Just another WordPress.com weblog

When thinking about a “copyright”, the first image that pops into the average American’s head is a small “c” enclosed in a circle, a symbol representing that someone has the rights to whatever they are reading or viewing. Although these Americans are aware of the existence and definition of a copyright, many do not stop to consider how that idea is changing with advancements in social media and that in the future, such an idea may not even exist. The C-Generation has become so experienced with social media that the distribution of large amounts of information is becoming easier due to the progression of new technologies such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. The ability that these social networking sites have to redistribute mass amounts of copyrighted media may end up causing the concept of a “copyright” to become obsolete.

We live in a world that is constantly transforming; right now, our physical world is transforming into a digital one. This is especially apparent within what many refer to as the “C-Generation”. The “C-Generation” is the generation of people born after 1990, experiencing adolescence after the year 2000 (Friedrich 2). Friedrich defines these “digital natives” as “computerized, community-oriented, always clicking”, a population trained to access social media efficiently. These “natives” use social networking sites, such as Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube, so regularly that they have become an integral part of their realities, and in some cases, the sole means of communication with others. Because the realities of this C-Generation are so digitally centered, the infringements of copyrights becomes inevitable with the constant flow and redistribution of information. With the changes in these new technologies also may come a change in the traditional definition of a copyright and thus a copyright infringement.

The U.S. Government defines a “copyright” as a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U. S. Code) to the authors of “original works of authorship,” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. Although that is the “official definition”, we must ask: do we have to change this definition with the changes in modern technologies? These copyrights effectively “link” an author to a work. However, the Internet causes the author to be unlinked from their work and the copyrights become less effective, which leads to copyright infringement; but, what is “copyright infringement”? Copyright infringement is defined as the violation of the exclusive rights of the copyright. (U.S. government) This vague definition leaves lots of room for interpretation. Determining whether or not a copyright infringement has taken place has become an arbitrary decision; in fact, the decision of who is punished and the severity of said punishment are both arbitrary. Once the copyright infringement has been determined, arbitrarily or not, how is it punished? Depending on the actual value of what’s copyright is being violated, the punishment can be more severe. For instance, if an ancient, incredibly valuable painting’s copyright were being violated, the punishment would be worse than if a celebrity’s song were used as the background music of a YouTube video. The rate at which copyrighted media is uploaded to the Internet is much faster than the rate at which the media can be regulated. The way in which these pieces of media are uploaded is getting more and more popular and increasingly sophisticated, to a point where they poise a significant challenge to our established system of content production and monetization (Roettgers). Many copyright violations have even gone unnoticed due to the overwhelming quantity of them. Because of this, we have started to see a copyright as something that is not a legitimate offense. One reason that we don’t see it as a legitimate offense is because copyright violations are seemingly “victimless” crimes. Unless the owner of the copyright sues the violator of their copyright, the crime does not have a visible victim. There are many complex legal process involved to be harshly punished for copyright infringement. More likely, if the infringement takes place online, website moderators will remove the  “item” from their webpage. However, this typically only happens when someone (usually the copyright owner) makes a complaint. Frequently, cases go unreported because the owner of the copyright either does not notice or is unbothered by the violation. This makes us ask, if nobody is bothered by this “crime”, is the crime obsolete? These become questions we as a society need to answer, partially due to the fact that social media is such a huge part of our means of communication. These social networking sites facilitate copyright infringements.

Copyrights are incredibly prevalent on the Internet, specifically on social media websites such as Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook. Although many users have to agree that they are not violating any copyrights before they distribute any media on these websites, this process becomes so routine that it often goes unnoticed. If a copyright is violated on YouTube, the moderators take the video down without punishment to the user. One of the big problems of copyright violations, specifically in the realm of social media, is that often times, violators do not know that they are breaking the law. Because the offense is minimized, the offense happens much more frequently.

How do we fix such a prevalent problem in our new, digital world? One of the important things that need to happen is a distinction between commercial and non-commercial use (Anassutzi). Because there are so many more violations taking place, a systematic way of organizing and classifying these violations may help us determine punishments rather than being overwhelmed by the many offenses. These changes may lead to a less stringent copyright system, but also a copyright system that is organized and systemized. Unless many changes need take place in the regulation of copyright infringement violations, the idea of a copyright, a copyright infringement, and perhaps personal ownership of media may all end up dead.