copyright or copywrong?

(The Copyright Authority http://www.copyrightauthority.com/copyright-symbol/Copyright-Symbol-images/copyright.gif)

First of all, I would like to start this blog entry with a side note. Upon completion of this blog, I wanted to find the Copyright symbol (as seen above). The website that I found this symbol on (http://www.copyrightauthority.com/copyright-symbol/Copyright-Symbol-images/copyright.gif) had a disclaimer at the end saying please link to us if you use our image or content. I thought it was pretty ironic but also relevant, so click on the link and scroll down to the bottom and read what it says, because its true.

“ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ” This is the First Amendment of the United States Constitution (2007, January 28. In Wikipedia,). This was the law protecting people on the internet who shared files. Their claim was that the government can not stop them because it is freedom of speech and press. People can say and do what they want, and the government will protect their right to do so. But are there any exceptions to this? Logically thinking, people cannot just run around America like monkeys screaming and doing whatever they want. Even though this might not seem to be the case it is. Julie Van Camp (July 4, 2005), Professor of Philosophy, says there are Exceptions to Freedom of Expression that include defamation, causing panic, using fighting words, sedition, and many others. Basically, the First Amendment provides people with freedom to many things but not all things. In fact, on the bottom of the article which I just cited, it says:

Permission is hereby given to print, download, and reproduce these materials for educational, personal, or scholarly purposes, but only if the copyright notice and this permission notice are reprinted in full with each copy. This material may not be sold or otherwise used for commercial purposes. [No copyright claimed in government documents or other public domain materials.]

Nothing in this material should be considered legal advice. If you have a legal problem, you should consult with experienced legal counsel. The views here are solely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Bar Association, California State University, or the National Endowment for the Arts.

So basically, there are restrictions and limitations to people's "freedom of speech." This sounds ironic, limitations on freedom, maybe a better word could have been used like privilege, because our freedom of speech is a privilege which our government gives to us, that other countries do not have. Maybe the word license is better, meaning a permission granted to do something, like drive a car. Or in this case, talk freely about your government or download a song from the internet legally. Downloading software from the internet is illegal unless one is given permission or a license to do so. One way to acquire a license or permission is to purchase one.

So now the issue is how to protect copyright laws. Recently, the Australian Government passed new Copyright Laws (Friday, 24 November 2006, Branch Head, Copyright Law Branch)which state that there are copyright exceptions for "socially useful purposes." The government will recognize the rights of users who legitimately acquire materials, as long as it does not harm the copyright owner. So basically the government is broadening the copyright laws, but at the same time cracking down harder on enforcement. Maybe the Aussies have figured it out, maybe they've figured out how to stop the infringement of copyright laws. First, define your laws for copyright and then enforce the laws to the utmost degree. Punishable by death if you need to! Okay, maybe thats a little rash on my part.

Figuring out this whole issue of copyright is not so easy though. Because, maybe its just me and please stop me if it is, but don't we all have "friends" or "people we know" who illegally download songs and movies from the internet? The good ol' "its not me, its a friend who told me about..." Since the internet and WWW is such a new technology, the legislators and law makers have not been able to keep up, or maybe they just don't have a solution to solving copyright laws. Because the people downloading illegally are breaking the law, thats what illegal means see:

not according to or authorized by law : UNLAWFUL, ILLICIT; also : not sanctioned by official rules (Merriam Webster, http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=illegal)

Even not sourcing a book or website in a college paper is copyright. Now the United States government or the CIA can't find every person who does that, can it? See the movie and music business loses so much money to downloads that its almost impossible to figure out the exact amount. So the question is where to draw the line and who is right. Maybe the best system is to ask: Who has downloaded illegally? Okay, now say you're sorry... and slap the person on the wrist. I'm pretty sure that its impossible to stop people from going around the laws or finding other ways to download. Maybe there is no way to accommodate for both the content creators and the general public. Some one is doing the wrong thing here... I'll give you a hint, its the people illegally downloading software. So the people doing the wrong thing have to stop. The world existed before downloads, where people bought their media, that was working pretty well. I can't say exactly what technical support is needed to stop this, but it probably involves a lot of people and really high-tech computers. The law makers just have to decide is it worth it. I would say that it is not worth the money and effort. Is it worth it to you?

Citations:
1. The Copyright Authority http://www.copyrightauthority.com/copyright-symbol/Copyright-Symbol-images/copyright.gif
2. First Amendment to the United States Constitution. (2007, January 28). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 15:33, January 31, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&oldid=103919867
3. Julie Van Camp, Professor of Philosophy, July 4, 2005. http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/freedom1.html#sedition
4. Branch Head, Copyright Law Branch, Friday, 24 November 2006. http://www.offi.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/Copyright_IssuesandReviews_CopyrightAmendmentBill2006