Monday, January 23, 2012

It’s 2012. Does anyone still care about copyright?

Unless you were living in a cave last week, you know the answer to this question. Regardless of your view of the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) or Protect IP Act (PIPA), it is clear that most people instinctively believe that content creators have a right to monetize their work.  There is a general consensus that piracy is wrong.   The real debate is about how to make acts of piracy rare outliers without inhibiting the viral flow of content across the internet.

Everyone wants his or her ideas and creations heard, promoted in some way large or small, and to receive proper reward for unique expression. It shouldn’t matter whether the creator is a big movie studio with billions invested in blockbuster movies or an individual blogger typing away in a bedroom. The power of the network makes it possible for even the smallest voice to have a wide audience. A wide audience and a unique creation can bring profit as well as pirates. It’s that way in the physical world as well as the digital world.

Since the overwhelming majority of people agree that content creators should be rewarded for their work, allowing people to easily “do the right thing” is the greatest anti-piracy formula of all. iCopyright is dedicated to enabling content owners (whether large or small) and content users to transact easily, instantly, and economically. With iCopyright, digital publishers can promote the viral distribution of their articles while still getting compensated wherever the articles travel.

The primary barrier to addressing piracy for articles on the web is not inadequate regulation or technology -- it is the inconsistent approach most publishers take to the distribution and monetization of their content. Many publishers unwittingly encourage infringement and suggest that their content is free for the taking. You can’t profit from your creations if you don’t set consistent expectations and make compliance easy.

Whatever becomes of SOPA and PIPA, we’re delighted to witness an enhanced awareness of copyright and piracy. If you are a publisher of articles, the technology already exists to promote, protect, and profit from your content – just visit  Publishers of all sizes should take advantage of this moment in time to assess how their websites promote their rights and make it easy for users to reward them for their creations.

1 comment:

  1. I don't understand the idea of iCopyright.

    When I write an article in my blog that is publicly available, then I want that article to be read by as many people as possible. This only can be achieved when certain readers copy the whole article or parts of it and share it on their platform.
    Without allowing that, it is nearly impossible to get that many of interested people to one single site (i.e my single blog or forum) than to different places.

    The idea of writing to the public is that the posts can be read by the public.
    If I had concerns about some people copying and sharing my thoughts, why should I write my articles in an open blog or forum? -- I then should write it in a closed community that can only be accessed by those I trust. But then my words never would shake the world.

    if I have to earn money with my writings, I should not write publicly accessible articles. I then should lock my words and open that lock only for paying readers.
    Only some short excerpts should be for the public viewer, but never the whole content. This way the reader can decide himself if it's worth paying for the whole article or not.
    It is completely wrong to sue people of copying parts of your blog's articles when they are fully available to the public. It's the writers fault to not protect his content from public view.

    A further thing I dislike is the regulatory thing:
    I can't write my real thoughts when I must be afraid of someone else already wrote a similair thing, just waiting to claim his/her copyright.
    That's like peer-reviewing: You can only write those things for that you got an ok from the reviewer.
    But the internet was, is and has to be a place to publicly give one's opinion without passing a regulatory office first.

    And at last my point of view why iCopyright is senseless:
    There already exist a 'basic' copyright law in many different countries that automatically protects your writings in the internet as soon as you have posted them.
    If you now want to sue people that share your ideas as theirs you can already do that. But that's too expensive for 'a blogger typing away in a bedroom'. Especially if the data thief as a 'billion dollar company'.
    Thus this copyright law doesn't make any sens either.

    Important final note:
    This text is NOT copyrighted. Please share it, so everyone can read my opinion!