author or originator of certain literary, artistic, and musical productions whereby for a limited period of time he or she controls the use of the product’. This work can ‘be reproduced by the individual or by another licensed to do so by the individual. Royalties are paid on each performance of the work or each copy that is sold’ (Research.com, Copyright, 2007). The issue of copyright and sharing of files has been the topic of discussion for some time. Creators are waging an all-out war on the web users who use the information and flies they have uploaded into the Internet. The question would be Is it right to use information already placed on a web and then mix it up and upload it again? Does it stifle creativity or does it help creativity?

Remix Culture

In today’s digitally wired world, ‘the boundaries of artistic ownership’ (Martin, 2006) has been distorted and blurred. This new culture was born thanks to creators who are no longer willing to be passive. These creators are willing to ‘steal’ others music to make a new mish mash of music that is their own. However, the owners of the original music are asserting their rights and trying to sue and/or stop all these ‘thieves’ (Goetz, 2006). There is no neutrality in the world of professional creators and amateur creators. The professionals, like the CEO of Screenrights, Simon Lake suggests that copyrighting does not suppress creativity but guard it. But guard it from what? He does not continue to say what it is that copyright is guarding creativity from. However, he insists that copyrighting on the Internet will not stop people from being creative and making their own music. Lake’s view is that creativity does not and should not start from copying or ripping.
A story has as many sides as the number of tellers. Amateur creators who made this culture a reality. Many feel that information should be free and freely available on the Internet. The Open Source Movement is looking to balance the imbalance in the system to improve creativity and innovation. Creative Common and Open Source are trying to do just that.

Creative Common

“The Creative Commons enables copyright holders to grant
some or all of
their rights to the public while retaining others through a variety
of licensing and contract schemes including dedication to the public
domain or open content licensing
terms. The intention is to avoid the problems current copyright laws create for the
sharing of information.” (Wikipedia,
Creative Commons, 2007)

This way users will be able to know how thay can use this particular piece of music and creators can specify their restrictions. This way, it is no longer “All Rights Reserved” but more like “Some Rights Reserved”. However, this is only working in certain websites and gropus on the internet. It is still illegal to create from unauthorized data from online.

Copyleft

Copyleft, well as the name suggests, is the opposite of Copyright. It uses the copyright law to ‘remove restrictions on distributing copies and modified versions of a work for others’ it also ‘requires that the same freedoms be preserved in modified versions’ (Wikipedia, Copyleft, 2006). With Copyleft, users are given the right to use, modify, study to and redistribute the original and other versions of it. Copyleft not only allows users to use but also allows the creators to protect their information and music.
Common practice for using copyleft is to codify the copying terms for a work with a license. Any such license typically gives each person possessing a copy of the work the same freedoms as the author, including:

1) the freedom to use and study the work,
2) the freedom to copy and share the work with others,
3) the freedom to change the work,
4) and the freedom to distribute changed and therefore derivative works.

These freedoms do not ensure that a derivative work will be distributed under the same liberal terms. In order for the work to be truly copyleft, the license has to ensure that the author of a derived work can only distribute such works under the same or equivalent license.
In addition to restrictions on copying, copyleft licenses address other possible impediments. These include ensuring the rights cannot be later revoked and requiring the work and its derivatives are provided in a form that facilitates modification. In software, this requires that the source code of the derived work is made available

Is it right?

Is it right for us to use someone else’s work, modify them and republish them? From the view of an internet user, it is alright as long as we do not copy whole sale. Creativity is sparked from something else. It is derived from other sources and other means. However, most of the already avaliable music are pirated and so it does not seem wrong to use something that is already pirated by others. Remixing is the birth of one’s creativity. It is how one can put different music together to make another genre of music for the masses. After all many do not sell their remixes or do we buy the music from our friends or others. We are mearly sharing and to many sharing does not equivilate to stealing or infringing the copyright laws.

Conclusion

Using of information placed on the Internet will be sure to be ripped and used time again by millions all over the world. A balance between the creators and the users has to be created so that the rights of both parties can be honoured. We see information put on the web as free and we feel that it is our right to use, study and modify it as we please. We use and modify the information and files we see on the Internet as we see them as morally, ethically and socially ok. A balance can only created when both parties can understand and know what the other is thinking.

Refrences

Research.com (2006), Copyright http://www.reference.com/search?q=Copyright Retrieved date 1/2/2007
Wikipedia (2007), Creative Commons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons Retrieved date 2/2/2007
Wired 12.11 (2007), Sample the Future http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.11/sample.html Retrieved Date, 2/2/2007
Wikipedia (2007), Copyright http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright Retrieved Date 31/1/2007
Manjoo, F. (2004). The Mouse Who Would Be King [Electronic Version]. Retrieved 31 January 2007 from http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2004/04/08/copyright_culture/index.html.
Robertson, G. (2006). The RIAA vs. John Doe, a layperson's guide to filesharing lawsuits. Nova Scotia.