Before doing the readings, I never really gave much thought to copyright or to the laws pertaining to it. I always knew that copyright was established to allow the creator or manufacturer, to gain some money and to protect the product from being duplicated without permission. However, I honestly never dwelled about the creative aspect of it as the mass media had successfully imprinted its stand against piracy, because of economic reasons. Upon doing the readings or seeing the Number of readings, I realized that there is definitely more to the copyright business than what actually meets the eye.
Copyright: Is it a right or a wrong?
Imagine my surprise this morning when I chanced upon an article in the review section about copyrighting. I actually did not know how to start this assignment. Basically, I was stuck. I felt that the article was godsend to relieve me of my anguish. Haha. It felt like being alive after a meditation session.
Moving on the topic under discussion. An article from today’s Straits Time, features the mess behind copyrighting. The writer, Andy Ho, is obviously a critic of the music industry licensing. According to dictionary.com, copyright is defined as the” exclusive right to make copies, license, and otherwise exploit a literary, musical, or artistic work, whether printed, audio or video”. Andy Ho added that the aim behind copyrighting was also to “benefit society”. In stark contrast, the reality is that the “high transaction costs and prices are too high” for the consumers.
File –Sharing: Stealing or Sharing?
Napster changed the way I, like many others, listen to music. It was so easy to find songs. An added bonus was the fact that it was free. Speaking from personal experience, I stopped buying music albums after that as it was readily available online. Speaking from an economic point of view, I could channel my allowances towards more immediate needs like clothes or to hang out with friends. I guess it was people like me who caused this free service to shut down. The many lawsuits launched by the recording industry has now turned Napster into a paying service(Wang, 2004).
However, there is one general rule about humans. You can not give someone something for free and then take that right away from them. Once we have tasted that freedom, or in this case, free music, we may have a constant psychological need to gain back our right even if it means through undesirable means.
In contrast, Stanford Law professor Larry Lessig, claims that excessive control over media impedes creativity. He drew an analogy of the media to photography in an interview, saying
“the law was trying to figure out whether to allow people to take pictures without clearing permissions first or whether permission was required before capturing an image of a person or building. Quickly, the law decided you don't need permission — you could capture images and share them without worrying about
legal rules. That encouraged an extraordinary consumer market around photography, and that freedom was, in part, what made it possible”.
He feels that if the laws were reversed then the market for photography would be very small. This is what is actually happening in the case of intellectual property (Papadopoulos, ND). There is no real proof to show that file sharing decreases music sales, unlike what music companies have led us to believe. File sharing just allows users to sample music, which they otherwise would not have heard of
(Strumpf,Oberholzer-Gee, 2005).
In the traditional market, the producer was always right. He determined what and how much to produce and sell. However, with the advent of the electronic age the tables have changed. The consumer determines what to produce by the choices he makes just by a click. Music companies should learn to make the best out of the situation instead of constantly complaining. The reason people are downloading music online is because music albums are expensive. They should seek to resolve the root of the problem instead. If something, does not work, then maybe that method is not working. Try something else.
I am certainly not advocating piracy but there is a reason why it is happening. No one wants to do it the wrong way. But what do music lovers do when the right way is actually infringing upon their budget. The high cost of music albums versus the free music available online:One is wrong and the other is expensive. Consumers and producers should strive to seek a balance between these two instead of constantly bickering over something, which seems to have no end.
References
(2006).Copyright. Retrieved February 3, 2007, from Dictionary.com Web site: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/copyright
Wang, W (2004). Steal This File Sharing Book: What They Won't Tell You About File Sharing . San Francisco,CA: No Starch Press
Papadopoulos, G Control vs. Creativity. Retrieved February 3, 2007, from Sun microsystems Web site: http://www.sun.com/emrkt/boardroom/newsletter/0206leadingvision.html
Strumpf,Oberholzer-Gee, K,F (June 2005). The effect of file sharing on record sales:An empirical analysis. Retrieved 2 February 2007, from The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Web site: http://www.unc.edu/%7Ecigar/papers/FileSharing_June2005_final.pdf
1 comment:
Sham: you could be clearer with your proposed solutions, which seem to include a more flexible form of copyright (e.g. creative commons) and lowered prices. The example of photography was a good one. Grade: 3/3, but try to be clearer about your points in future. Be organized.
Post a Comment