Law Schools are trying to reform copyright laws

A young man from Boston University doctoral student was sued for downloading music from the internet and was fined $22,500 for each track x 30 tracks = $675,000.00; and this to me isn't fair to single out one person out of a generation of people his age across the entire world!  If the entertainment industry wants to protect the copyrights of artists'; then they need to have legislation passed in the World Court to go after the website companies instead (of the younger generation)!  The R.I.A.A or Recording Industry Association is who filed suit against this young man in 2007, and they seem to be targeting college students for suit (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/business/global/02iht-riedmedia.html?amp=&pageswanted+print).  In 1999 the Copyright Act of 1976 was changed to make internet downloaders' that take songs or movies or any other intellectual property (especially songs to $150,000.00 per song); and how can the youth be able to afford this amount when they can buy an entire CD or DVD for under $20.00!  They are still obligated to pay their student loans when they graduate and on top of that, they have to pay these ridiculous amounts?

Another new idea has emerged, and educators like this new concept by allowing students to download their textboks from online stores because of the cost of the books from the universities; which can be around $1,000 to $1,200 a year (http://cnnmoney.printhis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Cut+school+costs%3A+Download+your+textbooks+-+Dec...).  Professors also like that they can put lectures on "IPhones" and can also modify the textbooks in the pdf format to their likening(CNN-Money).  Textbooks on average costs are increasing from 6% to 8% annually (CNN-Money).  Now students can go to "Flat World Knowledge" and "Course Smart" to purchase some textbooks in digital format (CNN-Money).  Some 2000 faculty members from over 500 universities signed a petition to have more affordable textbooks online and its time, because it is the 21st century!

Creative Commons has revolutionized the web not only in music but education, too.  Creative Commons is also helping to expand sharing in the Middle East (Jordan in Nov, 2009), with Al Jazeera Network for blogs and other distribution media sharing (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/esther-wojcicki/creative-commons-in2009_b_366548.html).  Stores are also using Creative commons license to promote their goods and services like "Nike and Best Buy"(huffingtonpost).  Creative Commons is taking off and there is no stopping it; and maybe that would be a solution for the music and movie industries to go with Creative Commons under their protected copyright license, instead of spending millions of dollars targeting college-age people!

Josh Woodward Part II of Assignment #3

This is a picture of the early pioneer of "Creative Commons"; and was taken in 2007 (www.wikipedia.org/joshwoodward)




Josh Woodward is from Findlay, Ohio and was tired of all the comotion of Napster; because of the downloading of artists' songs for free and the lawsuits that followed.  He is a singer and a songwriter and decided to fight back and placed a 150 of his original songs on his website for people to download for free and to encourage them to buy CD's through "Snickers Records"(http://www.joshwoodward.com/).  As a result of this briliant idea to allow people to download his music for free, it has led to "Creative Commons" to have millions of downloads a day.  The internet for freelancers or creative people using "Creative Commons" gives them the ability to showcase their talent or lack of to a niche audience.  As for Josh Woodward, he has had over a million downloads of his music and noteriety, too.

What is Creative Commons and what or whom does it help or hurt?

Creative Commons is a website that allows people (amateurs) to place their talent online under a license (one-for-all), for people to download the artists' works for free.  Some artists' can also have their works published under "Creative Commons" with some copyright protection.

A man name Allan Vilhan did just that; he joined "Megatune.com (an internet music distributor) that places an "all rights reserved" copyright language, with additional protection licenses reserved under "Creative Commons"(http://money.cnn.com/magazine/business2_archive/2004/05/01/368240/index.htm).
Allan Vilhan was able to make a small profit from a programmer that downloaded 2 versions of his two tracks, and was paid $450.00 to license them for music on a videogame (CNN-Money).  In addition, a design firm used Vilham's songs for a Flash presentation and paid him $370.00 (CNN-Money).  According to CNN, 'Megatune founder John Buckman has grossed in just two years-from 2003-2005, $180,000 for 126 musicians.  Plus, the free downloads gives these artists' exposure that they would not otherwise have and which may lead to commercial demand; where the real money is (CNN-Money).

This is just on example of how an artist can utilize "Creative Common" with a license or limited copyright protection.  But, there are artists' out there like "Pink Floyd", "ACDC", 'Jimi Hendrix", and movies blockbusters the "Titantic", that are under the Copyright Act of 1976 and are protected from internet free-downloading (CNN-Money).  I believe that these artists' should not have their creative works stolen from them whether or not it's a societal new phenomenum or not.  If artists choose to place their works under "Creative Commons" or any other free access site; then that's their business!  But, I feel personally that piratcy isn't a moral right, and therefore anyone who steals creativity from someone else should pay legally!