iEntry 10th Anniversary RSS Contact


Question Copyright Video

By: Aaron Wall
2007-08-14

A friend recently sent me a link to this Google Video about the history of copyright law, where Karl Fogel, of Question Copyright.org, debunks some myths surrounding copyright.

MYTH #1: Being an Artist was unprofitable before copyright law existed.
FACT: Completely false, see below:

MYTH #2: Copyright was created for artists.
FACT: It was the exact opposite. When copyright was created in the Middle Ages of England, it was about censorship. The printing press had just been invented, and people were publishing of all kinds of writings and reprinting text from throughout history. Parliament feared it, so it set up a corporation with powers to enforce an exclusive printing monopoly.

MYTH #3: Copyright protects artists.
FACT: It protects the publishers, and few artists earn the majority of their income from it. In fact, many artists see no money from it at all--it all goes to their publishers.

MYTH #4: Copyright prevents plagiarism.
FACT: Thanks to technology like the Internet, attribution of original authorship is easily detectable, especially when works are published. In many cases, plagiarism (e.g. taking the successful work of one artist and re-selling it under your name) is even EASIER to detect by performing a Google search than via the United States Copyright Office.

---

Copyright laws made more sense in the age of printing presses, but in the age of the Internet it is irrelevant. Distribution does not require significant investment by publishers. In the video Karl also said the following quote about what he thought fair copyright law should resemble:
    Your name can not be stripped and no one else can claim credit for it. That is credit, reputation is a non renewable resource. It can not be replicated. It can not be copied. To the degree that someone takes credit for your stuff, that's the degree to which you lose credit. It is always proportional.
I agree that current copyright law is messed up, but so is the way that Google handles what they deem to be search spam.


A work can be a collection of keywords and a navigational structure as much as it is a set piece of content. Trusted sites keep building more trust due to their visibility while untrusted sites have to send email spam or do other types of buzz related marketing to gain awareness.

If Google pays someone to steal your work and sets your (non-transferable) reputation at zero search is not a honest business model, especially if they have any hope of changing the world's perspective of copyright law, which they may need to do if they want to keep their current profit margins.


Comments

Tag:

Add to Del.icio.us | Digg | Reddit | Furl

Have a bookmark! -


About the Author:
Aaron Wall is the author of SEO Book, a dynamic website offering marketing tips and coverage of the search space, free SEO videos, and free SEO tools. He is a regular conference speaker, partner in Clientside SEM, and publishes dozens of independent websites.


Visit the SearchNewz Directory
Do you have a search site?
Submit it free to the internet's best search industry directory. » Click Here
Search Engines
Google, Yahoo, MSN...

Search Marketing
Marketing, Budget, Planning...

Pay Per Click
Bid, Price, Quality...
SEO Companies
Optimization, Manage, Company...

SEO Tools
Track, Search, Create...

Analytics
Statistics, Counter...
» Submit your site for FREE «

Latest News

Get Your Site Submitted for Free in the World's Largest B2B Directory!

Email Address:
* URL:
*
*Indicates Mandatory Field

Terms & Conditions



Titan Quest Forum Nintendo Wii Graphics Forum
Halo 3 Forum Mac Software

Privacy Policy Legal Sitemap Contact Us RSS Feeds Newsletter Archive SearchNewz.com Privacy Policy Legal Sitemap Contact Us RSS Feeds Newsletter Signup Subscribe to our feeds!