|I succomb to Karen and Tim's peer pressure:-D (which must be great considering
||[Nov. 11th, 2005|10:35 am]
Jingle Jingle Jingle I've Got Bells On My Ankles!
So in media law we learned about copyright. And while the specifics of copyright aren't too drastically interesting to me, the debate over intellectual property is. You see, copyright was incorporated into the constitution in order to promote creativity in the form of art/literature/music etc (basically any "tangible work"). It even protects inventions (by provision of patent laws). Unbeknownst to me, you don't even need to obtain an official copyright from the government in order to be able to sue if someone copies your material. Anyway, the reason for promoting creative works was to ensure that there would be a consistent, fresh source of works entering the public domain. You see, copyright applies for only a finite amount of time. After the given time period, the public was free to use the information at will. Copyright law encouraged works that would eventually enter and enrich the publc domain. However, the constitutional intention of our fathers is being brutally attacked...dun dun dunnnn....|
Corporations now are trying to hold on to their copyrights for as long as possible. Why? Because they want to get all the money that they can from charging people to use their copyrighted material. Disney recently won from Congress an extension on the copyright of "steamboat willy", the first Mickey Mouse character...But what is this leading to?...Corporations and artists have always been upset when their works are copied illegally. And it's a justified anger, they are losing money on their own works. For example, when VHS players came out, Advertisers and movie makers alike were threatened by the consumer's ability to record and fast forward. Even today, music artists everywhere are tearing their hair out (okay, maybe that's a bit dramatic) over the millions of illegal downloads and consequently the millions of dollars in lost revenue. However, as books and other media become more and more digitized, the copyright holders are beginning to fight back. Digital books, for example, are not "Given" to libraries, rather, libraries are "licensed" to the book for a certain period of time. This means that libraries, and eventually consumers who purchase digital books, will not actually "own" the book. Using digital technology, copyright holders will be able to control how many times the book purchaser is able to read the book, or how long the purchaser will be able to "possess" the book. The book will simply erase itself after the given time frame. VHS tape producers had actually just created a VHS tape that erased itself as it played, a creation resulting in concerns over illegal copies of movies and whatnot, when the DVD came out. Already traces of controlling, overzealous (though perhaps justified) copyright holders is evident. DVDs now have technology built in to avoid illegal copying, and CD artists are trying to find similar ways to avoid illegal downloading and distribution...The trends in copyright laws are negating the intentions of the founding fathers. Corporations and individual copyright holders are attempting to elongate their hold on their intellectual property for commercial purposes, and this prevents their material from enteringthe public domain. I think this is bad. The end. For more information, check out this guy's website (he's a communication professor at NYU)
On a lighter note...
| You scored as Batman, the Dark Knight. As the Dark Knight of Gotham, Batman is a vigilante who deals out his own brand of justice to the criminals and corrupt of the city. He follows his own code and is often misunderstood. He has few friends or allies, but finds comfort in his cause.|
Batman, the Dark Knight
The Amazing Spider-Man
Captain Jack Sparrow
Neo, the "One"
James Bond, Agent 007
Which Action Hero Would You Be? v. 2.0
created with QuizFarm.com