Firstly, we should make clear what both terms mean. Copyright is used to emphasize that something is someone's property and cannot be utilized by the others without his/her permission. Copyleft is the opposite - permission of the author is not needed to use or remake his/her property into something new and propagate it. Therefore, the clash between these so different views is inevitable.
The main purpose why many people defend the author's rights is the profit because if everybody can get a good without paying for it , there won't be profit for the creator. There is also one similar term "intellectual property" which is property of somebody's mind and defends the ideas, projects and so on. Especially in music, where different DJs use old song for their mash-ups, the debate is vicious. The defenders of copyright consider music or work based on somebody's work not creative and in some way stolen.
On the other hand, there are people who firmly believe that information should be shared without the need to pay for it. Those are people whose interest is not the profit, but the development, the creation of something better or just the fact that the other like and enjoy the work they do (DJs).
If people like Girl talk have to pay for all the songs they use and ask the author for his/her permission, it will take a really long time and millions of dollars to create a single song.
Here comes the moral dilemma. Should we pay for the stuff we use, watch, listen to or whose work we use and how upset he/she is by us? In my opinion, data should be spread around, especially in the Internet, without paying for it and without the fear that you will be taken to court if you download music or movies. The creators and authors should be flattered and content with the fact that their product is popular and people need it, want to see or use it.
No comments:
Post a Comment