A copyright by definition is "is a set of exclusive rights regulating the use of a particular expression of an idea or information" ("Copyright," 2007). The first copyright law was put into effect by congress in 1790 and has been updated several times since ("Copyright," 2007). However it is now 2007 and to be required to abide by the statues and precedents of past laws in a constantly shifting and overlapping culture is both nonsensical and irrational. Today's economy can be characterized as being intangible, where day after day; millions of people are buying and selling information and ideas. But be careful, for that creative idea you just thought of may be protected by copyright law.
According to Ovalle (2005) "the purpose of [copyright] laws is to ultimately benefit the public by promoting the progress of science and useful arts" (p.1). Or in other words, to enhance knowledge and understanding. In his module, Ovalle (2005) also goes on to say that "the means of this promotion is in the creation of laws that give creators exclusive rights to their creations for a limited time" (p.1). I would first like to bring to the forefront of my argument the contingency and context in which I feel copyright laws are therefore in vain. As noted above, Dr. Ovalle describes copyrights as giving “exclusive rights” to the individual who created the good or service at hand for a limited time. Here I agree with Dr. Ovalle. I feel that copyrights are useful, but should only be enforced within a prescribed time period.
Article I, section 8 of the United States Constitution gives Congress “the power to enact statutes To promote the Progress of Science and Useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Rights to their respective Writings and Discoveries (“Copyright,” 2007). Once again we see “limited time”. Although this Article has been revised since its initial conception, it still serves as the premise for all copyright law. So if it is the basis for all copyrights why is “intellectual property” protected for a possible 100+ years? The Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, also known as Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act proliferates the copyright’s effectiveness for an entire lifetime plus an additional seventy years for properties conceived after January 1978 (“Copyright,” 2007). I find myself perplexed. What more could the propagation of this bill pose to the promotion of the Arts and Sciences than a pitiful attempt at corporate welfare. It seems more to me that we are teetering on a slippery slope that is leading to the eventual quash of the original intent of copyright law; that a property be protected for a limited time only.
While I am a firm believer of giving credit where credit is due, I feel that copyright law serves only to impede the creative abilities of those individuals who infuse their surroundings with their imagination. Take for example, Walt Disney. According to Manjoo (2007), Lawrence Lessig refers to the merging pop-culture and creativity into something unique as “Walt Disney Creativity” for that is exactly what he did (p. 2). Of course Mr. Disney purchased the copyrights to everything he used, but to try and do that today would cost not only an immense amount of time, but also money. Be prepared, if you want to purchase say the exclusive rights to Spider-Man, get ready to shell out some serious cash.
Don’t be fooled, Record labels and media moguls are losing revenue and sales because they are not paying attention to the desires of the consumer. They can point fingers at file sharing and copyright infringement, but according to a study by Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf (1995), the effect of file sharing has done relatively little to squander the sales of companies in comparison to economic conditions, distribution, and the social utility of other forms of media. Once again, this leads us back to copyrights and profit sharing. Who is or isn’t making money.
Lawrence Lessig of Stanford Law School raises a very interesting point when he speaks of free culture (Manjoo, 2007, p. 2). It seems quite apparent that the media and all its facets do not exist in a free culture. I feel that in the age of information where everyday billions of files are transferred every day, it is important to be aware of the restrictions on digital property. But also that there be an attempt to reform or at least in some way unify the properties of the media into a single conglomeration where individuals do not have to fear being sued for violating a copyright law they were not aware of. No matter how you look at it, information needs to be brought into the public domain. It is our job to better society with a structure capable of sharing information appropriately.
References
According to Ovalle (2005) "the purpose of [copyright] laws is to ultimately benefit the public by promoting the progress of science and useful arts" (p.1). Or in other words, to enhance knowledge and understanding. In his module, Ovalle (2005) also goes on to say that "the means of this promotion is in the creation of laws that give creators exclusive rights to their creations for a limited time" (p.1). I would first like to bring to the forefront of my argument the contingency and context in which I feel copyright laws are therefore in vain. As noted above, Dr. Ovalle describes copyrights as giving “exclusive rights” to the individual who created the good or service at hand for a limited time. Here I agree with Dr. Ovalle. I feel that copyrights are useful, but should only be enforced within a prescribed time period.
Article I, section 8 of the United States Constitution gives Congress “the power to enact statutes To promote the Progress of Science and Useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Rights to their respective Writings and Discoveries (“Copyright,” 2007). Once again we see “limited time”. Although this Article has been revised since its initial conception, it still serves as the premise for all copyright law. So if it is the basis for all copyrights why is “intellectual property” protected for a possible 100+ years? The Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, also known as Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act proliferates the copyright’s effectiveness for an entire lifetime plus an additional seventy years for properties conceived after January 1978 (“Copyright,” 2007). I find myself perplexed. What more could the propagation of this bill pose to the promotion of the Arts and Sciences than a pitiful attempt at corporate welfare. It seems more to me that we are teetering on a slippery slope that is leading to the eventual quash of the original intent of copyright law; that a property be protected for a limited time only.
While I am a firm believer of giving credit where credit is due, I feel that copyright law serves only to impede the creative abilities of those individuals who infuse their surroundings with their imagination. Take for example, Walt Disney. According to Manjoo (2007), Lawrence Lessig refers to the merging pop-culture and creativity into something unique as “Walt Disney Creativity” for that is exactly what he did (p. 2). Of course Mr. Disney purchased the copyrights to everything he used, but to try and do that today would cost not only an immense amount of time, but also money. Be prepared, if you want to purchase say the exclusive rights to Spider-Man, get ready to shell out some serious cash.
Don’t be fooled, Record labels and media moguls are losing revenue and sales because they are not paying attention to the desires of the consumer. They can point fingers at file sharing and copyright infringement, but according to a study by Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf (1995), the effect of file sharing has done relatively little to squander the sales of companies in comparison to economic conditions, distribution, and the social utility of other forms of media. Once again, this leads us back to copyrights and profit sharing. Who is or isn’t making money.
Lawrence Lessig of Stanford Law School raises a very interesting point when he speaks of free culture (Manjoo, 2007, p. 2). It seems quite apparent that the media and all its facets do not exist in a free culture. I feel that in the age of information where everyday billions of files are transferred every day, it is important to be aware of the restrictions on digital property. But also that there be an attempt to reform or at least in some way unify the properties of the media into a single conglomeration where individuals do not have to fear being sued for violating a copyright law they were not aware of. No matter how you look at it, information needs to be brought into the public domain. It is our job to better society with a structure capable of sharing information appropriately.
References
Copyright. (2007, January 31). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved February 2,
Manjoo, F. (2007). The mouse who would be king. Retrieved February 1, 2007, from
http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2004/04/08/copyright_culture/index.html
Ovalle, C. (2005). An Introduction to Copyright. Retrieved February 1, 2007 from
http://sentra.ischool.utexas.edu?~i312co/1.php
Posts
