According to Wikipedia, intellectual property (IP) is defined as: a term referring to a number of distinct types of creations of the mind for which a set of exclusive rights are recognized—and the corresponding fields of law." This spans from photographs produced by photographers to songs produced by music artists.
IP is something that is original and unique so why would people think it is okay to steal that property? I think the concept of protecting this "property" is completely appropriate. IP is protected by various intellectual property rights including copyrights, trademarks and patents. It might seem silly to protect something intangible but I believe that IP is probably one of the most valuable "products" that we can produce. Intellectual concepts are intangible, original and one-of-a-kind which makes it that much more valuable. According to Ayn Rand, a screenwriter, the human mind is "the source of wealth and survival and that all property at its base is intellectual property..."
I believe wholeheartedly in this statement...when you really think about everything starts with an original idea. I think because of intellectual property, we have been able to move forward and progress in everything: technology, societal issues, culture, etc. Because such amazing and progressive things can result from intellectual property, we should then make sure to strictly protect people's IP.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Sunday, October 16, 2011
It's Not Our Fault, We Didn't Know!
As many of us know, online pirating is very common and growing in popularity as the Digital Age continues to evolve. The main areas affected by this are the music and film industry. To be honest, almost half my music collection was "free" and maybe a movie or two.
The problem is, the internet and technology has made it so accessible and easy to download free movies or music using P2P sharing services like Grokster and LimeWire. However, many people are shocked when they get in trouble for downloading this files. Why? According to John Palfrey and Urs Gasser in Born Digital, "...many Digital Natives--not to mention quite a few adults--are confused about copyright law in the digital age" (137). According to one study mentioned by Palfrey and Gasser, "...over 50 percent of consumers [studied] believe it is legal to make copies of prerecorded CDs and share them among family members" (137).
I think a strategy to counteract this piracy issue is to educate people. Music and film industries who are mainly affected by this should show more commercials about piracy and how it is illegal. I think this would definitely help decrease the use of online piracy.
The problem is, the internet and technology has made it so accessible and easy to download free movies or music using P2P sharing services like Grokster and LimeWire. However, many people are shocked when they get in trouble for downloading this files. Why? According to John Palfrey and Urs Gasser in Born Digital, "...many Digital Natives--not to mention quite a few adults--are confused about copyright law in the digital age" (137). According to one study mentioned by Palfrey and Gasser, "...over 50 percent of consumers [studied] believe it is legal to make copies of prerecorded CDs and share them among family members" (137).
I think a strategy to counteract this piracy issue is to educate people. Music and film industries who are mainly affected by this should show more commercials about piracy and how it is illegal. I think this would definitely help decrease the use of online piracy.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Defining Piracy
One of the main dilemmas in the online piracy issue is defining it. Online piracy is very common in our world today, especially online music. In Born Digital, Palfrey and Gasser stated that, "A great many people who use the Internet believe that virtually all forms of private, noncommercial copying of copyrighted works either is or should be allowed. One study found that over 50 percent of consumers believe it is legal to make copies..." (p. 137) Many digital natives are not fully aware of the seriousness of online piracy or if they do know it's illegal they don't think it's a big deal because it is socially normal and accepted to download music for free. I'm going to anaylyze the issue of defining piracy and how it relates to the music industry and Digital natives by comparing two blogs that discuss this problem.
In Trey's blog entry, where he analyzes a cartoon of a baby downloading free music while his "proud parents" watch, he points out that "that people of our world are so mislead about the truth about piracty that parents are watching their baby do illegal activities right in front of them." His main argument in the entry is that our society does not see online piracy on the same level as old-fashion stealing. He states that the message of the cartoonist, which is to discourage online piracy, would be more effective if there was another depicting the baby stealing candy from a store and his parents scolding him. This would bring to light the different definitions we have on piracy vs. stealing.
In Caleb's blog, he argues even though he knows pirated music is illegal and he can see where people are losing money he believes that the main point of music is to be enjoyed. He goes on to state that artists shouldn't be in it for the money but should care, instead, about getting the music to the fans. His blog entry backs up Trey's entry about people in today's world separating piracy from stealing.
I think that they both use pathos in different ways to get their message across. Trey uses pathos to appeal to our conscious by pointing out how our society has come to be tolerant of pirating but looks down on stealing when, to some, these are the same things. This could evoke feelings of guilt or maybe shame to some who would never physically steal from a store or person but find themselves with a huge library of pirated music. In Caleb's blog he appeals to pathos by targeting purpose of music: to be enjoyed. He could be appealing to artists when he states, "Artists shouldn't be in it for the money, they should be in it for the music so if they really care about getting their music to their fans they should like those programs." This appeals to artists and tests their appreciation for music and fans. This could evoke feels of guilt due to greed or make them feel like they've been changed by the industry.
Even though they both are discussing the same topic, their tones are very different. In Trey's blog his tone is very informative and neutral. He doesn't really take a stance on the whole issue but rather provides an objective analysis of the issue. However, in Caleb's blog his tone is definitely opinionated about the issue. He bluntly states that people need to stop fighting the file-sharing programs and online pirating and should just embrace them because the whole point of music is to be enjoyed.
I think both these blogs did a great job at analyzing the issue of online pirating in both an objective and subjective views. Online pirating is just going to be one of those issues that is always going to be problematic and debated.
In Trey's blog entry, where he analyzes a cartoon of a baby downloading free music while his "proud parents" watch, he points out that "that people of our world are so mislead about the truth about piracty that parents are watching their baby do illegal activities right in front of them." His main argument in the entry is that our society does not see online piracy on the same level as old-fashion stealing. He states that the message of the cartoonist, which is to discourage online piracy, would be more effective if there was another depicting the baby stealing candy from a store and his parents scolding him. This would bring to light the different definitions we have on piracy vs. stealing.
In Caleb's blog, he argues even though he knows pirated music is illegal and he can see where people are losing money he believes that the main point of music is to be enjoyed. He goes on to state that artists shouldn't be in it for the money but should care, instead, about getting the music to the fans. His blog entry backs up Trey's entry about people in today's world separating piracy from stealing.
I think that they both use pathos in different ways to get their message across. Trey uses pathos to appeal to our conscious by pointing out how our society has come to be tolerant of pirating but looks down on stealing when, to some, these are the same things. This could evoke feelings of guilt or maybe shame to some who would never physically steal from a store or person but find themselves with a huge library of pirated music. In Caleb's blog he appeals to pathos by targeting purpose of music: to be enjoyed. He could be appealing to artists when he states, "Artists shouldn't be in it for the money, they should be in it for the music so if they really care about getting their music to their fans they should like those programs." This appeals to artists and tests their appreciation for music and fans. This could evoke feels of guilt due to greed or make them feel like they've been changed by the industry.
Even though they both are discussing the same topic, their tones are very different. In Trey's blog his tone is very informative and neutral. He doesn't really take a stance on the whole issue but rather provides an objective analysis of the issue. However, in Caleb's blog his tone is definitely opinionated about the issue. He bluntly states that people need to stop fighting the file-sharing programs and online pirating and should just embrace them because the whole point of music is to be enjoyed.
I think both these blogs did a great job at analyzing the issue of online pirating in both an objective and subjective views. Online pirating is just going to be one of those issues that is always going to be problematic and debated.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
The Youth and Piracy
This cartoon above, which I got from Sleeping Alone and Starting Out Early: an occasional blog on culture, education, new media and the social revolution, is the perfect visual representation of our generation and how we view online pirating.
I believe that the intent of the cartoonist was to illustrate how social mentalities have changed from generation to generation. On a different level, the cartoonist might be pointing out to the audience how the value and appreciation of the arts has decreased over time.
First, the change from generation to generation is evident in the facial expressions of the grandma and artist to the teenager's comment. The pair are obviously from an older generation where art and hardwork were appreciated. The teenager, however, has his faced turned up at the musician which shows a sort of disrespect for his talent. Instead, the teenager seems more concerned about where he can get the music for free. This interaction clearly illustrates how the rise of the digital age has widened the gap between the attitudes of yesterday's generation to that of today's.
Secondly, this cartoon points out the depreciation of art in today's world. The ragged attire of the artist indicates the hit the art, music, film, etc. industries have taken from the amount of their products that are pirated online. The few coins again represents those industries economic struggles as a result of pirating.
I believe that this cartoon probably evokes feelings of guilt from today's generation because it obviously points out how our generation no longer values art due to "digital freedom." The trend of online pirating of music, movies, art, etc. among the younger generation indicates a decreasing level of respect for the artist who produced these products because we are no longer willing to pay for it. I believe that the rise of the digital age and technology creates a dilemma for many of us because it allows us access and opportunities to download music, photographs, films for free but it compromises what we know to be the "right thing to do."
Do y'all feel like our mentality has changed from generation to generation? Has our respect for art decreased as a result of pirating?
First, the change from generation to generation is evident in the facial expressions of the grandma and artist to the teenager's comment. The pair are obviously from an older generation where art and hardwork were appreciated. The teenager, however, has his faced turned up at the musician which shows a sort of disrespect for his talent. Instead, the teenager seems more concerned about where he can get the music for free. This interaction clearly illustrates how the rise of the digital age has widened the gap between the attitudes of yesterday's generation to that of today's.
Secondly, this cartoon points out the depreciation of art in today's world. The ragged attire of the artist indicates the hit the art, music, film, etc. industries have taken from the amount of their products that are pirated online. The few coins again represents those industries economic struggles as a result of pirating.
I believe that this cartoon probably evokes feelings of guilt from today's generation because it obviously points out how our generation no longer values art due to "digital freedom." The trend of online pirating of music, movies, art, etc. among the younger generation indicates a decreasing level of respect for the artist who produced these products because we are no longer willing to pay for it. I believe that the rise of the digital age and technology creates a dilemma for many of us because it allows us access and opportunities to download music, photographs, films for free but it compromises what we know to be the "right thing to do."
Do y'all feel like our mentality has changed from generation to generation? Has our respect for art decreased as a result of pirating?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)