In Week Seven's lecture we reviewed some legal aspects of the World Wide Web, including copyright. Many people do not realize that information, images, video, artwork, logos and other Web elements are subject to copyright law. In our cut-n-paste society we like to view the internet as one free forum for the exchange of information and a laboratory for collaborative innovation.
Should the World Wide Web be completely unregulated, or should web designers and users be subject to rigid interpretations of copyright law?
Is the Web a forum for creative expression or a means of transmitting information?
Is the current copyright law fair? Do you think the Fair Use doctrine is flexible enough?
Choose one of these topics to begin or participate in a discussion.
6 comments:
Hello Instructor Todd and LBR 110 classmates,
I have no comment in regard to the "Google Book Settlement." Instead, I am providing my last blog.
World Wide Web (WWW) is not a synonym of the “Internet”; they are not the same thing. The WWW is a subset of the Internet; it allows its users to access Web pages using a Web browser. More specifically, the WWW is a huge set of interlinked hypertext documents accessed via the Internet. The Internet is a worldwide network of interconnected computers allowing users to share information. In my opinion, it is more impressive than the WWW.
I have chosen to comment on the first topic, which is the following question:
Should the World Wide Web be completely unregulated, or should web designers and users be subject to rigid interpretations of copyright law?
That is like asking if we should do away with all traffic lights and allow all drivers to regulate themselves on the road. That is a recipe for disaster; chances are that there will be more car accidents and an overall increase in chaos.
The WWW should not be completely unregulated and web designers and users should be subject to rigid interpretations of copyright law. I say this because not everyone is an adult; parents especially would not want their children to access the WWW if there were no set parameters. That is why the “V”- chip was introduced in the 90s; it prevented children from accessing sites that included gore and extreme violence. Also, there are other ways to further restrict computer usage, like the use of a screensaver password used to prevent access to the computer.
To answer the 2nd part of the question, I reiterate that web designers and users should be subject to rigid interpretations of copyright law. There are many reasons why we have copyright law: to reward creators and protect their rights, to encourage creators to make their work available to the public, and “to promote the progress of Science and Useful Arts.” Rules, rules, rules…without them there would be no order. One should view copyright law just as important as any other law; if broken, there should be a penalty of some sort. One should not confuse copyrights with patents; patents are for ideas and inventions, while copyrights are for literary works, art works, musical works, etc. It is important for there to be set boundaries; there is nothing to be worried about if one is just “browsing”, but one should think twice before cutting and pasting, stealing music, “burning” movies, etc. Just because the forum is different from face-to-face discussion does not mean cyber-crime is less punishable.
from Afework Eshetu
I think web designers and users should be subject to rigid interpretations of copyright law because otherwise designers and users would post anything, say anything, and abuse the internet all the time. There would be people getting into other peoples files and using their personal information, posting unauthorized pictures and information.
I think the web is both a creative expression and transmitting information because using myspace or facebook is a creative expression but I also use the web for information for school, personal use or work.
I think the current copyright law is fair because you do not want people stealing other peoples information or files. I also see commercials that celebrities are trying to get people to stop "burning" their music for free, they want people to pay for it, which is only fair.
Mary Powell
Blog Comments on Copyright
As a photographer and a writer now, I certainly wouldn’t like to see the World Wide Web completely unregulated. I make my living licensing the use of my photos, mostly educational in nature. Getting the photos costs me a lot in terms of expenses for equipment, travel, software, and time. I place thumbnails of these images on three websites where editors and publishers may examine them to decide if they are the illustrations they need for their publications. If someone felt free to use one of my images as a screen saver, or as part of a website, or on a postcard, or in a magazine article, I should receive some compensation in exchange. I don’t know exactly what “rigid interpretations” of copyright law are, but I would lean in that direction. I’m glad there are professional associations of photographers, and artists, and writers, to employ experts to try to work out arrangements that protect the creative aspects of artistic endeavors. If an artist can’t make a living through the sale of his creations, he won’t be able to remain an artist long.
The examples of well-put-together websites that I found when working on Webliography Section #9 show that there’s lots of room for creativity in designing a website, and those designers deserve to have their hard work protected too, so I think the web does qualify as a forum for creative expression, and therefore also for copyright protection. It does, obviously, also transmit a lot of information.
Charles Cecil
The WWW should NOT be unregulated, and designers, content editors, and users should indeed have to follow all regulations.(The could be) An honor system to follow, but lets face it, not everyone is honest. A designer/developer (hopefully)puts time into making a website (not a template), and would most likely hate to see their design being used for something that was not intended, (yes, even the code), so they should have to follow the rules. It is simply illegal to copy protected works, and it should also apply to the World Wide Web.
The web is indeed both a forum for creative expression and a means of transmitting information, but that creativity and information should not be copied without permission. That is what makes the web such a great "place" you can find digital artwork or an article on brachial plexus palsy. And someone with good reason should be able to at least use what they find in some way if it fits with what they are doing.
With that said, the current law is indeed fair but can be confusing at times especially the "Fair Use Doctrine," but are sixth graders expected to fully understand the law? Suppose they are to create a couple of web pages for a project, they use too much, and then letters begin to fly in. There could still be some flexibility for certain age groups (IF it is regulated for example; lesser restrictions on academic pages uploaded to a middle school's server etc.). However, an adult should know better than to copy someone else.
- Andy Haynes
Should the World Wide Web be completely unregulated, or should web designers and users be subject to rigid interpretations of copyright law?
I believe the web should be completely regulated, since the late 1990’s the World Wide Web has looked more like the Wild Wild West. Most of the problems came solely from the web and I believe tighter controls on ISP, http protocol and the designers who create these sites will go along way to fixing some of the problems.
As a graphic designer and media specialist, I have always been around proprietary materials. While working for DARPA 5 years ago 2 specific Program Managers tasked me to pull 15-90 second media blocks from 2 Paramount picture movies so they could convey futuristic ideas in their briefing. This specific brief didn’t go through Public Release like many others do, which was unfortunate. Most of the materials get QC’d before they leave and if they see things it must be removed before it can leave.
It is so easy to find and download software, images, files and video. Most of the web is copyrighted but with everyone on the honor system and internet providers increasingly upping the speed, something has got to give eventually. This problem reminds me of the drug trade and the US border problem. The problem seems so large that we don’t have enough resources to manage it properly. The fact that laws are so confusing makes this problem that much harder.
- Ron Thomas
Is the Web a forum for creative expression or a means of transmitting information?
I think that the web is a forum for both creative expression and information. I believe that the web has enabled so many people to publicize their own works in a way that would have been impossible if the internet had not existed. When you look at YouTube and see how many people can instantly post a video about anything and in seconds transmit to a worldwide audience, that’s powerful. As an artist I am aware that what I publish on the web may be copied or stolen but I take measures to protect what I display. Yet, I understand that things can still be copied regardless of what I do to protect my work. The copyright laws can be there, but who is really going to police the internet for you. As a freelance designer I don’t have the time to track down who has copied or stolen my work. In my opinion it’s the price you pay for publishing on the web. The web has opened opportunities for small businesses to reach a large population with a minimum of capital. I think that you have to weigh the options and consider that what you are willing to submit on the web may be copied.
Cecilia Ferrin
Post a Comment