Copyright

Recently (just a few minutes ago), I read chapter 2 of “The Case for Copyright Reform”.


I remember a story about one photo. Long story short, one photographer published his foto in a portal where you can buy it and this photo became a meme. Many people share this photo for free, so on first sight, photographers do not get profit. But as he tells, because of memes, he became more renowned and more people actually buy this photo and his other works. In the end, he gets more profit than if this photo can be used only after buying it.


Or my personal story about youtube and music. I like nightcore music. When you listen to one nightcore, youtube recommends another. Ordinarily it's the song of an absolutely different artist.And if i like that song, I will get acquainted with the work of this author and in the and buy its albom. Most of nightcore (like most of others remix) are fan made and because of strict copyright it can be banned. And if it's happened someone like me can never get to know about some artist and not buy their album in the end.


So, what I try to say. I agree with Rick Falkvinge and Christian Engströmi about the idea that we should allow Free Non-Commercial Sharing and Free Sampling. And of course we should not change moral rights. We should allow distribution of different kinds of remix/cover/other and memes, but their maker should tell who the author of the original is. In the end everyone gets profit (except copyright lawyers).


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ethics and IT

Two pre-internet phenomena

A few facts about history of video games.