CopyRIGHT?

In early chapters, we have discussed the new movement of free media on the web, and how it generates income without charging its audience.  While displaying content online may be paid for by advertising or other methods, exposure is given, whatever medium is used and the host has control.  So what's wrong with free content and why isn't everything this way? When someone goes beyond this and take the medium to own without paying, they are illegally copying, therefore committing copyright infringement.  While many different approaches have been taken to stop this, they have either been unsuccessful or have sought action to limit the use of the internet.

According to Lockdown, the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization officially made copying illegal in 1996.  Despite the laws they passed, people did not obey this and still continue to engage in acts of copyright infringement.  With the continuing easiness to download content illegally for free, it cannot be seen why this would change.  In addition, more policies must continue to be made in order to regulate this properly, making the the internet censored and holding back its capabilities.  While this might be okay for computers that serve a specific purpose, users of general purpose computers would have a lot of speculation of its usage becoming limited.


I think Doctorow is on point with this article.  He expresses much criticism towards putting these copyright laws in effect because they take so much more work to regulate and feels as if they won't stop people from copywriting.  Much of the techniques he mentions to stop copyright infringement, seem unethical and to invade privacy.  If a person using a rootkit against a big business is seen as illegal, why can the opposite be done?  I don't think people should download everything online for free (especially if they have a good source of income), but the internet shouldn't be censored for all, especially since short cuts will be found to continue illegal downloading.  Something as great as the internet should never be denied its full capabilities, especially if the actions that are trying to be prevented will continue anyway.


In addition to the actions mentioned in Doctorow's piece, The Internet Threat, gives some suggestions how to "better" enforce violators of copyright infringement.  The Author, James Boyle, goes as far to suggest that each computer should be under surveillance with each having a unique ID, as a part of his "Internet Threat" argument.  He also claims that for each song, movie, and ebook one can access have a contract with limitations of its use, that one would be forced to agree to without reading.  Unlike Doctorow, Boyle seems more supportive of increasing restriction on copyright.


I felt rather annoyed reading Boyle's article and I think he's nuts.  If computers were ever to be given an ID, I would like it to be done for security purposes to stop spread of malware, rather than busting broke college students for downloading the new Metallica record.  I will reiterate a point I made earlier, something as great and powerful as the internet should not be owned, regulated, nor limited.  Part of the  reason new bands, authors, and directors have created new media was through Internet research and finding media through online sources.  People need these things to become creative and it helps them get through the stress of their daily lives.  The corporations who produce these things will still make (a lot of) money.  People will give anything a chance if it's free.  By getting rid of downloaded media, the spread of ideas and opinions would move much slower.