The copyright laws and models, which should
protect the originality of work, are protecting the middlemen instead, the
corporates are benefiting from copyright laws and not the individuals who are
the original creators of the work (like music).
The creators are making less money not because of not appreciating
copyright laws, but because the way it became a business and companies found ways
to bent copyright laws to aid them instead of composers (Mara, 2010). The
monopoly of copyright, which is granted by the government to individuals to
benefit all citizens, is not benefiting all citizens (consumers and creators).
Old copyright model have proved inefficiency
and led to high prices for products, in return minimal income to the original
creator, and less audience. An alternative can be defined to increase income
for original creator while maintaining less cost on the consumer, and in return
the creator will get more dedicated to their creation, and that will allow
audience to enjoy creativity with less and reasonable prices. Old copyright
model raises the cost for a creation and leads to less revenues, especially to
the creator. Imposing a levy on products to compensate the original creator
will benefit the creator and the consumer when compared to the old copyright
model. Allowing the creator to benefit directly from his work and authorize
peer-to-peer access to their products will increase revenue, it will increase
the volume to be sold, in return lower prices and less profit margin but more
profit at the end (Netanel, 2003). With the advance in compressing technology
and Internet usage, new way to market and distribute copyrighted products
became available, new opportunities for copyright owner to increase financial
income, who should benefits from this? (Boyajian,
n.d.). Even though those new ways increase financial benefits, they can promote
and market creator’s work at very low price (cost), and by this creators and
artists can promote their work without the need for middlemen.
Not an easy thing and yet important, is to
calculate the levy and find a base to which it can be calculated, in the
current world and different media that can be used to copy and transfer copy
righted work, its difficult to specify this based on size on disk, or bandwidth
consumed while transmitting (Netanel, 2003).
Compensating the creator directly without
middlemen benefiting is the reason why this alternative to copyright model is
not adopted, as this will finish the business for RIAA members, their existence
is dependent on the creator and consumer and in keeping this model, as they do
nothing (by comparing what they deliver and what they earn). Their existence is
not in the interests of the creator or consumer. (Adams & McCrindle, 2008)
Reference:
Adams, A.A. & McCrindle, R.J. (2008) Pandora’s box: Social and professional
issues of the information age. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons,
Ltd
Boyajian,
A. (n.d.), ‘The Sound of Money: Securing Copyright, Royalties, and Creative “Progress”
in the Digital Music Revolution’, [Online], Available from:
(Accessed
26 March 2011)
Netanel
, N. (2003), ‘Impose A Noncommercial Use Levy To Allow Free Peer-to-Peer File
sharing’ Harvard Journal of Law &
Technology Vo.17, No. 1, [Online], Available from:
(Accessed
26 March 2011)
Mara,
K. (2010) ‘Panel: Copyright Needed In Music, But Should Benefit Musicians’,
[Online], Available from:
(Accessed
26 March 2011)
No comments:
Post a Comment