QotW3: The Copyright Conundrum

The Copyright Conundrum

To summarize the problem at hand, it can be said that the interests of content creators and that of the public are at loggerheads. In order to accommodate the needs of both parties to achieve the greater good, a compromise has to be made.

In my opinion, copyright – or the content creators’ ability to have some form of ownership over their works, is imperative, for the monetary rewards it could reap would serve as a motivation for them to continue creating their original works (Ovalle, 2005, p.2). Unfortunately, should everything be completely protected by copyright and nothing be allowed to pass into the public domain, the public’s ability to innovate by drawing upon available ideas, would be severely hindered.

On a side note, the latter view is echoed by Fiona Macmillan, a professor of law from the University of London (2006). She states that copyright has failed the “concepts of genius, creativity, and culture”, as the” threshold of the originality requirement in relation to literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works” is very low (p.1). In other words, any creative work can be copyrighted so long as it is considered ‘original’. However, originality extends insofar as the creators’ own ideas, neglecting the fact that they may have been inspired by and thus have infringed upon other copyrighted works. This situation succinctly describes the copyright conundrum.

Copyright laws as we know them are at best unclear and differ from case to case. They are further complicated by exceptions to the rule like First Sale and Fair Use. In addition, the advent of the digital age has brought about digital objects that require “mediation” via the creation and displaying of copies (Ovalle, 2005). Such copies are double-edged swords, increasing the ease of copyright infringement while promoting greater creativity. For example, the incident involving the creative remixing of the band Green Day’s American Idiot album by two disc jockeys, was a “copyright nightmare” that “became an instant hit” (“Remix culture”, n.d.).

Technical Solution: Creative Commons

Creative Commons licensing “allows the copyright holder to grant some of its rights to the public while retaining others” (Brady, n.d.); a non-profit organization, the Creative Commons (CC) provides free tools that content creators can use to “mark their creative work with the freedoms they want it to carry” (“Creative Commons”, 2007). In short, this avenue, which enables content creators to choose from a continuum of copyrights, could prove to be the answer that would best please both content creators and users while providing sufficient encouragement and ability for all to continue creating and innovating.

Evidence of the success of CC licensing is obvious from its global jurisdiction of thirty-five countries; and an adoption scope, which includes the likes of archives such as Flickr, formal publications such as the Public Library of Science, collaborative content such as Wikinews, and instructional materials such as Clinical Skills Online (“Wikipedia: Creative Commons”, 2007).

However, CC does have its detractors who claim that it lacks an ethical, political, common sense, and pro-copyright position (“Wikipedia: Creative Commons”, 2007). While this may be so, I believe that CC is a viable technical structure that offers a form of copyright that would reasonably satisfy both creators and users of creative content. Naturally, it can be improved upon by defining more clearly the extent of the copyright its licenses provide, as well as setting a minimum requirement for the granting of its licenses.


Social Solution: User Honesty

The hope of abolishing piracy and plagiarism is a far fetched one, and it can only be achieved by total honesty on the part of the general public. This means changing the mindsets of pirates and plagiarizers and ensuring that they do not exploit copyrighted works for their own commercial benefit. To do this, the masses must be made to understand that intellectual dishonesty will not be tolerated.

While the act of piracy is deliberate and unavoidable without user honesty, there are times when plagiarism is accidentally committed. The simplest way to avoid doing so would be to ensure that all sources are acknowledged “in a full and consistent manner” (Claerhout, 2004).


Conclusion

In conclusion, current copyright laws are not entirely satisfactory due to their vagueness, and are biased towards protecting the interests of the content creators with almost complete disregard for the content users or would-be content creators.

Therefore, it is my belief that existing copyright laws should be more clearly defined, constructed in such a way that would benefit the public, and appended with probable punishments for offenders.

Lastly, alternative avenues to copyright such as the Creative Commons should be taken into consideration as a means of balancing the needs of the user and the ownership of content creator; the achievement of which would lead to the good of the greater public.


References

Brady, K. S. (2007). Copyright FAQ: 25 Common Myths and Misconceptions. Retrieved January 31, 2007, from http://users.goldengate.net/%7Ekbrady/copyright.html

Claerhout, L. A. (2004). Copyright Issues in Online Courses: A Moment in Time. [Electronic version]. Theory and Practice of Online Learning.

Creative Commons. (2007, January). Retrieved January 31, 2007, from http://creativecommons.org/

Macmillan, F. (2006, February). Copyrights Commodification of Creativity. Retrieved January 31, 2007, from Birkbeck College, University of London Web site: http://www.oiprc.ox.ac.uk/EJWP0203.pdf

Ovalle, C. (2005). An Introduction to Copyright. Information in Cyberspace, 2. Retrieved January 31, 2007, from http://sentra.ischool.utexas.edu/~i312co/1.php

Remix culture: a rights nightmare. (n.d.). ABC: Catapult. Retrieved January 31, 2007, from http://www.abc.net.au/catapult/indepth/s1645533.htm

Wikipedia: Creative commons (2007, Jan 28). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved January 31, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_commons%2028%20January%202007