BLOG 7. Why free culture matters?

A free culture is a relationship between the copyright owner and the public who should not ask people to copy and share each other's creations. It is also a set of practices that make this philosophy work in the real world.

This movement opposes excessive copyright laws. Many people who participate in this movement argue that overly restrictive copyright laws interfere with creative activity,

Free culture can freely use books, movies, songs, and a variety of other media. There, people can edit or edit. By doing so, new works can be formed. In other words, a new work can be formed based on the existing work.

Within the legal framework, we can use some of our other works. But the standard is ambiguous. You can create a new creation under the influence of another person's work, but it can be a problem if the creation is nearly identical to the existing one. A free culture can give us new and diverse content, but it can be plagiarism and fraud, so be careful.

We must prevent free cultural copyright infringement and legal problems. It should also be noted that a free culture may trigger a transition of new culture and new thinking, but it may also function to prevent it from developing.

Who will benefit from the free culture in which restrictive copyright laws are banned from creative activities and who will be the thread?
Without copyright law, can people perform ethically and socially well?

Comments

  1. shingieunJune 27, 2019 at 10:29 PM

    I don't think anyone can benefit from the question 'Who will benefit from the free culture in which resilient copyright laws are Banned from creative activites and who will be the Thread?'In the moment, artists may benefit, but if they look at it in the long run, it is also a loss to creators.And without copyright law, it would be socially damaging. Who would want to do creative work if they weren't recognized for their creations?

    ReplyDelete

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