#7 Why Free Culture matters?



I wanted to know the concept of "free culture," but when I opened the attached link, it was a page that didn't exist. So I'll tell you that this blog debate is something I personally found. The referenced links are as follows. 
(https://questioncopyright.org/what_is_free_culture).

The above site refers to free culture as follows: ‘ Free culture is a growing understanding among artists and audiences that people shouldn't have to ask permission to copy, share, and use each other's work; it is also a set of practices that make this philosophy work in the real world. The opposition to "free culture" is also described as "permission culture." Permission culture argues that a third party must grant permission to the original in order to translate the book. However, free culture insists that if you want to translate a book, you can just translate it.

With these explanations, I am more supportive of permission culture than of free culture. What is thought to be the biggest problem in free culture is "respect for each other." If you trespass on other people's territory and use them without permission, various problems can occur. You can make money by faking other people's things like you did, or you can break the will of the creator. In addition, social and economic cost losses will be involved. This will be a problem not only in the realm of art, but also in various fields of study, including social science, education, biology and physical education. In this regard, the concept of 'patent rights' came to mind. I think it is an important recognition in today's society as a legally protected right to one's work.


Discussion
If long-used materials were used in violation of copyright (10 years, 20 years or more), how do you think this problem should be solved?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Discuss Reagle’s chapters 3-4

Discuss Reagle’s chapters 3-4 I read the Reagle's chapters 3-4. I find two opinion. One thing is how to collaborate people on Wikipedia. Other is how to make open community on Wikipedia. How to collaborate people on Wikipedia. In the case of the English Wikipedia, there is a collaborative culture that asks its participants to assume two postures: a stance of neutral point of view on matters of knowledge, and a stance of good faith toward one’s fellow contributors. I think that people know the mood that must keep the rule on Wikipedia. If Wikipedia's mood is light, people write the light writing. Other is how to make open community on Wikipedia. I remember the discussion that Why the Women is smaller that the men on Wikipedia. I've heard from others the reason that women don't use it much because the community isn't friendly to women. I think that we try to create Wikipedia to use all the people no matter that the sex. I think it's a process ...
Read more

Discuss Reagle's Chapter3-4

In  the Reagle  Chapter 3-4, the troll and the ignore rules were impressive.  Troll is the one who destroys teamwork and leads the team to ruin.  Trolls, which are negative characters, help develop Wikipedia. Wikipedia finds the wrong information generated by the troll. And the information is modified by others. In that process, it results in more information production. There is an outlaw, similar to a troll. The lawless ignores all regulations, including copyright and reference. Like Trolls, they help develop Wikipedia. They are free to edit because they are out of regulation. The free edited content is modified by others, including attaching references and deleting content that is caught in copyright issues. Wikipedia develops as it takes care of these types of people.
Read more

Discuss Reagle’s chapter 5

Discuss Reagle’s chapter 5 It is hard to understand this chapter. When I used the Wikipedia, I thought I don't need to group communication. Because the communication space is hidden, so I don't find it. I'm hard to find the communication space on Wikipedia. I think that the Wikipedia communication is not good at working in Korea. There are not many advisers on Korea Wikipedia. The Wiktionary definitions for consensus speak of “general agreement,” “without active opposition to the proposed course of action. I found it important for members to reach an agreement on Wikipedia. It's not an easy task, but I think it can produce a good results. So I think that's why Wikipedia exists. It can appear in a chat window, and go and talk to the other person's chat room. Perhaps it ends up as a personal versus personal matter, but I think that's also an agreement. If conversation does not take place, I don't think an agreement is reached either. Wiki...
Read more