COPYRIGHT IS WAY OVERRATED!!
After reading the article "Who Own's Electronic Texts?" that I volunteered for, I finally understand so much more on intellectual property and copyright. I mean I somewhat knew what we were talking about in class, but with the scenarios given, this stuff just makes much more sense. It's somewhat mind-boggling to me though because it seems like these people are just after the money. There are probably about ten things that I would like to comment on, but then I decided to just comment on two different passages from the text.
The first passage that I would like to bring to attention is on the bottom on page 182 to the top of page 183. Howard compares copyright to driving a car and having a driver's license. He states that driving and having a license is a privilege granted by the government rather than having the right to drive as a human being. I completely agree with his statement. We need to remember that driving is a privilege in this society. People take for granted the right to drive. They believe that since they bought their car that they can pretty much do whatever they want with it. But what happens when one loses their license to an unlawful act or some other action that is severe enough to lose their license? They can't get to work, school, or whatever obligation that they have. Then that finally makes them realize the privilege of driving, instead of taking it for granted. This entire concept is the same with copyright. I agree that the author or publisher should get credit for their work, but it's getting taken way out of proportion. These writers need to realize that copyright is also a privilege for them.
The second passage that I would like to comment on is on page 186 towards the middle of the text. The passage is saying that writers need some type of profit out of their work. I understand to a certain point that they don't want to work for free, but how can one put a price on his or her work? Why must they have that incentive to do a good thing for our society? I would think that their work should be priceless because its their own, it comes from their mind, their intelligence. Maybe I just don't understand their point totally, but to me it just makes the writers/software developers seem greedy. I thought writers were suppose to have a passion for their work...wanting to make a difference today. The more and more I read the article, pretty much everything is going to have a copyright on it. I mean could I get a copyright on this blog that I am typing right now. It's beginning to sound so ridiculous to me. Maybe I am being a little bias on this copyright thing, but that is just how I felt after reading the article.
One more thing that I would like to mention is about the visual co-op we did in class. In scenario one in the article, it talks about manipulating a photograph and how that would be unlawful to use it without consent. I think the projects we did in class were awesome, and it should be done more often by students and professionals. I just don't agree with having to pay to manipulate a photograph, but that's just me! Sorry this was so long!
The first passage that I would like to bring to attention is on the bottom on page 182 to the top of page 183. Howard compares copyright to driving a car and having a driver's license. He states that driving and having a license is a privilege granted by the government rather than having the right to drive as a human being. I completely agree with his statement. We need to remember that driving is a privilege in this society. People take for granted the right to drive. They believe that since they bought their car that they can pretty much do whatever they want with it. But what happens when one loses their license to an unlawful act or some other action that is severe enough to lose their license? They can't get to work, school, or whatever obligation that they have. Then that finally makes them realize the privilege of driving, instead of taking it for granted. This entire concept is the same with copyright. I agree that the author or publisher should get credit for their work, but it's getting taken way out of proportion. These writers need to realize that copyright is also a privilege for them.
The second passage that I would like to comment on is on page 186 towards the middle of the text. The passage is saying that writers need some type of profit out of their work. I understand to a certain point that they don't want to work for free, but how can one put a price on his or her work? Why must they have that incentive to do a good thing for our society? I would think that their work should be priceless because its their own, it comes from their mind, their intelligence. Maybe I just don't understand their point totally, but to me it just makes the writers/software developers seem greedy. I thought writers were suppose to have a passion for their work...wanting to make a difference today. The more and more I read the article, pretty much everything is going to have a copyright on it. I mean could I get a copyright on this blog that I am typing right now. It's beginning to sound so ridiculous to me. Maybe I am being a little bias on this copyright thing, but that is just how I felt after reading the article.
One more thing that I would like to mention is about the visual co-op we did in class. In scenario one in the article, it talks about manipulating a photograph and how that would be unlawful to use it without consent. I think the projects we did in class were awesome, and it should be done more often by students and professionals. I just don't agree with having to pay to manipulate a photograph, but that's just me! Sorry this was so long!
posted by Jennifer at 10:54 PM
0 comments
