This week’s articles we covered were on entertainment and access to music, software, books, and other electronic media. One question presented by these articles is should the access to these types of media be free or charged for? Personally I think it should be charged for, as much as everyone likes free stuff, it is our duty as the society of not only the internet but socially to support the makers of music, software, and books. How else would they continue to exist without our monetary support? Simple, they wouldn’t. In my honest opinion, I believe the record labels, software manufactures, etc, pushed the internet to this distribution. With the high prices that they were charging back in the day ($18.99-$22) for a CD was ludicrous back then. They tried to capitalize by lowering CD prices to a average of $9.99 but I believe it was too late by that point, everyone had already adopted the internet distribution system and no one was willing to revert back to purchasing CD’s once they realized they could download for free. I myself purchase a majority of my music, I use Rhapsody to listen to the newest CD’s out there for free, then if I like them I’ll buy the entire CD, not only to ensure quality (as burned CD’s quality is never as good as the real thing), but also for the lasting factor (burned CD’s deteriorate a lot faster than other mediums used). Software is another issue, I myself am guilty of downloading software but it was only for the better. Back when I was getting into designing websites (around 14 years old), I did not have the money to purchase a piece of software that cost over $300 for one specific task, it was a lot easier for me to just download it and learn. Today I have legally purchased all of these titles as Web Design is one of my major sources of Income. But downloading the software to learn on and get a feel for without spending $300 worked to my advantage. I am sure a lot of other people do the same thing. The readings also covered MashUp’s and Copyright Law. Mashup’s I believe are a way of the future and can only get better. Although it presents many legal hurdles which can be overcome with the right legal means, I support the right to trademarks and copyrights held by parties involved but I believe for the betterment of internet technology these companies and holders should be open to new software and internet application development and be compensated as such if they wish. I think copyright and trademark law is a good thing, those holders of the rights are certainly entitled to them but I do not think that it gives them the right to “price gouge” their competition, or others who are only trying to better their software. For example, a holder of a copyright wants an absurd amount of money for the rights to their software or material just to make the quick million when it is obviously not worth that. Just something to think about or kick off some kind of discussion. How much are the holders of copyrights or trademarks allowed to charge or value themselves? Should there be a mandatory appraisement? Should there be any type of standard for a type of copyright?
I found this and thought it would be interesting. It is 10 Myths about copyright on the internet.
2 comments:
Access to media should be charged for the fact that many companies especially the music industry are losing alot of money due to downloading free music and that they deicated alot of work and money into making a CD. However, they have to understand that no one is going to purchase a CD at high price CD from a store when they know they can download it for free. I will agree that people do download software for free because it's easier to do and to use it for a learning tool. People do have rights to their work and intelltucal property, but if the Internet is making it possible for users to get things for free with all the new technologies developing, then of course people will illegally copyright. I don't know what else can be done to stop people from doing illegal activites over the Internet because as it's been seen that with Napster being banned from allowing users to share copyright material for free, it has not stop people yet from sharing music using other peer-to-peer technology.
i definietly agree with your responses on this. it is dutiful to provide supports to people that are artistic as long as they dont capitalize on it. Also even though there are copyright laws how would different artist know that their work is greatly enjoyed or appreciated if they are no notices that there are priracies in the work they do. Of course hit cost them money but they also need to know that people would actually go for it, they laws i guess are for the succesfull artitist that believe in their works and not the developing ones who are still trying a create an audience for themselves so the fight still continues on whether they should be severe charges against the offenders.
Post a Comment