I probably shouldn't post this here before it is graded, but I couldn't resist.

Since I'm all for limited copyrights, I've decided to post one of my AU discussion board Q & A.  Even though I am the original author, the Turnitin Police will flag my DB as not being original.  I like to play fast and loose with my education.  I wonder if it will flag my own work as not being my own work?  A question for my Philosophy class:  When is your original work not your original work?  When you post it in your personal blog before its graded!

• Do you think the law should allow these kinds of creative expressions? Why?

The law should allow for the mashups and remixes that many people post in places like YouTube. They are creating something to express themselves, not to profit from someone else's work. Creative works and intellectual advances are a part of the creative commons. This means they are a part of our culture and should be shared and enjoyed by everyone. The commons are a part of our collected resources (natural, creative, or intellectual) and define us as a nation. We all share and benefit from these commons which are the basis of future creative and technological advancements from members of our society. Stifling people's creativity stifles us as a nation. We fall behind other countries not only in the arts, but in other areas. We are holding back a whole generation's ability to learn, create, and imagine something new that could benefit us all. We are placing a roadblock in their way, and we'll be the poorer for it.

•  How can creative culture of user generated content be revived? Why is it important? Or not?

First of all, the US Constitution has protected creative works since 1790 (Library of Congress, Circular 1a) with a limited copyright law. This law ensured that intellectual and/or creative works were protected for a short period of time; originally it was 14 years. The key word is limited copyright protection. During this time period the creator had "exclusive rights" (¶ 1) to protect and profit from their work. Over time, this law has been extended from about 14 years to a person's lifetime plus 70 extra years (Heins, 2011, ¶ 4) for their family. This extended time period should be scaled back to a more reasonable timeframe to allow the current population to use and expand our knowledge base.

• Is Creative Commons good for copyright holders and market competition? Why? Or not?

One of the worst enemies of the creative commons is privatization and monopolies. This is most pronounced with the extended copyright laws. Our laws have limited creative use that can last a person's entire life plus another 70 years (Heins, 2011, ¶ 4)--that’s about three generations being limited by a copyright law. These laws are designed to protect the creator and allow them to make a profit, but at what cost to society? In the video-cast, an opinion was stated: "If we're only focused on how to maximize the supply of one, I think we risk suppressing [an] even more important one." (Lessig, 2010, video-cast). By extending copyright laws over such a long period of time, we may protect the copyright holders, but we also enable a monopoly. The US Constitution clearly states:

"Perpetual monopolies of every sort, are forbidden

not only by the genius of free Governments,

but by the imperfection of human foresight."

By perpetuating the copyright laws for so long, market competition shrinks and out goes open access to information. In comes a few/one entity controlling the markets, which the Constitution forbids.

• How should these intellectual property rights of people who create images, videos, and music be protected? Why is it necessary?

To protect intellectual property rights there should be copyright laws. However, there should be a reasonable limit to these laws. As stated above, stifling creativity for an extended time period harms our ability to build on and expand the current intellectual base. It also creates an unequal playing field where a few entities control the marketplace limiting a person's right to choose, create, innovate, and expand our intellectual base.

• Should digital rights management (DRM) technologies be utilized? Why?

As far as DRM technologies, if I buy a DVD/CD/MP3/ebook I should be able to convert it to the format I choose. If I buy a CD, but want to listen to the music on my MP3, I should be allowed to move it to my computer then convert it to my MP3. If I want to download a few tracks to my Kindle to listen to while I read, that should be OK, too. I really don't appreciate companies who try to limit my ability to use a product I've already paid for. That's what DRM is all about, limiting an individual's choices. I understand that there are copyrights laws, but moving it from one device to another isn't my attempt at making a profit from someone else's work. It's me choosing to listen to music in my car, on my computer, on my treadmill, or with my eBook while I read. I shouldn't have to buy one product four times to enjoy it throughout my day.

References:

Heins, M. (2011, April 28). The delecate balance between copyright and free expression. Retrieved from http://www.fepproject.org/commentaries/eldredcomment.html

Lessig, Lawrence. (2010, May). Re-examining the remix [Video-cast]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html

Library of Congress. (n.d.). United States copyright office: A brief introduction and history; Circular 1a. Retrieved from http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1a.html