Economic Freedom of Copyright Law as compared with Intellectual property rights
Copyright and copyright law are typically misconstrued by innovative and creative people, clients and in the view of amateurs. The period of advanced technologies has brought significant changes to the context where creativity gets exhibited, acknowledged, sold and shared. However, such an increase of advanced technologies has also destabilized the power of copyright regulation to control the copyright authorities and establishments. The idea and concept of copyright regulation is comprehensive and will certainly have great implications in the prospective days. Nonetheless, it is uncertain the way effective copyright implementation will be across the board. However, one of the fundamental aims of copyright along with the application of copyright law relies on providing the guarantee that creative producers can be assured certain amount of earnings from the sales or distribution of the works done by them (Geiger 2018, pp-413). The following paper aims to evaluate one of the primary aims of copyright which chiefly relies on guaranteeing society to be enriched with creative works. In addition to this, the paper will shed light on the economic freedom of Copyright, theoretical aspect of Copyright through by means of cultural product.
Devoid of any copyright regulations, creative individuals starting from music composers to writers and application or website developers might encounter restrictions from the copyright-related earnings which their activities typically generate. Drawing relevance to such a context, it is certain that the lack of copyright would reflect the absence of earnings for several creative people who make their incomes by means of copyright works and establishments. According to Pager (2017, pp-530), in a domain of creative art, where recognized and well-established music composers, writers, creative designers, artists have been losing their copyright-derived earnings and profits; it is to great extent certain that these creative artists would have to seek additional employment opportunities to generate their earnings. One of the extremely perplexing aspects of the interplay between copyright and creative freedom is the connection between creativity, innovation and financial resources. According to Edwards et al. (2015, pp-65), artists and creators have an opinion that work is not entirely contingent on money and thus it is certain that non-financial factors stimulate actors to develop creativity. Comprehensive studies have mentioned that copyright chiefly serves as a private property which facilitates artists and creative individuals to live and generate monetary resources similar to industrialists and capitalists in an unregulated market. Private property rights are developed in various forms along with the contours of particular rights tend to fluctuate as per the forms they develop. Likar, Cankar and Zupan (2015, pp-210) have cited examples of property rights in land and assets differ from the property rights in water which eventually show divergence from property rights claimed in wild game as well as fisheries. Whereas copyright similar to intellectual property rights has varied limitations and attributes as compared to tangible property rights, it is vital to understand that these variations simply frame copyright as a different kind of property right rather than considering it as something other than property. Furthermore, it has been claimed that copyright is known as a primary private property right which authorizes artists to safeguard the value of the imaginative works which they create. In the view of Dawson and Yang (2016, pp- 283), copyright further expedites artists to apply their possession over their art. At this juncture, Fiesler, Lampe and Bruckman (2016, pp-1452) have cited examples of the United States where copyright allows optimal ownership of artists on their works in the midst of additional exclusive rights associated with the imitation of their works, organization of derivate works grounded on their works along with sharing of duplicates of their works to the publican and most importantly make exhibition of their works in public. On the other hand, one of the advantages of copyright relies on market-based approach which permits creative markets of several shapes and sizes. Copyright facilitates an extensive range of artists to sustain their success in the mainstream market, and further remain in diverse and unrecognized markets. However, vital discussions which try to limit the creative method into a cause and effect dialectic tend to damage the skill and originality of writers (Jensen 2016, pp-8). Such a market-based approach upsurges the likelihood which artists will exhibit to their experiences, desires and inspired and creative sensitivities which they share with their audiences, as artists promote their works to the clients who recognize their art and pay considerable amount to them. Moreover, commercial markets in support of creative works serve instrumental role in offering artists belonging to marginal or disadvantaged backgrounds, the opportunity to contribute their diverse opinions and judgements to the creative cultural pattern. Thus, economic freedom authorizes the production of wide range of powerful, culturally substantial works which successfully represent different constituencies in the society (Buccafusco and Fagundes 2015, pp- 2433).
Role of copyright in creative expansion
In contrast, the role of copyright depends on undermining that creative expansion tends to upsurge extensive contentious question thereby giving rise to varied opinions. Dawson and Yang (2016, pp-2016) have noted that standard economic theory has been seen intellectual property rights as an essential mechanism to encourage innovative and creative investments. In the view of Fiesler, Lampe and Bruckman (2016, pp-1458), property rights prevent market letdowns because of unrestricted pace which would further lead to suboptimal production of creative workings. It has been noted that property rights are likely to reassure the well-organized distribution of funds by harnessing private information publicized through market tools which tend to direct imaginative possessions in the direction of socially treasured ends. Consequently, predictable wisdom takes into consideration intellectual property rights with conventional property rights which are integral to financial growth. Thus, developing countries have shown great interest to make investments in IP (Intellectual Property) capacity building with the assurance that economic growth will essentially pursue (Buccafusco and Fagundes 2015, pp- 1251).
Copyright law can be construed within the theoretical perspective of music as cultural product. Alvera et al. (2016, pp-400) have discussed the history as well as formation of primary copyright legislation, in the context of US works during the nineteenth century. At this juncture, the U.S creativity market had stringent regulatory laws of copyright. However, international-authored works did not have any copyright protection under the U.S copyright law. Such a situation has pushed many American creative artists to develop literature which had been notably diverse from foreign-authored works. At this juncture, Buccafusco and Fagundes (2015, pp-2433) have drawn relevance to the cultural theory which opposes that copyright law must nurture a justifiable and attractive culture. Such a theory shows propensity towards paternalism since it postulates to stimulate creative works for the growth of mankind instead of restricting the opportunities to creative works which increases the need for demand. Alvera et al. (2016, pp- 399) have noted cultural areas in which copyright regulations and policies are likely to be highly decisive and influential which include diversity, creative art, education and democracy. For these reasons, copyright reformers enthused by the cultural theoretical understandings are likely to seek to distinguish as well as improve obstacles which are imposed by copyright laws on areas of educational utilization of copyrighted works. On the other hand, Dutfield (2017, pp- 13) has pointed out that presentation and layout of creative works are vital in determining the possible copyright protection as well as enforcement whereby specific works are recognized and paid for. According to Lemley (2015, pp-1335) within contemporary popular-music industry such as sound recordings have for long served as a cultural entity which creative individuals are trying to make recognized and sold to clients.
Copyright law construed through theoretical aspect of culture
On the other hand, in the domain of classical music, the sheet-music industry attained its popularity thus making it highly significant in the market of popular music. For example, introduction of Google Books has had shown an unconstructive impact on the sales of sheet music. Such a decline of sale of sheet music has resulted due to huge accessibility of musical selections through Google books which has led consumers with opportunities of not paying full charges for any printed copy (Nagaraj 2017, pp-3091). According to Bechtold, Buccafusco and Sprigman (2015, pp-1251), plagiarizing or scanning musical store is usually considered to be cost-effective and easier as compared to copying or scanning the entire novel or book. The cost of sheet music typically tends to exceed the cost of a paperback book. As a result, there can be observed an economic benefit with the easily accessible technology in support of cash-impecunious individuals to encroach on the act of copy-right of sheet music along with other easily copy able cultural products.
Technological change has confronted copyright law as well as administration. At this juncture, Yuan and Zhou (2015, pp-1000) have postulated that technological developments in relation to expansion and access to technical expertise which has created a setting that shows higher level of obtainability to the class of inexpert. Comprehensive studies have found several forms of imaginative representation along with production as well as distribution obtainable to not only the unskilled individuals but also to the experts. It is imperative to note that digital photography has been gradually attaining recognition while the cost of digital musical instruments along with software as well as digital distribution for recorded music which has declined dramatically. According to Leung and Wang (2015, pp-1021), it is to certain extent possible for unskilled creative artists like musicians to home-record, produce and further shares their music without charging any costs. Such creative forms still show great challenges for amateurs to properly avail or create any forms of imaginative piece of work that acknowledge significant copyright protection and are likely to continue producing for the original creators. However, in the view of Kim and Zhong (2017, pp-19), the present scenario associated with the link between copyright, earnings and creation of novel imaginative would appear to involve effective defunding of certain artistic pieces of work as cultural product. For instance, the sale of recorded music has lost its ground as a source of earnings for number of music composers, columnists and travel writers who have been gradually losing their importance in the field of art and media as newly developed media are outsourcing writing in order to provide content to audience by paying a small amount of the established rates. Buccafusco and Fagundes (2015, pp-2433) in their study has found that digital technology along with increasing demands of Internet has destabilized and challenged copyright and consequently weaken the source of revenue of creative individuals who significantly relied on copyright-related earnings. In the view of Likar, Cankar and Zupan (2015, pp-209), copyright is neither a mystic restorative of growth nor acts as an obsolete paradigm. Copyright laws offers pragmatic tool in order to stimulate investments in certain types of cultural production which is driven towards market demand. However, since copyright validation does not require being ‘all-or-nothing’ matter, welfares from copyright law has been distinguished instead of being obligated to a complete war on piracy. By drawing relevance to these insights, it has been noted that since individuals possess great imaginative power naturally, it is quite improbable that in the absence of copyright, unskilled or amateurs would stop creating novel imaginative works. Moreover, the types of novel works which can attainably be materialized without any acts of breaching privacy or copyright regulations, thus constraining the growth of creativity-related earnings. Thus, domain of creativity works in the absence of constructive protection and administration are likely to get challenged and will encounter a decline in the wide range of novel imaginative works which can be successfully created (Edwards et al. 2015, pp-72).
Conclusion
Hence to conclude, the era of advanced knowledge has brought important changes to the context where creativity gets exhibited, acknowledged, retailed and shared. Nevertheless, such an upsurge of innovative knowledge has also weakened the influence of copyright regulation to control the patent or copyright authorities as well as establishments. Money-making industries in provision of creative works serve contributory role in offering artists fitting to marginal or underprivileged backgrounds, the occasion to contribute their diverse thoughts and judgements to the creative cultural pattern. It is vital to note that digital photography has been progressively attaining recognition although the cost of digital musical apparatuses along with software as well as digital sharing of recorded music has declined intensely. Copyright is neither a mystic restorative of growth nor acts as an obsolete paradigm. Copyright laws offers practical tool in order to motivate investments in certain types of cultural production which is driven towards market demand.
References
Alvera, S., Zaidi, S.M., Ali, K. and Fatima, N., 2016. Cognizance of Intellectual Property Rights and Digital Rights Management among Library Professionals and Research Scholars in the Faculty of Social Sciences at Aligarh Muslim University. International Research: Journal of Library and Information Science, 6(3).
Bechtold, S., Buccafusco, C. and Sprigman, C.J., 2015. Innovation heuristics: Experiments on sequential creativity in intellectual property. Ind. LJ, 91, p.1251.
Buccafusco, C. and Fagundes, D., 2015. The moral psychology of copyright infringement. Minn. L. Rev., 100, p.2433.
Dawson, P.H. and Yang, S.Q., 2016. Institutional repositories, open access and copyright: what are the practices and implications?. Science & Technology Libraries, 35(4), pp.279-294.
Dutfield, G., 2017. Intellectual property rights and the life science industries: a twentieth century history. Routledge.
Edwards, L., Klein, B., Lee, D., Moss, G. and Philip, F., 2015. Discourse, justification and critique: towards a legitimate digital copyright regime?. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 21(1), pp.60-77.
Fiesler, C., Lampe, C. and Bruckman, A.S., 2016, February. Reality and perception of copyright terms of service for online content creation. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (pp. 1450-1461). ACM.
Geiger, C., 2018. Freedom of Artistic Creativity and Copyright Law: A Compatible Combination. UC Irvine L. Rev., 8, p.413.
Jensen, M., 2016. The open book: creative misreading in the works of selected modern writers. Springer.
Kim, Y.J. and Zhong, C.B., 2017. Ideas rise from chaos: Information structure and creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 138, pp.15-27.
Lemley, M.A., 2015. Faith-based intellectual property. UCLA L. Rev., 62, p.1328.
Leung, K. and Wang, J., 2015. Social processes and team creativity in multicultural teams: A socio?technical framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(7), pp.1008-1025.
Likar, B., Cankar, F. and Zupan, B., 2015. Educational model for promoting creativity and innovation in primary schools. Systems research and behavioral science, 32(2), pp.205-213.
Nagaraj, A., 2017. Does copyright affect reuse? Evidence from google books and wikipedia. Management Science, 64(7), pp.3091-3107.
Pager, S.A., 2017. The Role of Copyright in Creative Industry Development. Law and Development Review, 10(2), pp.521-576.
Yuan, F. and Zhou, J., 2015. Effects of cultural power distance on group creativity and individual group member creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(7), pp.990-1007.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
