Essay on Internet as the Trigger of Shifting from CopyRIGHT to CopyLEFT
Today, the development of internet opens new opportunities for information sharing. At first glance, internet facilitates communication between people and opens wider opportunities for sharing information between people, regardless physical distance between them. On the other hand, the development of internet has raised the problem of the violation of the copyright and the unauthorized use of intellectual property, such as music, audio and video records and other items of the intellectual property.
The development of internet opened new opportunities for people to communicate and share information using the full potential of internet as the global network. In this regard, the main problem that owners of intellectual property rights faced along with the development of internet became the problem of sharing files containing their intellectual property. For instance, authors of books and other print media could suffer from sharing their print works which have been digitalized and in electronic form shared between users via internet, while authors of those print works would receive nothing and, thus, suffer from financial losses caused by the free sharing of their intellectual property between users.
However, singers and audio recording companies suffered probably the most significant losses because of the development of internet. Users have started to share music files via internet. As a result, one user could purchase a licensed CD, copy music files and share them online with millions of other users worldwide while singers and audio recording companies suffered from financial losses because millions of users received their products for nothing downloading them from free online resources due to other users, who shared those files. The similar problems faced film companies and other owners of audio and visual products which were shared online freely, while their owners suffered unparalleled financial losses.
At this point, it is possible to refer to the case of Napster, a file-sharing service, which offered users an opportunity to share files for free. As a result, this online service became the major online service allowing sharing files for free. As a rule, users shared music, video files and other files which they wanted to share with other users. Naturally, the online service became extremely popular because the new service offered users an excellent opportunity to download their favourite music or film absolutely free and paying nothing, while, otherwise, they would have to purchase either licensed CDs or purchase the same music and video from online stores. In the course of the decade of its intensive development, Napster became one of the largest online services that became the major threat to copyright and intellectual property rights’ owners (Singing a Different Tune, 2009). More important, similar services have started to emerge raising the threat to intellectual property rights owners and related businesses. Obviously, the development of free online file-sharing services became the threat to the music industry with the music records sales cut substantially since even Apple’s popular digital iTunes store is little more than a niche service: fully 95% of downloads are illegal, according to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), a trade group
In responses to the emerging free sharing of information and files online, owners of intellectual property rights and large corporations have started to push on governments to protect their rights and prevent the risk of misusing of their products by users for free (Lessig, 2001). The main reason for the enhancement of the existing legislation to protect the copyright was financial losses of intellectual property rights owners (Singing a Different Tune, 2009).
Governments have started to tighten and enhance regulations, copyright and intellectual property rights laws. The enforcement of the international Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) via legislation of SOPA and PIPA (Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect IP Act) .
In response to numerous threats and violations of intellectual property rights, legislators introduced the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), which provided that an Internet site is “dedicated to theft of U.S. property” if it “is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in, offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates” copyright infringement (Carrier, 21).
Another major legislative act that enhanced the copyright and intellectual property rights and their protection from online violations was the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), which was a treaty, conducted largely in secret, designed to “address the problem of infringement of intellectual property rights, including infringement taking place in the digital environment.” (Carrier, 23).
In addition, the Protect IP Act (PIPA) enhanced the legislation providing attorney with an opportunity to make the IP service provider to deny users violating the copyright and intellectual property rights access to internet (Carrier, 22). As a result, the PIPA creates condition for the selective punishment of those users, who abuse the copyright and intellectual property rights intentionally and purposefully.
In fact, such large scale struggle against the violation of copyright and intellectual property rights became global. Results of such a struggle became quite controversial. On the one hand, individuals and organizations, which promote and deliver file-sharing services, software and other tools which allow sharing files and potentially violate copyright and intellectual property rights, face the threat of the legal prosecution. At this point, it is possible to refer to the case of Richard O’Dwyer, the founder of the tvshack.net, the online service that allowed users to track and record TV programs online, including not only open and legal sources but also illegal ones (Ball, 3). In such a way, the product created by O’Dwyer allowed users to record TV programs illegally, violating copyright and intellectual property rights.
In such a situation, the enhancement of the copyright and intellectual property rights laws contributed to the enhancement of the legal basis for the prosecution of individuals and organisations that share or create products or services that allow sharing information between users without respect to copyright and intellectual property rights.
On the other hand, the enhancement of the copyright and intellectual property rights legislation raises the problem of the interference of government regulations into the basic rights, including the right to the freedom of press and speech. At any rate, internet provides users with an opportunity to share information freely, while existing regulations raise the problem of the limitation of users’ right and opportunity to share information online freely.
In this regard, the enhancement of the copyright law on the pretext of the protection of intellectual property rights raises the problem of the interference of private interests into the public domain. To put it more precisely, Gaylor (2008) stands on the ground that internet is the public domain and people from all over the world should have an opportunity to share files and information online freely. Gaylor insists that people can use movies, songs, music and other products for their own creativity. They can make remixes to manifest their creativity and implement their own ideas. However, limitations imposed on sharing files and information online in terms of the existing legislation that aims at the enhancement of the copyright and intellectual property rights laws deprive people of an opportunity to exercise their creativity and use available products and information freely.
At this point, it is important to place emphasis on the fact that the main debate today involves two different views on internet. In fact, the existing legislation is not just the matter of the protection of copyright and intellectual property rights but it is also and mainly the opposition between the average users, who are naturally interested in the free use and sharing of information online, and large corporations that attempt to protect their financial interests since their profits rely heavily on sales of their intellectual property. Gaylor and other proponents of the view on internet as the public domain that should allow users to share information freely hold the premise that legislators and private companies as well as individuals owning intellectual property rights should not regulate internet use. In such a way, they will interfere into public matters. In such a context, the ban of sharing information online is like the ban to share purchased products between people. For instance, the ban of sharing files and information online that potentially violates copyright and intellectual property rights is like the ban to individuals to pass their licensed CD to their friends to use files or information stored on the CD in the real world, i.e. physically but not online.
Large corporations and intellectual property rights hold the totally different premise that internet is not exactly the public domain but the tool that is used by users to violate their copyright and intellectual property rights. Obviously, the position of owners of copyright and intellectual property rights is determined by their financial concerns because the free sharing of files and information online leads to their financial losses. At this point, it is worth reminding consistent financial losses of the music industry associated with Napster and other online services (Singing a Different Tune, 2009). Their financial losses became the major reason for their pressure on the government to prevent free file and information sharing online.
Nevertheless, the idea of the free use of information available online and sharing files and information online without limitations becomes more and more popular that leads to the emergence of new online services and resources, where users can share files and information, although they still have to respect existing copyright and intellectual property rights laws. The enhancement of the movement for the free use of internet for file and information sharing contributes to the emergence of creative commons, which unite people, who use their own creativity to make products that may be interesting for other users and allow users to share those products online without imposing any limitations on the use of those products and their protection by the copyright or intellectual property rights (Lessig, 2001). Such commons become cultural and creative centres which open wide opportunities for the average users not only to use products of contributors of creative commons but also to become contributors themselves and create new products that may be interesting for the online community. Potentially, such creative commons can and do compete with audio recording companies, film making companies and other companies and individuals, who stand for the protection of their copyright and intellectual property rights. In such a situation, creative commons become more and more popular because they become free sources for sharing creative products of many users (Creative Commons Case Studies, 29). As a result, the average users tend to use products of creative commons instead of purchasing licensed products online.
At this point, it is possible to refer to the case of Magnatune, the online record label that uses creative commons licenses to promote its catalogue with free samples of songs and diverse pricing models. In fact, the emergence of such services and companies as Magnatune can contribute to the further accelerated growth of creative commons that will put under a threat the position of audio recording and film making companies as well as other owners of copyright and intellectual property rights. In such a way, creative commons can reach the high level of performance, while Magnatune and other companies and services alike can make their functioning profitable that will stimulate users to contribute more to creative commons as well as to use their services and products more extensively.
Thus, taking into account all above mentioned, it is important to place emphasis on the fact that the development of internet has raised the problem of the violation of copyright and intellectual property rights because of the free sharing of files online by users via such services as Napster. However, legislators driven by audio recording, film making and other companies and individuals owning copyright and intellectual property rights to enhance legislation to protect those rights. In response, the online community shifted toward the emergence of creative commons which open opportunities for creating products and using them freely online sharing files and information for free. In the future, creative commons can challenge the position of conventional audio recording and film making companies as well as other owners of copyright and intellectual property rights.
Do you like this essay?
Our writers can write a paper like this for you!
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading...