Music, dramas, movies, all plays a major role in the entertainment of our life. Is it possible to own almost every song album out there in stores? Of course it is not possible. Not unless I have a lot of money. In this paper, I will explain how without money, we too can still get music that we want, what copyright stands for, the “remix culture” and how should the content creators and the consumers compromise for the benefit of both parties.
“File sharing is now one of the most common on-line activities” (Oberholzer-Gee & Strumpf, 2005). Napster, a peer-to-peer (p2p) program allows files of the user to be shared and downloaded by other users. Napster is a free program so it is more convenient for those that want to find a particular song yet at the same time cannot afford the album. “In 2004, there were more than nine million simultaneous users on the major peer-to-peer (p2p) networks” (Oberholzer-Gee & Strumpf, 2005). Hence, this gave the recording industry an opportunity to blame the p2p programs for their decline in sales.
Once a file is shared, more information is shared amongst the users. “Alternatively, file sharing allows users to learn about music they would not otherwise be exposed to” (Oberholzer-Gee & Strumpf, 2005). Now, is that a bad thing? I do not think so because without file sharing, do you think people in Singapore for example, would be able to know more about the music in other countries? I am pretty sure not much genres will be exposed had it not been for the help of file sharing apart from the MTV channel. Also, by knowing more about music that the consumer has not heard before and if the consumer likes it, a purchase could be made if the album was available. This in a way is like an advertising medium for artists. “This learning may promote new sales” (Oberholzer-Gee & Strumpf, 2005).
Here is where the copyright law comes into play. Copyright allows content creators to have some privileges, where no one else other than the content creator is allowed to publish the material. In order to obtain such rights, the content has to be “original, creative and fixed in a tangible medium” (Ovalle, 2005). To me, it is just like an idea, “fresh from the oven”. For example, in school, we are often assigned research papers where citations are necessary because we need evidence and support for our content. However, those evidence and support found are not carried out by us. We only use that information to help make our research paper credible. Thus, it is right that we acknowledge the content creator for our provided information. If not, what would be special about researching and coming up with answers to share if you are not acknowledged for your capabilities? Recall the word privileges to describe the copyright law.
Moving on, the “remix culture” is “a culture which is dominated by amateur creators” (Martin, n.d.). For example, the incident where two DJs remixed the band Green Day’s American Idiot album and changed it the American Edit album. This album was up in the net for free and apparently was liked by the listeners. Here, an idea has been taken but edited to form a new creation. As said, “To cut, paste, sample of jam with content, in order to produce something which is distinctive of their own social and creative innovation” (Martin, n.d.). This led to the application of Creative Commons (CC) which “provides legal forms that allow creators to stipulate how their work can be used” (Martin, n.d.).
Therefore, as a solution, compromise should be made between both parties comprising of the content creators and the consumers. To make this work, the copyright law should be stated clearly, to avoid confusion. The content creators allow only a certain percentage of information to be shared and the consumers towards creating new ideas would be sparked off for new improvements. In this way, both parties would benefit since creators could be treated as the “example” for consumers to follow part of their idea.
REFERENCES
Oberholzer-Gee, F, & Strumpf, K (2005). The Effect Of File Sharing On Record Sales.
Retrieved February 1, 2007, from
http://www.unc.edu/%7Ecigar/papers/FileSharing_June2005_final.pdf.
Ovalle, C. (2005). “What is copyright?”. University of Texas at Austin, Course INF 312. Information in Cyberspace. Retrieved on January 31, 2007, from
http://sentra.ischool.utexas.edu/~i312co/3.php
Remix culture: a rights nightmare. (n.d.). ABC: Catapult. Retrieved January 31, 2007, from http://www.abc.net.au/catapult/indepth/s1645533.htm
2 comments:
so much to do.... i am dying!!! but interesting .... later lipid!!
Good work... if you expanded on your solution on controlling how much content users should be able to repurpose, would have been better (e.g. creative commons). Either way, full grade awarded. :)
Post a Comment