Wikipedia

Creative Commons: Perbedaan antara revisi

Jelajahi riwayat secara interaktif
← Revisi sebelumnyaRevisi selanjutnya →
Konten dihapus Konten ditambahkan
VisualTeks wiki
Tidak ada ringkasan suntingan
Tidak ada ringkasan suntingan
Baris 9:
 
 
The Creative Commons has drawn sometelah positivemenarik responsesbeberapa andrespon ispositif growingdan insemakin popularitypopuler. ItDiperkirakan wasbahwa estimatedlima thatjuta fiveitem millionyang itemstersedia weredi availablebawah underlisensi CC licensesper as of OctoberOktober 2004 ("MovementGerakan Seek," 2004);, somebeberapa 145 million creations hadjuta beenkreasi registeredtelah asterdaftar ofsebagai JuneJuni 2006 (Rohter, 2006). ManyBanyak newsberita storiestelah haveditulis beententang writtenpenggunaan aboutdan thekeberhasilan uses and success oflisensi CC licenses (e.g.misalnya, Chmielewski, 2004; "MovementGerakan SeeksBerusaha," 2004; Rohter, 2006). ASejumlah numberulama ofjuga scholarsmencatat have also noted the potential of thepotensi Creative Commons tountuk servemelayani publickepentingan interestspublik (Gasaway, 2003; Jones, 2004; Merges, 2004;, O'Hara, 2003; Reichman & Uhlir, 2003; Stoeltje, 2004;, Wagner, 2003) .
 
Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk menguji apakah Creative Commons dapat menyelesaikan konflik sekitarnya hukum hak cipta di era digital. Kerangka teoritis yang membimbing penyelidikan fokus penelitian ini diambil dari Kim (2005). Secara singkat, kerangka yang berpendapat bahwa ada dua visi bersaing dari dasar-dasar hukum hak cipta: ". visi kebijakan publik"a"milik pribadi" visi dan Visi milik pribadi begitu disebut karena mereka yang mendukung itu percaya bahwa hak cipta berasal sebagai hak milik penulis hukum alam, dan bahwa penulis yang membuat karya asli berhak untuk memiliki hak milik atas pekerjaan mereka. Penekanan visi milik pribadi adalah pada kepentingan pribadi penulis dalam mengendalikan penggunaan karya cipta sebagai milik mereka. Visi kebijakan publik, sebaliknya, diadakan oleh mereka yang mencatat hak cipta yang secara historis berkembang sebagai hibah masyarakat dari monopoli terbatas, dan yang berpikir bahwa hak-hak penulis harus mempertimbangkan kebebasan orang lain untuk menggunakan karya berhak cipta. Visi ini disebut visi kebijakan publik, karena menggarisbawahi pentingnya kepentingan publik dalam mengakses dan menggunakan karya berhak cipta. Hal ini juga menggarisbawahi peran hak cipta sebagai suatu kebijakan publik yang bertujuan untuk mencapai keseimbangan yang tepat antara kepentingan pribadi dan kepentingan umum.
The purpose of this study is to examine whether the Creative Commons can resolve the conflict surrounding copyright law in the digital era. The theoretical framework that guides the focal inquiry of this study is taken from Kim (2005). In brief, that framework posits that there are two competing visions of the fundamentals of copyright law: a "private property" vision and a "public policy vision." The private property vision is so termed because those who support it believe that copyright originated as a natural law property right of authors, and that authors who create original works deserve to have property rights over their work. The emphasis of the private property vision is on the private interests of authors in controlling the use of copyrighted works as their property. The public policy vision, in contrast, is held by those who note that copyright has historically developed as society's grant of a limited monopoly, and who think that the rights of authors must be weighed against the freedom of everyone else to use the copyrighted work. This vision is termed the public policy vision, because it underscores the importance of public interests in accessing and using copyrighted work. It also underlines the role of copyright as a matter of public policy that aims to achieve a proper balance between private interests and public interests.
 
Kedua visi bersaing telah bentrok di seluruh pengembangan 300-tahun hukum hak cipta, tetapi konflik antara mereka telah meningkat di era digital. Advokat dari visi milik pribadi berharap bahwa teknologi digital akan memungkinkan pemegang hak cipta untuk mengumpulkan biaya untuk setiap penggunaan hak cipta karya-karya mereka (misalnya, Goldstein, 2003). Sebaliknya, mereka mengamati pelanggaran hak cipta besar-besaran. Penyedia konten, termasuk industri musik, yang putus asa untuk melembagakan mekanisme penegakan yang kuat terhadap menyalin untuk melindungi kepemilikan mereka.
The two competing visions have clashed throughout the 300-year development of copyright law, but the conflict between them has escalated in the digital era. Advocates of the private property vision hoped that digital technology would enable copyright holders to collect fees for each use of their copyrighted works (e.g., Goldstein, 2003). Instead, they observed massive copyright infringement. Content providers, including the music industry, are desperate to institute a vigorous enforcement mechanism against copying to protect their ownership.
 
Pendukung visi kebijakan publik berharap bahwa teknologi digital akan meningkatkan produksi dan berbagi produk budaya (misalnya, Benkler, 2000; Kranich, 2004). Sebaliknya, mereka mengamati bahwa hukum hak cipta kontemporer telah menjadi begitu ketat sehingga risiko menghambat inovasi masa depan dan kreativitas. Sebagai contoh, Samuelson (nd) menyatakan bahwa industri besar hari ini hak cipta, takut kehilangan besar kontrol atas materi berhak cipta karena perkembangan teknologi, telah melobi untuk mendapatkan lebih banyak kontrol konsumen dibandingkan mereka yang pernah miliki sebelumnya. Demikian pula, Boyle (2004) menulis bahwa kebijakan kekayaan intelektual kontemporer adalah "dalam goyangan dari 'hak budaya' a ​​maximalist yang mengarah debat sesat" (Sejarah, paragraf. 4).
Proponents of the public policy vision hoped that digital technology would promote production and sharing of cultural products (e.g., Benkler, 2000; Kranich, 2004). Instead, they observed that contemporary copyright law has become so restrictive that it risks impeding future innovation and creativity. For example, Samuelson (n.d.) stated that today's major copyright industries, fearing a substantial loss of control over copyrighted material because of technological developments, have lobbied to gain more control over consumers than they have ever had before. Similarly, Boyle (2004) wrote that contemporary intellectual property policy is "in the sway of a maximalist 'rights-culture' which leads debate astray" (Introduction, para. 4).
 
The birth of the Creative Commons is closely related to the concern that the attempts of copyright holders to protect ownership of their copyrighted material are threatening users' freedoms. CC Chairman Lessig, noting the changes that copyright law has undergone (2004b), argued that there has been a shift from "free culture" to a restrictive, permission culture (2004a). When he said free culture, he meant free in the sense of "freedom," not in the sense of "no payment." People used to have freedom to create, to use cultural resources, to criticize others using the culture around them. However, Lessig states that "those freedoms are increasingly restricted. And the question becomes, how do we respond?" (2004b, p. 10). One response that Lessig and others who share the public policy vision have suggested is the Creative Commons, which aims "to build a layer of reasonable, flexible copyright in the face of increasingly restrictive default rules" ("Some Rights Reserved," n.d.).
Diperoleh dari "https://wiki-indonesia.club/wiki/Creative_Commons"