You came up with an idea that did not exist yet. You believe that this idea will not only benefit you but others as well. However, others may have the same idea and you must publish and protect that idea before they do. Copyright is a term that protect any original idea or invention created by certain users and prevent others from copying those ideas in exact detail. Failure to comply with copyright laws will result in serious consequences such as paying a large fine or imprisonment. Remixes and parodies of existing ideas are allowed to an extent as long as the users cite their sources and mentions the original users. Even though users feel safe with the law on their side, the security of their ideas are not guaranteed. Some users can evade copyright laws if they’re either clever enough or the original users fail to report the crime. However, other users may not be aware of certain existing ideas and they often create and publish those same ideas without even realizing that they’re violating copyright laws.
- Chito2500 on Documentation Purpose
- Jovi on Documentation Purpose
- Jessica on The Life of a Link
- Julissa <3 on Journal Entry 4
- Madi on New knowldege
t a g s
- alternative media
- big data
- digital age
- John V. Pavlik
- process documentation
- reading response
- research journal
- research paper writing
- research process
- research proposal
- Search Engine
- search engines
- social media
- web 2.0
I agree with the statement that many people do not realize that they may be violating copyright laws. If you are clearly using someone else’s work for research then it is usually obvious that you must cite their ideas. The issue becomes more diluted when people are creating works of art. This issue was brought up in Rip!, bands are constantly reusing and recycling works from their predecessors. They may either do it intentionally out of respect/admiration or they may not even realize that what they created was a manifest of a previously produced work. It may be unbeknown to them that a beat or image stuck in their head was related to a song or movie they had previously seen. To them the idea may be completely new and original. Either way stringent and overbearing copyright laws do have the capability to hinder creativity. Although artists do need to be protected since their art is how the make a living their fellow peers should also be encouraged and inspired to use their work ( to some extent) as fuel for their own projects.
I agree that ideas should be protected from others trying to copy it. The contravoursy begins when someone is trying not to intentionaly copy an idea, but build and improve upon it. In the world that we have today, our technological advances wouldnt have been accomplished if it werent for people imporving certain products. Steve jobs for example admitidly said that when sony released (im not sure if this was the exact product) a CD player, he quickly opened it up and dismantled it, in order to figure out how it worked. He did this with the intention of building upon their idea. He in a way reengineered this product and its fnctions and made his own model and called it his own. The same thing goes for cell phones, when Apple came out with the Iphone and its sensitive touch screen, other companies were quick to mimic their technology and come out with their own versions by having improved upon Apples work. We can not move foward in this world if we keep fighting over who came up with the original idea. Instead we should openly share our ideas and allow for improvement all together. Money and power has its gains, and unfortunalty that is the downfall in the effort of trying to move foward.
I do agree with the assertion that copyright laws are a vital legal apparatus in any genuine market economy where creative cultural productions are a significant commodity. In addition, I do subscribe to the belief that in order foster creativity in all intellectual realms the law must ensure the originality of creative materials are verified and that the originators of such materials are awarded any monetary profit gained from their sale and distribution. In contrast, I also feel that modern day copyright as interpreted in the United States is has necessarily restrictive. This stifling state of affairs has departed from the traditional cultural convention where it was almost expected for producers of content to draw on the work of their predecessors , and led our society to a place where ever larger corporations have monopolized the use, distribution, and even creation of all manner intellectual property. Also, these exclusionary profit-making enterprises have set out an aggressive campaign to eviscerate any independent content producers who even remotely draw from the ideas the claim ownership over. I believe that situation has facilitated a debilitation of creativity in our society, and the ever greater dominance of cultural expression by a an ever shrinking elite.