Copyright Laws - A Dilemma
Copyright laws have evolved much over the centuries.
In the past, there was the freedom to copy. Someone could copy another's works as long as he/she had the time. Over the years, however, copyright laws have become increasingly restrictive. Only last year, the Copyright Law was amended, and now copyright offenders in Singapore can face up to a US$12,000 fine and/or a jail term of six months for copyright infringements.
My media law lecturer believes we're going in the wrong direction with these laws. Why?
Traditionally, the law has only been protecting the copying of expressions, and not ideas. Expressions are tangible products; ideas are not. With the new copyright laws, the law is clamping down on BOTH the copying of expressions and ideas. This is going against one of the basic, fundamental roles of the law.
We know all about the various media organizations which are anti-piracy. But anti-piracy also means that one can't work on remixing a song, for example, without seeking the approval of the respective record labels. Even when approval is sought, it is likely they will reject the idea unless they are compensated accordingly, since they want to create remixes of their own and sell them to their profit. Thus, creative individuals who want to remix existing songs cannot do so because they do not have the financial means by which to do so.
Anti-piracy also means if you were a fan of a movie or anime series which was not available for viewing or sale in your country, you would not be able to download it off the Internet just so you could enjoy it because anti-piracy laws are in place. And anti-piracy also means a copyrighted song / album / movie cannot be downloaded or shared, and will not enter the public domain (free for the public to view/share) until about 95 years after it is launched. But seriously, who would even bother watching / listening to something 95 years old?
Currently, many media conglomerates who produce these media products and perpetuators of copyright laws argue that restrictions should be in place:
(i) so the creator has an incentive to create
(ii) so the public domain will be vibrant
During our tutorial, we were asked to answer a simple question - What would be our incentive to create, or rather, what would the motivation for us creating something be. Most of us cited recognition, taking pride in being able to call the invention ours, and freesom of expression as the motivating factors. NOBODY cited money as the motivating factor. The same can be said of many artistes out there - the motivation for their creating something is NOT money. It is because they love doing what they do. Yet many media companies which they are contracted to claim money is the incentive to create. As we have just proven, that may not be true.
Secondly, how can the public domain be vibrant if an aspiring DJ cannot remix an existing song because it is considered illegal to do so? Do copyright laws really help create a vibrant public domain, or do they actually stifle creativity?
Food for thought indeed.
In the past, there was the freedom to copy. Someone could copy another's works as long as he/she had the time. Over the years, however, copyright laws have become increasingly restrictive. Only last year, the Copyright Law was amended, and now copyright offenders in Singapore can face up to a US$12,000 fine and/or a jail term of six months for copyright infringements.
My media law lecturer believes we're going in the wrong direction with these laws. Why?
Traditionally, the law has only been protecting the copying of expressions, and not ideas. Expressions are tangible products; ideas are not. With the new copyright laws, the law is clamping down on BOTH the copying of expressions and ideas. This is going against one of the basic, fundamental roles of the law.
We know all about the various media organizations which are anti-piracy. But anti-piracy also means that one can't work on remixing a song, for example, without seeking the approval of the respective record labels. Even when approval is sought, it is likely they will reject the idea unless they are compensated accordingly, since they want to create remixes of their own and sell them to their profit. Thus, creative individuals who want to remix existing songs cannot do so because they do not have the financial means by which to do so.
Anti-piracy also means if you were a fan of a movie or anime series which was not available for viewing or sale in your country, you would not be able to download it off the Internet just so you could enjoy it because anti-piracy laws are in place. And anti-piracy also means a copyrighted song / album / movie cannot be downloaded or shared, and will not enter the public domain (free for the public to view/share) until about 95 years after it is launched. But seriously, who would even bother watching / listening to something 95 years old?
Currently, many media conglomerates who produce these media products and perpetuators of copyright laws argue that restrictions should be in place:
(i) so the creator has an incentive to create
(ii) so the public domain will be vibrant
During our tutorial, we were asked to answer a simple question - What would be our incentive to create, or rather, what would the motivation for us creating something be. Most of us cited recognition, taking pride in being able to call the invention ours, and freesom of expression as the motivating factors. NOBODY cited money as the motivating factor. The same can be said of many artistes out there - the motivation for their creating something is NOT money. It is because they love doing what they do. Yet many media companies which they are contracted to claim money is the incentive to create. As we have just proven, that may not be true.
Secondly, how can the public domain be vibrant if an aspiring DJ cannot remix an existing song because it is considered illegal to do so? Do copyright laws really help create a vibrant public domain, or do they actually stifle creativity?
Food for thought indeed.
posted by dlauposer | 9:59 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home