Group items tagged

Consider this statement from the article above: "The internet has made it cheaper and easier for authors and other creators to create material and make it widely available to a global audience. Critics of copyright law maintain that since it is cheaper and easier to produce a book, film, song or image, copyright protection is no longer necessary to protect and encourage creativity. They believe that by freely allowing a person to reproduce or adapt an existing work, creativity will flourish. This dichotomy is at the heart of the relationship between web 2.0 technologies and copyright. The nature of web 2.0 makes it easy for anyone to create an original work, to adapt or reproduce an existing work. Many of these creators have little knowledge or regard for copyright law. As a result many users are infringing copyright. Again, critics of copyright law argue that the law has been slow to adapt to how people are using copyright material and that the law should be changed to reflect this." Have copyrights outlived their usefulness? Why or why not?

Don, That site was very informative about all the issues of copyright. Before this class, I never realized how serious an issue copyright laws are and how easily they can and have been broken. The one item that stood out to me was "Using Material Created by Other People." It says those people who join your social network (for me it would be Facebook) and use pictures, videos, etc. have limited provisions. So all those pictures and memes need to be copyright? Something to think about and be wary of next time I share a picture/meme and I do not know who created them. Should those images be attributed or not shared at all. http://www.nyccounsel.com/business-blogs-websites/who-owns-photos-and-videos-posted-on-facebook-or-twitter/

I don't have Instagram or Twitter and I rarely uppload any pictures to my Facebook account. I wonder who is worse the NSA or these social networks.

Web 2.0 certainly adds to copyright confusion! Especially when people are sharing lists of links that contain so much information, however, it is always the researcher's responsibility to find and credit the originL source!

Araceli, the article that you posted was quite interesting. I never paid attention to the terms of social media websites like Facebook. It is scary to think that anything (i.e., picture, movie) a person posts to the website now becomes the property of Facebook and they can do anything with it as owner. Yikes!

Brenda, It is super scary. I have lots of my friends who are no longer on this social media. I now have it in the back of my mind, if and when I do post pictures, do I really want Facebook owning that image. Something that makes you go hmm?

The social media site doesn't "own" the content, what you are agreeing to is a license for them to use the content. The ownership stays with the creator. I find the contention by some that copyrights are no longer a valid way to handle content to be more troubling than Facebook or Twitter's licensing agreement. Just stay away from posting things to Twitter and Facebook or other social media site that you don't want other to have control over and your problem is solved. However, if we give in to the idea that copyright laws are outdated and that since it no longer is cost prohibitive to produce content we should just give up copyrights then we have a new and different issue. What happens to print, music, art, video and other media once it has been produced without copyright laws? Is there a better way to define copyrights that would be more in line with how content is shared and distributed today? Should we just bring an end to copyrights? Should we go the other way and try to rigidly enforce copyright law? Is that even possible in the social media world we live in?

Don, I found the site quite informative. Copyright on the web has become a complicated issue. As Araceli stated, websites can use what you post on the their sites. But what if what is posted infringes on a third party's rights. Could the owners of the website also be held liable. I know that people upload songs to Youtube. Is simply giving credit enough to avoid litigation? What if the author does not want their song upload on Youtube.

I have noticed when I upload videos to YouTube that it scans for copyrighted music and flags those videos. I uploaded a student created video that had a song off the Pirates of the Caribbean soundtrack in the background. YouTube immediately noticed it and prompted me to investigate, concede, or remove the video. With too many violations your YouTube account can be suspended or revoked. As impressive as it is that YouTube can scan all the content that is uploaded to it on a second by second basis, I've got to agree, managing copyright law is a bit of a nightmare in this day and age of social media. Facebook, G+, Twitter (and others) all want us to share, and often. But our culture reinforces this sense of immediacy and urgency that seems inextricably tied to online activity...how do we balance the two. I think it's clear we have a long way to go in this area.

Ibanuelos, very few artists don't want their music uploaded onto YouTube. That's how they make money now. For instance: If I make an educational video that used a third party song, YouTube gives me a chance to acknowledge any third party content that it flags (and it always catches it). Then, any ad money that comes from my video goes directly to that third party (all of it even though I added my own content) because their content has the preceding copyright. This is how Psy made his money. Every parody video that was uploaded to YouTube that contained his song had ads placed before it that paid him. He made 7 million in a year. "Giving credit" isn't how it works, YouTube's algorithms get the artist paid (and embeds a link where the song can be downloaded with another payment to the author). Now it's a different problem for movies...