Have you ever downloaded something off the internet, songs, movies, you know? Have you ever asked anyone for the permission to do so? If not, you do know that taking someone else's stuff is like stealing. You could get yourself arrested, you know? Ever heard of intellectual property? That is the stuff that puts you in jail for stealing, you know?
Intellectual property is something created to protect the "creations of mind". They say that this will further improve and motivate the creator to create something, because they know that the fruit of their work is harvested by themselves. For most of the part, I do agree. But for me, giving total exclusive rights to the owner deprives the creativity of others. Why am I saying this? Because we humans learn by copying others. It is a nature for human being to do so. Who taught us to speak? Nobody, actually. We learn by copying those around us. At first, the words we mimicked from our parents are not known to us. As our minds grow, we started to understand the functional usage of those words, thus acquiring it for our own use. Now, do you believe me?
That is why copyright laws, especially on intellectual properties; deprives other people's creativity. Yes, the copyright is good, but it would be better if it is shareable, without the hassle of asking the owner for permission. Good thing somebody realizes this and created Creative Commons. This is a better way to patent things according to law. By Creative Commons, the ownership has some rights reserved, instead of all rights reserved. This way, someone else from Japan could use a song made by some American and remix it, as long as they obey the "some rights reserved".
This allows our minds to intertwine and expand. Creating something else out of something that inspires us, without the risk of abusing the law. So, what would you support? The "all rights reserved' law or "some rights reserved" law? The future of "creativity" is in your hand.
2 comments:
For me, I am thankful that there are some alternative for this problem. Before this, I do not understand why copyrights should be made in the first place. But now, I realize that it is very important to implement the laws to motivate others in making new ideas for the development of science and arts. I agree that people should be rewarded for their hard work in coming up with such a brilliant idea. But what I think about the extended copyright laws nowadays, they are not only preventing creativity from expanding but also do not meet the main objective of the making of copyrights. Let us think, how would someone get motivated from copyrights if they know that they could not expand their creativity? As a result, the idea will be wasted. Creative commons meets these objectives from both sides and balance it well. Surely, we would like to protect our own idea, but there is no harm sharing it for new innovations.
Personally, I think that the Creative Commons is a great concept, and it is will be interesting to see how it pans out in the future. The ability to use and expand others’ ideas can lead to new roads of possibilities in the future. Hey, if the creator of the content wants to give up some of his or her rights so that I or anyone else can have easy access are fine with me. Allowing others to get deeply involved in the creation process allows more inputs, data, viewpoints, etc. to be not only collected, but integrated as well into the process. Most of the times, corporations have only a vague feeling of what people really want, and when they do find out what we want then they typically charge high fees for that service or good. I think a good example of this is the battle of the internet browsers: Internet Explorer and Firefox. The latter browser encourages open-source development. Therefore, real people who possess the skills necessary to make add-ons, may or may not create one that will have a broad appeal. However, if you don’t need it, don’t download. Then again, there is more likely to be a chance that you’ll come across an add-on that you like.
Post a Comment