In a consumerist world,
we producers are bumping our grabby six year-old hands into a wall known as
copyrights. Additionally, we can find
thousands of critical and argumentative sources about copyrights and creative
commons, and here are only a few. First is a YouTube
video, posted by BelYaun is a good place to start when ironically defining
copyright laws. This post consists of clips of Disney movies to define what a
copyright is. It also describes who can use material, and what mediums can be
used. The short video clips demonstrate the time limits that some copyrighted
material constrains its users to. Included are also some articles illuminating
the “issues” surrounding the entire copyright machine. First is “Openness
as Catalyst for an Educational Reformation” by David Wiley. This article
elaborates on the definition of “open” historically and how it has changed
today. Wiley also describes the permissions that users must follow to correctly
use material. This article details the 4
Rs in which users participate when copyrighting: reuse, revise, remix, and
redistribute. Wiley believes that these rules and actions taken by users establish
the ability for authors to demand ownership of their work. Additionally, Wiley
argues that copyright laws are counterintuitive since “knowledge has the
magical property of being non-rival”, which is the ability to share information
without losing that information or knowledge. Copyright laws limit the
knowledge output from teachers also. Wiley includes historical examples, of the
Gutenberg typewriter and such, to contextualize the debate that copyright laws
are inhibiting to knowledge. Wiley’s
overall argument is that copyright laws keep information tied down when society
demands information with high speed and accessibility. The next article, “Getting
Our Values Around Copyright Right” by Lawrence Lessig discusses how the
idea and law of copyrights has expanded and changed throughout history –
becoming more involved and intense, and affecting more people. Lessig also
elaborates on the 4th Amendment; arguing that it does not control
culture, just how we access our culture. This article questions how a copyright
clause ignores amateur artists and creators, which has the potential to ruin
creativity. Lessig develops the argument that educators redistribute plans and
models with no protection or copyrights that hinder many immerging artists.
Beyond describing concerns, Lessig urges
some actions that users can take – especially to “question the system” (32).
Finally reviewed are a few websites, again arguing copyright laws and some that
present material that is copyright “free”. Some sites are specific locations
for copyright “free” material that anyone can use; for example, Flickr.com.
Probably the most commonly skirted copyright arena is the music industry, and
included are some sites where music is free to the public.
Music:
Photos:
Copyright laws are something that students experience in
their personal lives, but they will also experience them in the classroom;
increasing the importance of teaching the laws and restrictions. In history,
sources are used extensively for many different purposes, which is where most
students will run across copyright restrictions. Citing research in history is
an involved process where everything must be presented. Copyrights can inhibit
students from using or citing particular materials, hindering the overall
learning experience. Additionally, I believe that it is extremely beneficial
and necessary to teach students about copyrights. Teaching such a subject
encourages students to be considerate about other peoples’ works – giving those
creators credit for their ideas. Beyond that, such a lesson is also important
with a huge crack-down on plagiarism on high school and university levels.
Finally, it is pertinent to teach about copyrights, because it can be used as a
tool to determine credibility or accuracy of a source inquiry.
My overall reaction to the previously reviewed material
on copyrights and creative commons still has not changed – it is also
contradiction most individuals. I
believe that copyrights in its current state are a good protective measure on
material. Indeed, copyrighting material
has serious limitations on material, which hinders particular avenues of
learning, but I like imagine the perspectives of ones who have material
floating in the ether. Those who complain about copyrights restricting what
they want to use, are the ones who complain the most about having their material
“stolen”. I think that those who yell the most about not getting what they want
also will yell the most about seeing their work without representation
somewhere else. Overall, copyrights do not restrict new-comers too much,
because introducing material correctly can be successful. However, I can agree to some points of
individual argument. Any more copyright restrictions will be harmful, because
the more restrictions the more piracy and illegal behavior will occur. Perhaps copyrights
(or the violation of) should be more clearly defined. There exists a huge grey
area of what is copyrighted, and a lack of enforcement of when copyrights are
broken. Copyright definitions should be personal; those who want to make their material
shall have the right to make it “free”; which does already happen. Furthermore,
users should respect those who do not want their material for public use, do
not push against the system. Finally, I believe this information is good to
review when teaching students about copyrights, so that they can understand
giving credit to those who deserve it.
