Homework due 1/11/10

In Gift of Fire, answers questions 6.8, 6.11, 6.13 and 6.14.Please post to your blog!

6.8 Describe two things the entertainment industry has done to protect its copyrights. For each, tell whether you think it is justified. Give reasons.
A copyright is an exclusive right granted to an author of a literary, musical, audiovisual or artistic work, giving the author the sole right to reproduce and distribute that work. One place in which copyright laws are protected is with Nintendo. Some of the ways in which copyright laws are protected there are under various copyrights in Nintendo's software source code, executable code, game visual display, game music, game characters, product packaging, game manuals and labels; hardware chip microcode; artwork and publications. This means that practically everything that Nintendo creates, is theirs and nobody elses. Nintendo wants to make sure that when they create something, whether it be games or music, it will be theirs forever or until they sell it because they see it as if they create it then they own it. Another way that an entertainment industry has protected its copyrights is with Skunk Records. Skunk Records is a music company which manages and produces many bands such as Disturbed. They have set up legal action to those who steal from them and are caught. The right to their intellectual property, they believe, is for those who are willing to pay for the music rather than steal it. I think that both things are justified because if someone creates something and then copyrights and patents it and what have you, then its rightfully theirs. If they are the sole owners of something that has never been senn before, then the right to that information belongs to them and them alone. Well, that is unless they are willing to sell their ideas to other companys and then their copyright policies on that certain thing is no longer theirs.

6.11 This book, like many others, includes short quotations from other people's work at the beginning of many sections. Such quotes are almost always used without explicit permission. Explain why they are fair uses.
Using quotes without explicit permission are fair uses when it comes to this book and many others, is because this book (books in general) usually have something to inform the general people. This book was created to inform students about Information Technology and Global Society and we know this as true. We have come to the consensus gentium that this book is ment solely to inform and that sure, there is profit for the author, but the book when in use, is for nonprofit educational reasons like being used in a class. Also, the books that use quotes without explicit permission do it to inform and not to make their piece of writing any better than it is. They just want the people to know more. Take this book for example, the Fair-Use Doctrine guidelines are stated almost the same as when the government first stated them. However, this book is ment to inform and educate... nothing more. Also, since this book and others use only small quotes here and there, then they are not taking much from the other persons work but rather just a crumb in the writers cake. People use each others quotes because it helps them educate and make more sense of certain things, not just to steal and say "ha-ha". Finaly, the small quotes used in this book and others do nothing when it comes to limiting the value of the persons work that had originally said the piece of text. In fact, if one book states another, and the person reading that book has not heard of said stated book then they can go get that book anf thus the economic cycle may continue.

6.13 A political group organized a forum on its Web site where people were encouraged to post and comment on individual newspaper articles relevant to political issues of concern to the group. Other participants added their comments, and debate and discussion of the articles continued. Two newspapers sued, arguing that posting the articles violated their copyrights. Analyze the case. How do the fair-use guidelines apply? Who should win?
The Fair-Use Doctrine guidelines are as follows:
- The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
- The nature of the copyrighted work
- The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
- The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

As we can see, since the political group was posting articles that they did not have right of distribution over it doesnt matter in this case. This is because the political group that is posting and commenting over the news articles are doing it for educational purposes and for their own leizure. They are not doing it because they are making any money over it. Also, the nature of the copyrighted articles is to inform, not to dicuss just because. The members of the political group want their web site to have posts and comments on interesting subject matter, and in this case it happens to be politics. Then we have the issue of the copyright issue with matter. I believe that since the political is not taking every article, just some of the politically based ones, that it is fine because they are not taking every article that is written by the newspaper company. And since only some of the political articles are posted and commented on, that means that people will still have to buy the whole paper to get all the other articles. To post and comment on only one type of article will not have any drastic effects on the newspaper companys income. And if it does, I'll be shocked. Neither the company nor the political group should be fighting because both are doing perfectly legal things. The political group is commenting on some articles relevant to political issues and the newspaper company is producing those articles knowing that this might happen and that they will have to go on even of it does. I believe that the political group should win the case because they are a nonprofit educationally based web site and everything that they have done so far has been legal and pertains directly to the Fair-Use Doctrine. They have cheated no one.

6.14 You are a teacher. You would like your students to use a software package, but the school's budget does not include enough money to buy copies for all the students. Your school is in a poor neighnorhood, and you know most of the parents cannot afford to but the software for their children.
a) List some ways you could try to obtain the software without making unauthorized copies.
- Try to get a school grant
- Try to fundraise for the software
- Get a loan for the software
- Under the Fair Use Doctrine one may buy one copy and then copyright the product so that it may "encourage production of a useful work"
- As long as the meaning behind the copyright is educational based then it is fair game
- Since the software being used is for a nonprofit organization it is again ok to do

b) Suppose none of the methods you try work. Will you copy the software or decide not to use it? Give some arguments for and against your position. Explain why you think the arguments on your side are stronger.
- I would definatley steal the copyrighted software because if my students need it in order for them to strive academically and become better scholars then I believe that it is fair game. Some arguments for my position are that "I couldnt afford to buy the product", "The company is a large, wealthy corporation. What's one stolen piece of software going to do?", "I wouldnt buy the piece of software at the normal ticketed price anyway because I do not have the money", "Since I am making copies of the software for my students, it then just becomes an act of generosity", and "Everybody is doing it!!" are just a few prime examples. Many of these arguments are what I would say to the judge if I was put on trial for copyright infringement however, these arguments only show one side of my position. Arguments against my position would be a little bit more forceful and descriptive why it is in fact bad. Examples could be:
- "Not being able to buy the product is not an excuse for stealing it!"
- "The success of the company does not justify stealing from it!"
- "You are taking something of value from a company and not giving anything in return"
- "Sure, we have the right to buy a copy of the software, but we do not have the right to mass produce copies of the product and then distribute them!"
- "To copy something is not ethical"
- "Also, the number of people doing something does not make it right! You cannot kill someone because someone else does... it isnt right and it doesnt make any sense."

I believe that the arguments on my side are stronger because that is what I see as just. However, even though I know that stealing is bad I would do it anyways because everyone else does it. I would feel bad if I stole the software but it would make me feel good seeing the students learning and being able to use the software freely. The Fair Use Doctrine can be used to cover only so much copyright however after mass production more forceful actions must be taken to ensure that the copyrighted work does not lose value.