Books, music videos and several other pieces of art often comprise the word ‘copyright’ on its product. Being commonly understood as a legal concept, copyright is the right of ownership given to the person behind an original piece as enacted and implemented by the government. It is a category of Intellectual property rights which gives the originator exclusive rights to decide who benefits or adapts the work along with other rights associated with the product. In other words, it gives the sole authority and right to the person for his original work (Mark, 2012). The idea of copyright dates back to the time of 18th century where it was introduced in relation to the printing press started in Britain eventually paving its way to USA and other countries around the globe. Despite the initial regulation exercised to restrict printing; copyright has grown to the contemporary age of film production, software and sound recordings. Since intellectual property rights give complete ownership for creations of the mind, apart from copyright, its other category includes industrial property which caters to the protection of rights for goods and products. Regardless of the right of ownership dwelling into products of varying industries, the current epoch has given rise to several challenges for copyright protection and other intellectual rights (Deazley, 2010).
Internet being the emerging influential form of media continues to pose a number of challenges for the copyright issue. This is evident from its copying and sharing function which eventually contributes to the violation of copyright laws. As a matter of fact, at several instances, people are unaware of this violation. This may be attributed mainly to the lack of knowledge or awareness which they posses. Consequently, they tend to copy data without the permission of the owner. For instance, adapting the same characters for a story as used by the original creator often leads to the act of violation. Although, violating the copyright laws may not always result in a financial harm to the originator or a financial benefit to the person using someone else’s work, it is still categorized as an unlawful illegal act. This act of copying and sharing data has been further made easier by the internet where people unintentionally as well as willingly share material. This is conspicuous in terms of downloading software, music or movies, burning CDs along with several other acts of copyright violation which are also associated with piracy (Lambrick, 2009).
The internet is a platform containing information that falls under a wide range of categories such as books, pictures, movies, music, recordings, art and much more. The image of internet being a hub for every answer and every detail hides the truth of original material and copyright laws. In this way, the information present on the internet is often a product of infringed copyright. Despite the copyright laws which protect the different types of work giving the ultimate authority to the originator to distribute, reproduce or do other things with his work, copying and sharing of content continues to exist which has been made easier by the internet. Files shared through internet networks and via P2P software gives a greater access of copyright material to public who are or who do not know the underlying fact that they are violating the law (Lambrick, 2009). As a matter of fact, regardless of the penalties exercised on violating the copyright laws as put forward by countries on the basis of differing laws, it is easier to break laws and infringement is increased as in the case of the copying and sharing material via the internet.
While looking at the advancement in technology and its related consequences, the issue of open source software in correspondence to the concept of copyright, is of vital importance. Open source is the idea of giving a free license or a universal access of product to the public. The initial motive of providing free access lies in the domain of collaboration which gives rise to enhanced models. In other words, the open source movement is governed by the idea that people can collectively work together to produce a quality product. Consequently, copyrights vary in this domain which is eventually dependent upon the developer’s motivation towards peer recognition and fostering a product that aids problem solving. Since success matters a lot, the basic aim of developers is to attract other developers and continue with high activity. For this reason, restricting the Open Source Software licenses might adversely affect the inherent objective of the movement. In this regard, open source projects have licenses which allow free access, distribution and sharing. Ironically, although the concept of open source movement differs from the copyright protection which only gives the exclusive rights to the owner, the open source projects adopt a greater law as framed for copyright (Mark, 2012). In other words, the only way to distribute data and share it is via a permissive license which lays certain conditions for the redistribute. This is the actual function of the open source licenses. However, despite the access to software and free information, open source projects are accompanied by administrative and other supportive costs and there is no one to help you with your problems. Many software die in the process and the interface is not that easy to use and it since it is based upon the idea of content licensing, it often results in complex technical issues (Sen, Subramaniam & Nelson, 2008).
As mentioned previously, intellectual property rights are all about protecting the creativity of the mind. In this regard, apart from authorizing and benefiting the creator from his work along with the edge given to the entrepreneurs and fostering fair trade, intellectual property rights aim to promote creativity and innovation. This is done by protecting the form of expression that is used in the work; the innovation in the art of arranging words, notes, shapes and more. In this way, the intellectual property rights protect the original work created by people whereby which they are recognized through their creativity and innovation. However, there is a clear distinct relationship between creativity and intellectual property rights as the latter aims to protect and augment creativity, the opinions of the right enhancers often creates a room for irony on this subject matter. While they propose intellectual property rights are essential as they safeguard and recognize the originality of the mind, such people are also of the opinion that the intellectual property rights should be minimal in the sense that it does not restrict creativity. In other words, the mixed picture of creativity and innovation in relation to intellectual property rights show that restrictive laws may prevent users to adapt original pieces to create their own which ultimately affects their creativity (Nimmer, 2011). Regardless of the fluctuating role of intellectual property rights, it coherently fulfills the primary purpose of protecting creativity. The infringement of the copyright material via the internet can be an answer for the rights enhancers where minds continue to benefit from the rooted creativity of others.
With the current media explosion, private lives have been made public. With the use of Androids and Blackberry phones, along with the internet and social networking sites, privacy has become a matter of concern. Digital surveillance is an important facet of this age whereby which not only parents keep a track of their children, but it is the employer and the recruiter who keeps a constant check on the activities of their employees (Taekke, J, 2011). The professional as well as professional impact of digital surveillance in comparison to the company’s need to access information is a heated topic widely discussed today. While looking at an organization, the boss has a complete access to the information and activities of the sub ordinates. This idea is not only limited to the business environment, but it is also present at the government level where the best example is of countries like Syria who closely monitors the online presence and activities of its people (Clayton, 2012). From marketing purpose to the safety of the government, digital surveillance is adversely affected individual privacy. Although the company might claim to keep track of employee records to protect their valuable assets in a similar way to the government’s opinion of taking steps towards threats from the people, digital surveillance gives rise to various crimes. In this way, regardless of the advantage of accessing information of the greater public, individual privacy is being greatly affected (Nimmer, 2011).
Therefore, when it comes to the advancement and progress in media, there are a number of issues worth consideration. Although the government and authorities take steps and enact laws to deal with the challenges of technology, there are a number of limitations that often reside in these strategies. This is evident from the copyright protection law, a branch of intellectual property rights, which aims at safeguarding the creativity of minds (Nimmer, 2011). Regardless of the exclusive rights given to the creator and the penalties for infringement, the internet has made sharing and copying of data so easy and accessible that the initial purpose of the copyright law is not being fulfilled. In a similar manner, another related issue is of digital surveillance. With gadgets and devices, private life turns into public. Quite often it is justified under the idea of keeping a check on the employees to lower the risk of fraud or other such fallacies. This also extends to marketers, internet providers and hackers who closely monitor the activities of individuals similar to the government who often faces the threat of an uprising against it. In contrast, digital surveillance gives complete access of individuals to other people who might not always use the information in an appropriate manner resulting in distortion of image, identity and giving rise to dangerous criminal activities. Therefore, the loopholes in the copyright protection law and the idea of digital surveillance can be addressed with different regulations by keeping in view the various angles in which these can be used and exploited in an advanced and progressing age of today.
REFERENCES
Clayton, M. (2012, July 25). Syria’s cyberwars: using social media against dissent. Christian Science Monitor. p. N.PAG
Deazley, R. (2010). Privilege and Property: Essays on the history of copyright. United Kingdom: Open Book Publishers
Lambrick, J. (2009). Piracy, file sharing and legal fig leaves. Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology, 4(3), 185-195.
Mark, P. (2012). Must licenses be contracts? Consent and notice in intellectual property. Dalhousie Law Journal, 40(2), 105-164.
Nimmer, R. T. (2011). Information wars and the challenges of content protection in digital contexts. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law, 13(4), 825-879.
Sen, R., Subramaniam, C., & Nelson, M. L. (2008). Determinants of the choice of open source software license. Journal of Management Information Systems, 25(3), 207-239
Taekke, J. (2011). Digital panopticism and organizational power. Surveillance & Society, 8(4): 441-454
