The internet gave people easy and cheap (even free) access to unlimited amounts of content that otherwise it will cost a fortune or it would be through piracy. Social media has brought a different view to its users related to copyright and patents. In the book “Information Feudalism” Peter Drahos writes, “Individual everywhere increasingly find that every time they use information in some way they trigger an obligation to pay a fee to an intellectual property owner.” Well with the internet we all have access to all this information without paying fees (most of the time at least), but the problem arises when it comes time users began to share such information.
Example one: YouTube. When you search any given song you get hundreds of results that are not the official video nor uploaded by the artist or anyone working for the artist/company record. Is just videos uploaded by users showing some video they edited with images, text, or montage of movies/shows. None of these people own the rights of the song, (and sometimes not even the image in the video) yet they are able to upload the videos and receive any quantity of views. Yet the other day when I uploaded a video on YouTube for class, the website removes the audio. The image was my own recording, but since I did not pay any royalties or anything to the song they opted to remove the audio, unless I prove them wrong. It is true I didn’t, I just used a song I had on my iTunes. Ironically, another video I uploaded about a month ago, which included more than one song, for which I had paid no royalties or had permission from their copyright owners to use, yet they didn’t remove the audio. So why did they opted to remove the audio from one and not the other? After much thinking I came up with two possible answers. One: is based on luck. Second: the songs I used for the video from which YouTube did not remove the audio, were downloaded from YouTube. Still, I don’t understand why is it that if I downloaded from YouTube I get permission to broadcasted? I did not pay anything to download, so the owner of the copyrights of the video did not receive any profit out of it or at least granted me permission to do it. Given that YouTube did not allow me to upload my video with audio, I decided to upload it through Twitter and there was no trouble at all.
Basically social networks allow you to post whatever you want. Sure they all disclose on the fine print that they have the right to remove any post they feel is inappropriate/offensive/ or in violation of copyright. My doubt has always been the same, how would they know if you have permission to use the material?
Most users in social networks do not have the intention to take credit for someone else’s work. Usually the purpose of the posts that require use of someonelse’s work is just for leisure purposes, not with the intention of making a profit. Is simply users showing what they do for fun or as a hobby. Most amateur videos on YouTube, for example, in the description the user specifies they just did a video for fun or school or to show someone they care or just making their own home videos look better. Sharing in social networks is nothing close to piracy, although to the eyes of people in the copyright business might be lost of profit. I am sure some some users do have wrong intentions, but not everyone else can be blamed for the misused of a few. Copyright and patent rules need to change and work with the purpose of what social networks intend: sharing. They also need to change to help those users that depend on posting their works online to success in their professions. Many of these people cannot afford to have their work copyrighted or patented, but that does not mean they do not deserve protection just because they posted on the web.
I’ll finish the blog with these quote from the book which I feels simplify the main reason why the way the copyright/patent business should work. Social networks or not, this business need to change to open the doors to people trying to show the world their inventions/innovation/ creations:
“Because intellectual property relates to information and knowledge, and because information and knowledge is built up over time by many people, it is hard to work out just what any given individual is truly responsible for. Ideas are triggered by related ones.”
No comments:
Post a Comment