Aims of Copyright - Literature review Example

Aims of Copyright College Introduction The power of art, music, books, and other mind generated works shapes the society and defines it due to its distinctiveness from different works in various generations. Creativity in this regard it is defined as the ability to reorganize or generate ideas, possibilities or alternatives that are important in communicating to others, solving problems and providing entertainment (Conaglen,2006,pp.366). The ability to be creative is measured by the number of ideas a person can generate, in addition the uniqueness of those ideas. To protect the creativity copyright comes in attempt to protect the creators of a particular original work and in eventualities of violation, heavy fines can be imposed or the offender can end up in detention. The aims of the copyright laws is to ensure that various diverse creative works are safe in the society because without these laws creativity will cease due to exploitation of the creators ideas through piracy and the creators are reaped off all their earnings together with their deserved recognition. Propertarian approach Various dominant approaches have been put forward regarding copyright among them being the propertarian approach and the democratic approach. The Propertarian approach revolves around copyrighting materials that bears the same inalienable rights. Vaidhyanathan argues that, people perceive copyright differently from what it was supposed to be mainly because people think that it was meant be a “property right” while, its essence was to be a narrow federal policy that would give limit to the trade monopoly in return for universal access and use (Jaszi,2007,pp.133-139). To echo Vaidyanathan’s argument Lemley adds that, the courts, congress and commentators have continually treated intellectual property as the same as real property instead of a unique legal protection formulated to handle public problems. Despite the provision of section 106 in the Copyright Act 1976, section 107 provides for exclusive rights that go beyond the control of the copyright owner, consequently undermining section 106. Similar to the American law, the Australian law provides for exceptions in section 31. Sir William Blackstone a proponent of the Anglo-American concepts in the creation of the property law describes property as the despotic dominion that a single person claims and exercises over external entities in total disregard of other people in the whole world. However, the House of Lords and the Supreme Court later suppressed the Blackstonian copyright “property talk” because it was viewed as undesirable. It was also perceived as totalitarianism that advocated for exclusion and grants private rights of ownership leaving no room for creativity or allowing the utilization of the copyrighted materials for different purposes rather than piracy (Macmillan, 2012, pp.16). Lemley and Bell wonder whether the term “intellectual property” bears any responsibility for properties that are not tangible. The term Intellectual property has continually been used in relation to the property akin in order to seek greater control on the copyrighted materials; however, the dimension the courts and scholars have taken on “property talk” it is becoming a concern. Within the jurisdictions of law, culture, industry, and politics the term “property” means more accorded rights than those enshrined in the constitution for limited monopoly. Music United suggests that, unauthorized reproduction and distribution of copyrighted music is equivalent to shoplifting of a CD. No Electronic Theft Act was enacted by the congress, which gave copyright protection to digital platforms and introduced severe penalties on anyone who reproduced materials electronically (Menkel-meadow & Wheeler, 2004pp.45). Judge Blackman on his statement on policy versus property he suggests that, the person who infringes the statutory provision grated to the copyright holder, does not disregard the copyright physically nor does the infringer deny the owner its use. Copyright policy gives the industries an upper hand in the control and cultural determinism, monopoly that normally happens behind the rights given to the welfare of societies. Democratic approach The approach argues that, with work acceptance, it can be put into public domain electronically and made free to access. The work can be distributed by anyone rightfully in attempt restore the freedom that had been taken for granted. The move can be enacted to culture in attempt to regulate the increase of control through law and technology. In Massachusetts, a non-profit corporation was founded by the name Creative Commons and its main objective is to enable people to build their works based on other peoples’ work. The corporation seeks to ensure growth through making it simple for others to express themselves while building upon their work. With the use of simple tags, tied to human-readable descriptions, tied to bulletproof licenses, allows it to happen. The works being simple means they do not have a lawyer or an intermediary. The Convection has created a set of licenses through which people attach their content. The availed content is usually reliable and can be built upon by other scholars or people. The tags are linked to a machine and the license given allows the computers to automatically spot the content, which can be shared easily. The License from the Creative Commons grants freedom to anyone who may wish to access the work. The content is usually marked with an abbreviation of CC meaning that certain freedoms have been granted and they surpass the freedoms provided in the fair use (Party, 2012, pp.56). The specific contour relies on the options the creator decides to give. The creator may decide to give a license to anyone as far as the attribution is provided; the creator might also decide to give permission through the license and allow the content to be used for noncommercial purposes only. The owner may also decide to give the freedom of use when the user “shares and share lies.” Alternatively, sampling use is allowed and a condition of not making full copies of the work is given. On the other hand, use but there should not be derivative use that should be made. Finally, the work should be used but for educational purposes only. The provided freedoms go beyond the defaulting of the copyright law and the traditional fair use. The freedoms provided do not need any lawyer for interpretation because they are formulated in a way that the user can easily use them. Creative Commons has a basic objective of building a governed layer of copyright law and others can build upon them. Since the content is availed at no cost and voluntarily, it will enable the rebuilding of a public domain. The creators of the convection aim at building a movement full of producers and consumers of content. (Ruddock, 2005, pp.87) The Convection’s attorney Mia Garlick emphasizes that they do not seek to wrestle with the “All Rights Reserved” category, because the laws would have made sense some centuries back before the digital technology. The convection believes in creating new rules that do not need interpretation from the lawyers. The idea that free content may raise the value of non-free content was demonstrated by Peter Wayner who wrote a book with the title “Free for All” and made it available free under the Creative Commons License. The software movement book was made in electronic version, he then began monitoring the prices for the book, and as anticipated by the increasing downloads books downloaded. As the book price increased his book price also increased in return. Others use Creative Commons license for “Sampling License” and they believe others who do contrary to that they do are hypocritical. Those who obtain sampling license may allege that others say their content is free yet not for noncommercial or commercial purposes. As for the sample license, work the work is not free for people who want to make full copies of their licensed work .The type of artists who do sampling music they say that releasing art in that form, it fosters creativity and others can build on what they release. To effectively build a public domain, the first step is willingly show people the significance of domain that will lead to creativity and innovation. The concept of Creative Commons depends on the voluntary steps to achieve rebuilding in a world where voluntary steps are realizable. The project expects to show the impact of voluntary efforts by both creators and individuals to reinvent the rights that govern the creative field. Creative Commons is not after competing with copyright but it is a different way of complementing it. The project is also not in any way expected to undermine the rights of creators and authors but it ensures that their rights becomes more flexible and cheap (Ulmer&Schricker, 2007, pp.12). The only difference the project is trying to make is by spread creativity with ease. Controversy Copyright law is argued to be a motivation to creativity and distribution of genuine commentary, literature, music, film, and art that gets to the public domain. However, it also copies and builds from other images, words, and music in order to deliver our creativity accordingly. Copyright is not just about copying but it also reserves a person from remolding, parodying, incorporating portions of expressions or even seriously dissecting another person’s work. The creativity and free expression of an artist may be hindered through copyright. Fair use and Fair dealing Fair use is captured in section 107 of the copyright law of the states. Fair use involves the reproduction of phone records or copies that have been specified under the law. It can be used for comment, criticism, research, or scholarship without infringement to the copyright law. Various parameters can be put in place to determine whether a certain case is fair. First is the nature of the copyrighted work, second, consider the use that the work has been put into either for non-profitable educational purposes or for commercial use. Third is the sustainability of the section of the work copyrighted and lastly the effect that copyrighted work has to the potential market. Copyright law under fair use it can never be reduced to certain number of words because it is rather a flexible multi-factor analysis that may differ from court to court and case to case. Parody under the United States fair use is taken as a comment or criticism but the parody should not be used as a springboard for other functions rather than the intended. The scholars should understand that through the amendment enacted on the U.S copyright Act the privilege of fair use was supposedly extended to publish and the unpublished materials. When a person is denied the permission to quote by the holder of the copyright, then one can negate the fair use. However, the limitation of exclusive right of the fair use would result to scholars and researchers being deprived necessary materials of study. Various authors will have the right to move to courts and sue the researchers and scholars based on the copyright law. As a result, the spirit to explore various areas of study will be inhibited due to fear and intimidation Fair Dealing in Australia Fair dealing involves the categories of private study and commercial research, reporting of current events, official proceedings or criticism and review, parody and satire are allowed. Under fair dealing, the user is supposed to given enough recognition and state the title of the quoted work. The exemptions of review and criticism apply to work that has been put to the public domain but it does not take effect on unpublished works. An example when “fair dealing” with musical, dramatic, literary or artistic work, for private study or non-commercial purposes they not infringe any copyright in these works (Yoo, 2011, pp.453). The courts have interpreted fair dealing on several occasions on the economical impact the copyright owner has suffered. In cases where economic impact is insignificant, the case may be taken to be fair dealing. Another exemption of fair dealing is the use of a copyright work for, review, criticism or the reporting of news. There are no clear guidelines on what constitutes “fair dealing” But in most cases it a matter of common sense and impression to different cases. However, various things may be taken into account, the number of words quoted in relation to commentary, the significance, and the length of the quotations, and then the level that works quoted can save your work. In Australia a specific exemption is given to libraries to avail, copies of old unpublished work to patrons for the intension of study, research or a view to publication. Difference between fair dealing and fair use Under “fair use”, the purposes are illustrative and the question of fairness factor is put into consideration. When dealing with exception the type of use is merely illustrative. Fair dealing exception can only apply to the use of copyright material under the prescribed purposes. Despite fair dealing being tied to the prescribed purposes, the dealing also expands the range for the purposes given under the copyright Act. What would happen when copyright is abolished? Some researchers claim that the abolishing of copyright will encourage creativity and invention of new and brilliant ideas. They say that there would be creation of new products will be since every detail will be shared on the digital platform without fear of violation. However, I strongly believe that if the copyright laws could be abolished there would be an end of creativity. The reason is that the copyright laws had been put in place to encourage people to share and create ideas, without posing the risk of another person stealing or taking advantage of your work. Denying the rightful owner of a certain piece of work the right to control what happens to it, the owner would feel offended and stop creating. In addition, another person can get credit for your work when they steal it from you, consequently the creator will stop generating ideas, and the society will deteriorate concerning the production of new content. When copyright is withdrawn from the market, it is likely to get chaotic since there would be no regulations or restriction on any type of ownership and recognition. Abolishing copyright will also open new avenues for artists, writers and other people who invest their time in creativity to never gain from their works financially despite investing their resources in them. Conclusion The relationship between society and creativity is seen through ideas expression. Copyright was enacted to ensure that creative of works is achievable without the exploitation of the creators (Patterson&Linberg, 1991, pp.19-46). In a situation where copyright can be abolished it would be tantamount to serious chaos because creators will stop producing due to the exploitation in the market and other people will be getting the authors’ recognition, finances and even manipulate the creators work and possess it as though it was their own. References Conaglen, M. (2006). A RE-APPRAISAL OF THE FIDUCIARY SELF-DEALING AND FAIR-DEALING RULES. The Cambridge Law Journal, 65(02), p.366. Collins, S. Property Talk (2006). M/C Journal vol. 9, number 4 Distance Education Public Domain, Free, and “Fair Use” Resources: A Webliography. (2007). TechTrends, 51(6), pp.9-11. Jaszi, P. and Aufderheide, P. (2007). Untold Stories: Collaborative Research on Documentary Filmmakers Free Speech and Fair Use. Cinema Journal, 46(2), pp.133-139. Lessig, L. Free Culture (2004). The Penguin Press: New York. pp. 282-286. Macmillan, F. (2012). Intellectual property – Making fair dealing fairer in Australia?. ac, 1999(16). Menkel-Meadow, C. and Wheeler, M. (2004). Whats fair. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Netanel, N. Copyrights Paradox (2008). Oxford University Press: Oxford, New York. pp.3-12. Patterson, L.R. & Lindberg, S. W. The Nature of Copyright (1991). University of Georgia Press: Athens, Georgia. pp.19-46. Patry, W. (2012). Patry on fair use. Eagan, Minn.: West. Ruddock, P. (2005). Fair use and other copyright exceptions. [Place of publication not identified]: [publisher not identified]. Ulmer, E. and Schricker, G. (2007). Copyright. Tübingen: Mohr. Yoo, C. (2011). Copyright. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Pub. Read More