Copyright Nation

Have you ever scanned the first couple of pages of a book, scrolled down to the bottom of a website, or browsed the label on a container and seen a capital ‘C’ incased in a circle. That is a copyright symbol, they are everywhere. A copyright is an exclusive right given legally to the creator of that work for a certain amount of time (usually the life span of the creator plus 70 years). According to U.S Code 17 there are eight groups of copyrightable works (such as pictorial, computer programs, architectural works, etc.), but it does not extend to ideas, titles, or facts.

c_copyright_20130919023926

Nowadays the symbol is no longer necessary. If the idea came from their mind onto a physical object (written on paper or carved into stone) it is considered their property. And any use of this property without the creator’s permission is grounds for copyright infringement. The Copyright Overview by Purdue University states that the penalty for copyright infringement is hefty, anywhere from a $200-150,000 per each stolen work and/or jail time.

Copyright laws are meant to protect the creator and promote creativity and learning. Initially, the laws protected the creator from being bombarded with variations of their idea. Ultimately allowing them time to better their creation without the added pressure of others stealing their work. After that time period, the work was given back to the public domain. But now corporations have changed copyright laws to “protect” their work indefinitely.

300px-Disney-infinite-copyright.svg

Some argue that over the last couple of decades these laws have been used less to protect the creators and more to line the pockets of the companies who own the rights of the work like in the film RiP: A Remix Manifesto. Which alienates the public domain from being involved in the creative process of building upon ideas. And in Free Culture’s Beginnings it states that, copyright power has grown dramatically in a short period of time, as the technologies of distribution and creation have changed and as lobbyists have pushed for more control by copyright holders”. Can you think of any examples of this?

Still, there are others who agree with Mark Helprin in A Great Idea Lives Forever. Shouldn’t Its Copyright? when he states, “no good case exists for the inequality of real and intellectual property”, reasoning that it should always belong to the person who created it.

What side do you fall on? I think there is a middle ground. Everything is a copy of a copy, this is how we progress as a people, by improving upon what came before us. Without access to the past we cannot create a prosperous future. Do you agree?

Do you think we a nation obsessed with copyright laws? debate_about_copyright_1570945

Advertisements

34 thoughts on “Copyright Nation

  1. Carly Hernandez March 25, 2015 / 3:33 pm

    I agree with you when you said that without access to the past we cannot create a prosperous future. It is important for us to know that copyright protection exists from the moment we create something. As you said, the C symbol is no longer needed. But what happens if you create something that ends up being almost identical to something that already exists? I noticed that you linked an article to the Blurred Lines and Marvin Gaye lawsuit that has made headlines recently. I think that the lawsuit was a little blown out of proportion in that the Gaye’s family was rewarded 7.3 million dollars. It is hard to be a creator when you have the idea of copyrighting in your head and when you create something it has to be your own original work that doesn’t look or sound like something that already exists. I think there could possibly be a middle ground with the copyright laws that could benefit both the creator and people who come up with their own ideas. We should be able to improve upon ideas to move forward. For example, remix’s which involve a mash-up of a bunch of songs that are already out there to create a different song, those people must go through a lengthy process just to get permission from the artists. And even then when you get the permission, you have to get permission again to play the song in clubs, restaurants, venues, etc. I also understand that artists should get credit for their work and everything that they create. But there comes a point where copyright laws can become too much, where even the sound of a note can become an issue. This is where I think we become obsessed with copyright laws and take things too far.

    Liked by 1 person

    • jaemillz411 March 29, 2015 / 9:06 pm

      I completely agree that the “Blurred Lines” case was blown out of proportion. I mean there are only so many combinations of sounds so after a while everything will start to sound like something else.

      And that brings up another point, once something is created does it mean that the creator or owner should be the only one to dictate what can be done with it forever? In my opinion that is crazy. If anything I would be honored if someone contributed to my work because it means that my work influenced the the future. I would have made a contribution.

      Copyright laws will shackle our future if we aren’t careful.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. rmpaulk March 26, 2015 / 8:42 pm

    I agree that there is a middle ground. As you said, everything is a copy of a copy. We wouldn’t be where we are today if we didn’t build off of others ideas. The smart phone wouldn’t have been created if the original telephone wasn’t created. Television wouldn’t have been created if radio and films weren’t created. Every new idea, invention, or creation is built off of someone else’s idea. I definitely think that there is a difference between inspiration and stealing, though. When you see one thing and come up with a new idea to better that product or create a whole new product that is inspiration. If you take the object and make basically the same thing, you’re stealing. I also feel that we are a little obsessed with copyright laws. Everyone wants to end up being famous and known for something, and they want to feel like what they contribute matters. They want credit. I feel companies might be a little different in terms of copyrighting, because the copyright belongs to the company, not so much a single person. I feel like you would have to wait for the company to go out of business in order to use it, but in terms of the other copyright – the person’s lifetime plus 70 years – I completely agree with it.

    Liked by 1 person

    • jaemillz411 March 29, 2015 / 9:14 pm

      Everything in this world has the possibility to inspire a creation, we should not cripple future possibilities for the sake of ownership. But like you said stealing and inspiring are definitely two different things

      I think that we are obsessed with copyrighting and it has nothing to do with the product but the reputation that the person will leave behind. Like Disney from the Remix film, was having Mickey on the side of a preschool that big of a deal? I think not and the Happy Birthday song is taking it too far. It is all about the fame and the bottom line.

      Like

  3. Brandon Coulter March 26, 2015 / 9:19 pm

    I do not think we are a nation obsessed with copyright laws. I do think we are a nation obsessed with money.

    Copyright infringement exists as one of the easiest ways to receive money for one’s mistakes when creating their product. It is understandable when faced with an individual stealing your work for their own benefit without attributing your name to the work itself. It’s another thing to avidly seek out individuals who manipulate a work and peg them as violators of copyright law, attempting to squeeze every single dime out of them regardless of their existence within the domain of Fair Use. One of the more pitiful attempts at copyright comes from the mobile video game developer King and their attempts at copyrighting both the words “Candy and “Saga.” If these copyrights were to exist, no developer would be allowed to publish using either of these words without paying a specific amount of money to King in order to get their permission. This is absolute idiocy in terms of attempting to maintain intellectual and creative integrity, and shows an awful lot when attempting to understand King’s money-making plans. If King were allowed to copyright words — not their actual work, but words. Staples of the English language — it would be an absolute negative blow to the integrity of copyright laws. While America as well as other countries attempt to establish and clarify the rules of copyright in order to make shared content easier to access, companies, like King, take full advantage of the monetary gain from infringement in order to fill their pockets and debase any attempts to extend the ability to share and utilize content.

    Liked by 1 person

    • cseejay March 29, 2015 / 12:47 am

      I think when it comes to individuals trying to make money as a result of copyright laws the rules have always been pretty strange, but the lengths at which some go through to insure that they are given a sum of money like King is alarming and wrong because it doesn’t involve his actual work. I think that individuals that profit off of copyright infringement are toxic to a system that’s somewhat vague when it comes to more recent cases. Companies like Disney and Nintendo are very concerned about their properties, and refuses to allow anyone to simply used their music, characters, etc without getting approval first. Nintendo is notorious for suing many individuals for using characters without their permission. I think the key is, to better limiting copyright time limits so reproducing ideas that are similar are not held from being made. But like it’s been brought up, being inspired and copying someone is a completely different thing. I don’t even think their close, usually being inspired results in someone developing an idea or passion that loosely similar at most. With that being said I do agree with your point that in order to progress we need to have access to what’s been previously made.

      Liked by 1 person

    • jaemillz411 March 29, 2015 / 9:49 pm

      I completely agree that copyright laws are too often used to corner markets and squeeze money out of people who are trying to create something. And that is extremely sad.

      Its become clear that copyright laws are not about integrity anymore. It’s about business and bottom lines. Which is like you said idiocy. What perplexes me is the fact that people can purchase copyrights on things that they did not create.

      It is all about ownership.

      Like

  4. eakoonter March 28, 2015 / 9:19 pm

    I do think that in a way we are obsessed with copyrights. Disney is a company that takes copyright too far. Years and years ago, Disney sued a couple daycare centers because they have murals of Disney characters painted on their walls. Disney demanded that these murals be taken down. They weren’t painted with permission. They also said the characters didn’t perfectly match the “Disney” image. This is where I agree with your opinion that everything is a copy of the thing before it. We need to keep reproducing products, ideas, etc. in order to keep advancing as a nation. In reality, the only reason prescription drugs are so expensive is because drug companies own patent and copyright laws on them. So, they charge higher prices because they can.

    Liked by 1 person

    • jaemillz411 March 29, 2015 / 9:57 pm

      Wow I did not know that about the drug companies. But that is pathetic, they are in the business of manning money instead of healing people. The more we dive into these copyright laws the scarier the world becomes.

      I also agree that Disney took it too far with the daycare. I can understand them trying to protect the innocence and integrity of Mickey from the man trying to create the “bad” version of Mickey. But the daycare was too far.They were not benefitting from the Mickey on the wall. And there were other characters too. I did not see the big deal. If anything, it was free advertisement.

      Like

  5. adrianhormsby March 28, 2015 / 11:18 pm

    Hi Jessica, I’m not so sure if there is a middle ground on this issue. There are two additional major points that Lessing brings up in his book Free Culture that weren’t in chapters 4 and 5 of the reading that we need to consider. The first is how it is not a good idea for policy makers to make policy on a technology that is in transition and in the case of the internet it is a rapid, substantial (global in scale) and dramatic transition. The second is the failure to take into consideration the costs of the law. On the first issue, rather than regulate a rapidly transitioning technology per se, the focus by regulators during the transition phase should be to minimize harm to artists and creators, while maximizing and promoting the creation of the most efficient, affordable and equitable technology. On the second issue, most people don’t realize that the legal system simply doesn’t work for everyone because it only works for those who have enough money to employ it. Not that it’s corrupt, but the costs are so staggering that justice can never be done at a practical level, meaning for you and I.

    A good example in Lessing’s book (chapter 3) that demonstrates both these points is the shut down of Jesse Jordan a talented technology innovator who created one of the first ever efficient and effective search engines on the internet. He even fixed a bug in Microsoft’s programming that would shut computer’s down when they did file sharing. So why would someone want to shut him down? Well the problem was his search engine index, in addition to pictures and information that students would access for their own websites, the index also included music, even thought it made up only 25% of the index. Yes music (always the culprit). He wasn’t even targeting music specifically in his search engine. And guess who shut him down? Yes, our beloved and pious RIAA, who wax strong in our readings this week about the morality of protecting creativity and starving artists. And how did they do it? They charged him with willful copyright infringement and labelled him a pirate and activist. He earned $12,000 doing summer jobs that year so the RIAA demanded $12,000 to dismiss the case and got it. Was no surprise that Jesse lost all interest in search engines after that. His outraged parents looked into a legal challenge at a price tag of $250,000 and had they won they still would never get the money back. A simple case of economics. Besides the RIAA is a huge music industry lobby with money to burn on lawyers, it’s CEO earns over $1Million a year. So how can it be moral to use copyright law as a pretext to pick on and extort $12,000 from a kid who loves computers? This is just the tip of the iceberg on this issue. The way the law is being used by the corporation combined with the inordinate expense of the legal system, justice will be a long time coming and any semblance of creativity will be stifled along with it. Good luck.

    Liked by 1 person

    • jaemillz411 March 29, 2015 / 10:57 pm

      You make excellent points there should be more done to protect the creators instead of regulating the use of the work. That is why I think the original copyright laws were better. Fourteen years is enough time for the creator to work on their creation.

      But it seems that we have lost sight of the importance of the public domain. We see their contribution as a threat. I think that is the real problem.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. mvzang March 29, 2015 / 5:27 am

    Hello Jaemillz411. I think we’ve become a nation obsessed with copyrighting when the goal was to make the most amount of money as possible. I believe there was a lot of greed behind many of the laws that were created to protect these major companies. I also think there is a fine balance for those small time artists out there who are trying to make a buck off their talents. There isn’t anything worse than someone who makes a large amount of money off your idea, and doesn’t share the rewards with you.

    I can see how these laws are in place to protect the small guy, but they also protect these large companies that already have such ineradicably deep pockets. As a nation, we do bounce ideas off of each other, as well as learn many lessons from the past. I think if someone wants to use a sound or idea already created and written down (so to speak), then transform it enough to make it original. If there is one thing about mankind, is that we have been able to evolve and transform at a rate faster than ever before. I think were passed the point of comfortably stealing each other’s ideas for profit and should be able to create our own.

    Liked by 1 person

    • jaemillz411 March 29, 2015 / 11:01 pm

      I can also see that these laws were established to protect the small guy, but big corporations have found loop holes and morphing laws to line their pockets and that is what I have a problem with.

      Especially when it hinders progression.

      Like

  7. spgregor March 29, 2015 / 11:29 am

    I really like your comment about everything is a copy of a copy. The future is built upon the past and it is going to be hard to really move forward if we can’t continue to build upon the past. In the video we watched about remixing, the guy from Girl Talk mentioned how in his daily work he sees limitations in possible science break through due to copyright laws. It seems silly when we look at it from this angle, we would rather sit on our ideas and creations rather than share them with others and possibly someday save lives.

    I agree there must be a middle ground that would benefit everyone. Without some middle ground to encourage creativity are we to become a society with no variety? I don’t want to see and hear the same blah things around me all the time; I want to be exposed to new, creative things. To what extent can this happen if every new creator has to worry about being sued for copyright infringement? I am not sure if we are obsessed with copyrighting or it goes back to us being a nation obsessed with money. Again I refer to the Blurred Lines suit, which I feel was more about money than the idea of Thicke possibly using Gaye’s music.

    Liked by 1 person

    • jaemillz411 March 29, 2015 / 11:30 pm

      It seems to that copyright is no longer about the creative process and more about the dollar signs. I mean companies going after normal everyday (average paid) individuals is low.

      Like

  8. galaradi March 29, 2015 / 1:31 pm

    I agree that it is in the benefit of the big companies that profit off these copyright laws. However, whether they profit or not, it is important that these laws are implemented. I also think it is more productive to automatically protect someone’s creative ideas, pictures, videos, music, etc. instead of having to put that little “c” that we used to see everywhere. Now people should know that whether there is a “c” there or not, you cannot steal anyone’s work. It can be tricky issue that involves lawsuits and courts, because it has become more blurry today.

    Online, once you google something it automatically becomes available. We can save pictures, download music, or take information without citing it. Therefore, these laws must be implemented further because of the digital age. I don’t think we’re obsessed with copyright laws, but I think it is of importance especially in today’s world. I also agree that without access to the past we cannot create a bright future, which is why it is necessary for these laws to expire after a certain period of time. After the author has passed on, there is no way of asking permission to take their work, therefore I think it would be okay to use excerpts or build on others’ ideas.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. blcarr March 29, 2015 / 5:40 pm

    Nothing is original anymore in this day & time. Everyone takes already established ideas, tweak them by adding a little twist to whatever the idea is and calls it their own. Lets look at the music industry for an example. When first established, music was played with live instruments. You would have numerous members chiming in to create a beautiful masterpiece. Then as time moved along, in order to cut cost and time, the beat machine was created. So instead of having 10 people on stage at one time, now its down to 2-3. To go deeper into the industry and copyrighting, the funky drummer (drummer for James Brown) in the 80s and 90s has been sampled by hundreds of musicians including Public enemy, Dr Dre and Madonna to name a few. Nobody paid this man anything but his art was stolen from him and heard around the world. Just recently, Robin Thicke and Pharrell lost a major suit to the family of Marvin Gaye for their sample of the got to give it up. You can clearly hear the sample in the song blurred lines but they decided to be sneaky and play with the sound a little. This copyright situation is all a sham in the end. Its just another way for many to make millions.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. sneff16 March 29, 2015 / 7:58 pm

    I agree that everything is a copy of a copy. However, I don’t think that copyright laws should cease to exist. Copyright laws protect artists and their ideas. Without them, it would be people just creating the same things and calling them their own. However, I do think they can be taken too far. I think this happened with “Blurred Lines” and Sam Smith’s “Stay with Me”. I think it is easy in music to create a beat that is similar to another beat, because, there are only so many beats! To claim that someone ripped off your music when it doesn’t sound that similar is crazy to me. I would agree if someone obviously ripped off someone’s music, but in both cases, it isn’t that obvious. I think middle ground is best when it comes to copyright laws. We shouldn’t be too lax or too strict with them.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. nebior March 29, 2015 / 8:12 pm

    If people did not build upon past ideas then we would still be using rock tools and living in caves. You make a very valid point by bringing up how people must build on past ideas. There does need to be at least some limit on how much a person can take from another person’s idea, however. If someone makes the next best invention that changes the world and they instantly stop making money because someone creates a knock off version then I feel that is very unfair. That is where your mentions of a middle ground have to come in. People must eventually be allowed to build on top of another person’s idea or the progression of technology would cease. I feel that the world of medicine is somewhat a gray area because people should get money for finding an innovative medicine or cure, but making money due to patents then keeps the medicine out of some hands that need it. So I suppose to sum up what I am saying: people deserve to make a lot of money off of a good idea, but eventually improvements to that invention must be made in order for progression to be made.

    –Ben Walker

    Liked by 1 person

  12. kevinpayton1 March 29, 2015 / 9:00 pm

    I have since switched sides after learning more about copyright laws and their reason for existence. The difference I see in intellectual property and real property is that building upon intellectual property benefits a society while building upon a real property benefits few. I think it would be a case of capitalism to be able to hold intellectual property hostage similar to holding real estate until the market favors the seller. The only person who benefits is the seller. History has shown us that technology and culture are built on the backs of its predecessors. Just imagine if we had to wait until one person was able to improve upon his own project such as the light bulb. And he died and his copyright rights went to the estate that had no intentions on ever developing the project or selling it. I understand fair compensation for time, effort, and creative talent must be given. But there also should be a fair chance for someone to improve upon those talents. Maybe the improver can mention or co-author his new creation with the founder. But the opportunity to advance must be available. We are a capitalist society, which is why we have yet to cure A.I.D.S, Cancer, and may other deadly diseases because the opportunity to profit of the cure is not readily available. I believe marijuana would have been legal if the government could find away to copyright it’s manufacturing.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. asibo March 29, 2015 / 9:03 pm

    I think there is definitely some middle ground between those who want to protect their work from others and be able to profit from their own work, and those who wish to build upon the ideas that came before them. Helprin sets up the dichotomy copyright and public domain must either benefit one group and inconvenience another: in his example, cheap literary works in the public domain benefit the public and limit the wealth of the writer’s posterity, because publishers tend to take far more revenue from the author’s work than the author him/herself. In this situation, copyright is not the problem, it is the middlemen who siphon money from the authors of creative content, as well as the consumers of the content.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. doniecew March 29, 2015 / 9:25 pm

    I do think that the copyright laws are a little obscene, especially considering the society that we live in today. It’s easy for anybody to make a video, song, record, movie without even understanding their copyright laws. It’s even easier to share that video, which makes it harder to trace back to the original content. I think that having these rights are useful but in today’s society is purposeless because not a lot of people that even understand it.

    Like

    • jaemillz411 March 29, 2015 / 11:27 pm

      Do you think that companies want us to be confused about copyright laws so they can violate them unknowingly?

      Liked by 1 person

  15. bjuhasz10 March 29, 2015 / 9:49 pm

    I agree there is a place for copyrights, but I also believe that copyright laws can be obnoxious and do more harm than good. I think in many cases, people and corporations copyright things just so they can be the only ones making money, instead of actually wanting to own their material and ideas. I also think that copyrights can be so ambiguous and hard to determine what should be copyrighted and what shouldn’t. I mean, every single zombie and vampire movie I have seen lately has largely the same material. If I direct a zombie movie or write a book about zombies, should nobody else be able to write about them? What if there is a certain way that everybody in my book gets infected? Should nobody be able to copy my idea and write their own book?

    To me, when it comes to copyrights, less is more. If you have a great idea and do it well (see Iphones), there can be a million imposters or people trying to make your idea better. If you keep evolving as a company, and if you are innovative enough, you will keep being the best at what you do, and ultimately, people will keep coming back to you to buy products, services, music, art, or whatever else you might be doing.

    Like

    • jaemillz411 March 29, 2015 / 11:25 pm

      I like the idea of less is more. Maybe some things can be copyrighted while others are open to the public domain. But who would decide what would be ok to copyright and what is not? Do you think there would still be people who would want it to be all or nothing.

      Like

  16. bubbastinx March 29, 2015 / 10:24 pm

    I don’t think that we are too obsessed with copyrights. I don’t think that we are obsessed enough. How many times have we clicked on agree to terms and conditions to various different apps?

    What’s really in that laundry list of words?

    I bet that I signed my first born away, and promised to donate one testicle to science upon my departure from this realm.

    What about the papers you turn in for class research projects?

    You own those too.

    What if the teacher uses your perspective to fuel their own research to advance their tenure track?

    I mean WTF.

    But, honestly, maybe I just need to calm down and breathe.

    After all, it’s all harmless right?

    I mean who cares if some one gets paid off your sweat, tears, and ideas.

    It’s all about the journey together right?

    Only in a perfect world. It’s everyones duty to learn, utilize, and protect their copyrights.

    Like

    • jaemillz411 March 29, 2015 / 11:16 pm

      I see you feel very strongly about this topic and I’m glad it is a very important one. I agree that there copyright laws are serious.

      However, I do believe that our ownership over certain ideas have an expiration date. A person should not be able to hold on to things that can be benefit society just because they came up with it.

      Just like songs that have a hint of similarity: there are only so many combinations of sounds until they must be recycled. Not verse by verse, but too an extent. I think we all have an obligation to contribute our work to the world.

      I do not think anyone should have indefinite exclusivity to an idea. Otherwise we risk becoming stagnate. But I do respect your point of view. And agree that you make valid points.

      Liked by 2 people

  17. akuelbs March 29, 2015 / 11:03 pm

    I remember when people would always talk about copyrights and such, and it seemed like you couldn’t find anything that wasn’t copy wrote out there. When people look at that it can get annoying and it can take away from people wanting to do anything with their creativity because they will always be in fear of someone saying they stole from them. The biggest case of something being copy wrote with i think is a complete joke is the fact that the happy birthday song is copy wrote. You go out for dinner and all these restaurants have to sing their own version of happy birthday because they are afraid of copyright infringement. Daily that song is probably sung hundreds of times in peoples own homes, but restaurants cant sing it to them because one person own the right to it. That is a complete joke and i feel goes over the lines. I understand that copyrights are in there to protect creators of content, but if its to the point where it deters people from using their creativity because they are afraid, or that it is used on something as stupid as making it where places cant sing happy birthday, then i think it has gone way too far.

    Like

  18. jaemillz411 March 29, 2015 / 11:21 pm

    I agree the Happy Birthday song is utter nonsense. I did used to wonder why restaurants did not just sing happy birthday, I thought they wanted to be unique, not that they could be sued. It is a shame that it a birthday song is a commodity.

    Like

  19. mstor763 March 29, 2015 / 11:29 pm

    I would agree that majority of things are a copy of a copy. I like how you state we must access the past to create a prosperous future. I would definitely agree with that statement. However, I would agree with that not only this nation, but the world is copyright hungry. Everything is about the bottom line and everyone needs/wants to make a profit. America is definitely a country that is money hungry.

    Like

  20. elrader2015 March 29, 2015 / 11:48 pm

    I have to agree with you that everything is a copy of a copy, to some degree. I think that we have gone copy right crazy. For example, if you want to pitch an awesome product idea on Shark Tank, you better ensure it’s copyrighted first because if not, there’s a panel full of investors who can potentially steal your idea, but it’s a double edges sword because copyrights are expensive and time consuming. I wish there was a middle ground, but in a nation that is so copyright crazy and ready to make fast cash at the expense of others, this is a difficult topic. I do agree with the expiration of copyrights however, because after you’re gone, if advancing on the ideas you’ve spawned is beneficial to the whole, why not?

    Like

  21. hessaj March 29, 2015 / 11:49 pm

    It is an undisputed fact that everything is a copy of a copy. It’s near impossible to be completely original. But I think where the influences come into place for whatever it is, help out whatever you’re doing. For example, if I hear a song I like that reminds me of another I like, I might gain interest in them, or a video game that plays likes another I like. Without ripping an entire formula from influences, copying is okay.

    Like

  22. thegradytrain March 29, 2015 / 11:53 pm

    I think our national ideals of freedom, innovation, and creative are what we are more obsessed with, and because of this obsession we are willing to go great lengths to protect every little thought and idea. This post reminded me of people that work on the extreme sides of copyright and patent enforcement, the “patent trolls”. Patent trolls are people that enforce patent rights, sometimes a little too well. While it is necessary to enforce these rights, sometimes Patent trolls come along and things can get annoying. They unfortunately can tear apart and find the littlest thing that might indicate a possible copyright infringement and demand collection. This is the extreme side of the protection of our ideas.

    I honestly feel that copyright is important for some, but can be unnecessary at times for another. Innovation and improvement are what drive us as a race so I am personally against copyright laws when they impede innovation. If someone is trying to leech off someones idea and claim it as their own, they deserve to be told otherwise. There is a time and place for enforcement just like there is a time and place for innovation. It is important for us as race moving forward, to find and see the distinction between the two.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. smkiraco March 29, 2015 / 11:58 pm

    First off, yes, I do think that this nation is obsessed with copyright laws. At least businesses are, both defensively and offensively. I think that is tied with this country’s obsession with lawsuits though which is another argument almost entirely.

    So you are telling me that my non-profited Youtube video which contains background music from one of my favorite bands is not only taken down due to copyright infringement but my whole channel possibly as well? That is a bit of an overreaction do you think? Profitable videos are another story.

    I agree with there being a middle ground. However, the problem that copyright laws are attempting to solve still remains prevalent: determining the intentional copying and benefit from another’s work from use with good intent. The line is so blurred I do not think we will have the problem even remotely solved anytime soon.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s