WEEK5 What can I share on the internet?

     It’s one click on Spotify or Youtube and one can listen to the newest releases of the worlds greatest artists, Instagram, TikTok and other platforms are used to share art, hundreds of platforms offer pirated versions of the newest movies or series. An uncontrollable flow of information on a private and commercial level, blurring the definitions of laws and copyrights that were defined in a pre-internet era. Laws to protect creators’ rights, but also to allow users to freely share information when no commercial intentions are involved. In 2012 two members of the Swedish Pirate Party wrote a proposition for politically restructuring and clarifying the laws of copyright.

    In the Report “The Case for Copyright Reform” the authors highlight that restricting the act of sharing information on a non-commercial basis, would infringe upon basic human rights. I agree that limiting the use of information on a personal level should not be legal. The only way to enforce such a rule would be to strip any interpersonal communication of its privacy, which the report also mentions. The internet allows an easier way of sharing and copying information; however, it also enables the tracking of the people reached and its source, therefore assigning responsibility is possible. As it can reach more people without commercialization it is more difficult for creators to profit from their product. In my opinion the suggestion in the report to decide upon whether there is a “motive for profit” would not be fair to the original creator of a piece, as the idea lacks a clear definition. There should be a free space where one can utilize elements of somebody else’s creation, without the need to register it and pay a commission. However, in my opinion, if the “offspring” creation becomes profitable (viral), the original artist should benefit as well and to make this fair, clear guidelines need to be defined.

    The report mentioned that through politics a step to clarify the legality of such situations was necessary, however the specifics would need to be clarified by each sector themselves. I think the report should have given some more specific points, before leaving the rest open for other bodies to decide. However, in general I agree with the report, as it also highlights a reform that needs to be conducted. One of the ideas I found appealing was the five-year registration limit, owning the copyrights for the first five years before having to register it for a prolongation. However, this would not only require national laws but also unison international set of rules. I think that is going to be the greatest challenge, to have the same copy-rights internationally, as governing bodies such as the UN or EU face difficulties trumping national rulings.

    The importance of the report cannot be disputed at a current time, where TikTok dancers make millions, while using songs they did not write, or remixes are listened to more than the original songs. However, whilst Sweden might implement some of these ideas, it cannot control the borderless web, therefore a unilateral, international decision is required, if the rights are to be fair to everybody.