W4.2 March 29 (Fri) -- kim eunseon
1. Summary
The free culture movement refers to a movement that encourages and supports various forms of cultural activities and freedom of expression. This means that personal creations created by individuals are distributed as free content through the Internet and online media, allowing others to modify and use them. This is not an act of copyright infringement, but rather respects individual creativity and diversity and seeks liberation from socially oppressed or restricted cultural expressions. Therefore, opponents of excessive copyright laws argue that some restrictive copyright laws hinder creative activity and call this a 'permissive culture'. A representative organization that makes this claim is an organization called Creative Commons. The website provided by this organization provides a glimpse into the copyright law system they pursue. To them, freedom does not mean freedom such as ‘free beer’, but ‘freedom’ such as ‘freedom of speech’.
2. Interesting point
Before seeing the above, I thought that copyright for all creative rights should be protected. Because creative works are considered personal property, it makes no sense for third parties to handle them carelessly. However, this Wikipedia supports the free culture movement. We celebrate individual creativity and diversity, but seek liberation from socially oppressed or restricted cultural expressions. that. This is a claim that both contradicts and encompasses my thoughts. Read this article here. ‘소스’냐 ‘아이디어’냐, 유튜브 저작권 위반 논란 - 시사IN (sisain.co.kr) In this article, there is a debate over whether modifying and distributing other people's creative works is a 'source' or an 'idea'. . The examples of what is claimed as a 'source' can be seen as positive examples of what this Wikipedia article claims. A talented unknown idol with a long history. A fan's secondary creation, that is, a video that could be considered a copyright infringement, is reversed into an idol's song through an algorithm. Who can say that the interest that could not have been obtained through the original author's existing method was met by wide contact through secondary creation? However, an incident occurred where a video produced by a specific media company was produced and distributed by another third party, resulting in the video being deleted. Likewise, there are cases where individuals do not want their creative works to be copied or distributed.
3. Discussion
Considering the above situation, is it right to continue to allow secondary creations that package the word freedom, and is it appropriate to call this a free culture movement? that. It is true that although there are positive examples, there are also many cases that cause damage. There is an example in the article I gave above, but these days, the YouTube Shorts platform is overflowing with copyright infringement videos. There are many ignorant videos, and they are produced with the goal of profit by simply filming the original video, dubbing it, and adding 'insincere editing'. Most videos are not approved by their original creators. I am surprised that nothing was done in this situation. Is it true that you support the free culture movement? Of course I understand part of their argument.
I do not support the free culture movement. I believe that copyright is a right to protect an individual's creative work. If my creations are not protected because they prevent others from creating them, who will publish their creations? Also, since they are not protected, there is a high probability that they will not respect other people's creative works. Of course, I think it is a positive aspect of reprocessing that people and videos that had not received attention due to secondary or tertiary processing are once again brought to the surface. However, to produce one video, the producer must have added a lot of time and effort. However, would there be a situation as unfair and absurd as that if someone without your knowledge uses it as if it were their own? The same goes for chat gpt. I think that as the number of indiscriminate uses of text or photos as if they were their own increases, people will become increasingly indifferent to other people's copyrights.
ReplyDeleteWhen a free cultural movement harms the rights of others, I don't think it should be called a movement. Freedom in a dictionary sense refers to the act of doing as you please without being bound by others within the scope of the law. Since the basic rights of others are also specified in the Constitution, I don't think there should be any freedom beyond the Constitution, no matter how much my own freedom is.
ReplyDelete