This week we discussed copyright and intellectual property. The minute I heard of intellectual property I thought of The Social Network. In the movie Mark Zuckerberg is being sued by the Winkelvoss twins for stealing their intellectual property. They claimed that they gave Zuckerberg the idea for Facebook and he stole it from them. The case ends up being settled out of court.
It does not matter if large corporations steal someone's idea because they have so much money. They can settle out of court for a set price and it is over with. I personally do not think this is fair. If someone worked hard to create a product, they should have the credit for it and they should make the profit. If they want to sell their product that is a different story. A copyright is there for a reason.
So yes a copyright is there for a reason, but then we move into the topics of downloading movies, TV shows, and music. I was raised where it was wrong to steal. However, my parents could not control everything I did on the internet. I wanted to get songs for my iPod and my friends taught me how. They used illegal downloading websites so therefore, I used the illegal downloading websites. I had no idea that what I was doing was wrong. Eventually my computer got a virus (from the websites of course) and my parents found out what I was doing. All of the music had to be deleted and I had to purchase it through iTunes or use a CD to put it on my computer. Music artists need to make a living and illegally downloading their music is not going to help them. I am not going to say if I continued illegally downloading music or not, but I do think that copyrights are there for a reason and they should stay around. Maybe prices could be adjusted so the poor college students can afford things, but other than that I think the copyright is a necessary.
I agree that artists need to make a living, but at the same time this downloading promotes them, it even expands the space in which they are known or liked. Personally I only buy CD's if I actually like an artists, because I don't feel like I should have to pay to see if I like the artist just to have it sit around my house because it ended up being something I didn't like.
ReplyDeleteAnd to be fair, I may be wrong but that's just how I see it :)
Album prices have come down dramatically over the past 15 years due to a mixture of illegal pirating and mp3 slaes. However the artist's cut in the sales have not moved and will not move. Illegal downloads have helped to make the CD more competitve as before it was a monopoly and charged whatever it wanted. Pirating is illegal yet can also lead to better outcomes for a band. People would be willing to listen to a song they have never heard of for free, then to go out and buy unknown music. This results in greater fan base for the artist's and alot more ticket sales.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that music artists cannot continue being music artists if all of their content is distributed for free. Not only does this apply to songs being "MP3fied" across the internet, but people recording live concerts they attend and sharing them on YouTube.
ReplyDeleteOn the contrary I think artists need to realise they can't demand relatively high fixed prices for their CD's. Back in 2008 when Radiohead released their album "In_Rainbows", they set up a 'pay what you want' feature on their website which would allow access to the entire album after payment. In the end they were still profited, which I think is a great way of battling the piracy/copyright issue.
I think that artists in any case need to be paid and recognised for their work. However I think the problem with the copyright laws is that usually, once signed with a record label, or one they go to a publisher, that company buys their work from them, and hence owns their content. From there, it is the publishing house that makes the most money from sales and only a slice goes to the artist.
ReplyDeleteI have been persuaded to the argument that copyright laws are more for the protection of content control (benefitting the publishing companies) rather than ensuring recognition and rights to the artist.
I do think that artist need to be recognised and payed for the work they do, and as it is illegal i do not agree with downloading content from the internet. There is so merit to this system though. Look how Dickson got more money from America which was not under copyright law restriction than he did from England under the copyright laws. I think there is definitively some true behind the stifled creativity that comes from copyright laws. If we are not allowed to build on existing ideas, then how on earth are we meant to come up with completely new and fresh ideas. And how can you prove you used an already exisiting existing idea or not?
ReplyDeleteCopyright is tricky when it comes to downloading material from the internet. I agree that artists deserve to be paid for their work but it seems they can only rely on the small portion of the world that are still playing by the rules. The introduction of torrents has made it even harder to enforce digital piracy laws so unfortunately artists need seek profit through other channels such as live shows and merchandising. However, along with the burdens of the digital age comes the opportunity to reach a worldwide audience. The question is, does this increased reach make up for the huge drop in music sales?
ReplyDeleteI like the case you provided. I did watch The Social Network, and I think it does matter who creative the idea, the point is who have the capacity to produce the goods. As Mark responded Winkelvoss Twins, it is just idea. At this point, I agree with Mark, we all know Mark established Facebook, not Winkelvoss Twins. In a sense, copyright is important because it respect the result of author. Whereas, if author who do not have capacity to produce the goods, it is worth to protect the right? In my opinion, copyright is to protect companies or individuals who have the ability to produce and change the intangible ideas to tangible goods.
ReplyDelete