First and foremost, let us make sure we have the proper ideas of all terminology. Copyrights are set of laws granted to an author of an original work that include, rights for that work to be copied, distributed, and adapted. After a period of time, this work enters what is known as the public domain. This period of time, is internationally standardized between fifty to one hundred years after the author’s death or in corporation’s case, less than fifty years. As soon as anyone creates anything, whether it be a sketch on a napkin, or blue prints for a new invention, the creator has copyright over it (Sherman, Brad). Copyright was first introduced in US laws in the Copyright Clause in the Constitution to, “promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” It has been in the past couple of decades; however, that copyright laws do not fully promote said goal, as technologies changed. Thus, copyleft was introduced as “tag along” license of copyrights. Most simply, copyleft is a form of tweaking copyright licensing, so that others are granted permission to reproduce, adapt or distribute work as long as the derivative works are remain under copyleft. This became most useful for computer programs which could be tweaked for different purposes or reasons to ensure the “promoting of science and useful arts.” It has been even more recent, however, that a movement for even more freedom of creative works be introduced for this goal. This is the Free Culture Movement. Said to start in 1998, this movement promotes the freedom to display, distribute, and allow derivative work in the form of free content through the use of the internet and other such medias. This idea, unlike the “tagging along” of copyleft, the Free Culture Movement pushes to eliminate copyright laws. Members of the movement claim such laws as copyright, ultimately hinder the growth of culture.
There are countless cases of how copyright crumbles under new technologies. For example, two citizens of India made an “app” on facebook very similar to America’s Scrabble. It is a big deal, because these two acquire $25,000 a month for this game, so it is clearly a commercial gain, not a personal use issue. An even bigger issue is that Scrabble is so old, it should belong in the public domain. The game was developed in 1938; that is 72 years ago. Remember that copyright in cooperation’s case hold rights for the creation for less than fifty years, thus Hasbro holds no credibility in suing these two men, who simply made a derivative work of a common game on facebook. A change was made In the copyright law however, since the time of the game’s creation. The current law says, that Scrabble is protected 100 years after the death of the creator, which would protect the game until 2063. However, when the game was created it was protected by the copyright law, only reserving the rights until 1994 (Scrabulous Highlights). So if the changes in the law were created, what ultimately, in this case, promotes the “sciences and useful arts?” Hasbro, yes ,has every right to be upset someone else is making money off their game online, but these people beat them to it, and the game is more than 70 years old. The bottom line is, the game is old enough to undisputedly, belong in the public domain, and thus the Indian citizens were right in making the derivative work available on facebook. If Hasbro wants to avoid damage from the public eye, they simply need to make their own “app” on facebook of the original Scrabble users will know and love.
As there are countless examples of how copyright fails in the 21st century, there are even more examples of how adaptations were made of copyright using copyleft. Perhaps the most well known example of copyleft is of the well known internet browser, Mozilla Firefox. Mozilla is a open source software. That means, it is free for anyone to use (Mozilla Code Licensing). No one is taking Mozilla, “reskinning” it and calling it their own. That is because of copyleft. There are countless add-ons and skins for Firefox, but as long as the program is still Firefox, everyone stays happy. Those people who have an idea of a reskin for Firefox, simply make it available online, but make sure that they specify it is for Firefox. The derivative work, holds the same rights as the original, credit is given where earned, to both creators. A hundred years ago, the closest example to this would seem, painting a house a different color, and giving credit to the painter, and architect. This proves then how copyleft promotes the expansion of human culture, science, and art. Unlike how, if Microsoft releases Office, one cannot view the code and change settings, because Microsoft is not protected under copyleft. So as technology changes, so must our laws, and yes, copyleft is a prime example of this evolution.
In a more extreme, less commercial, cases, the Free Culture Movement proved great success in its promotion of human knowledge. This movement sparked the creation of Creative Commons which grants easy, free licensing, to any internet user creating new media in of any sort. For example, If something is protected by the “CC,” it is allowed multiple options set by the creator. This means, CC has a collection of all things in both the instantly in public domain group and in the protected group. Creative Commons is useful in that it skips the steps and avoids corruption when going through a process of seeking permission to use work, as original required by copyright laws (Creative Commons). Such examples of groups using CC are Flickr, Google,music artists, and multiple open source software. This avoids such problems caused by copyright laws such as that with the Indian citizens and Hasbro, because it is very clear what permissions are granted. This movement lead to the creation of Creative Commons, and will push for more new ideas of how to protect the creators of their ideas, if wanted to be, while promoting useful arts and science.
The success of copyleft/Free Culture Movement lead, not to a pre-copyright, pre-modern period in humanity, but instead made it publicly known the importance of how, as technology changes, so must the laws which protect creators, if they want to be, for the ultimate promotion of humanity’s knowledge, culture, and art. With newer and newer technologies, technicalities emerge from the old copyright laws, thus new laws must be established, for not every work created is for profiting purposes, some simply are to advance the arts and science, and should enter the public domain immediately.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, United States Constitution
"Mozilla Code Licensing." Mozilla.org - Home of the Mozilla Project. Web. 30 Mar. 2010. http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/.
"Scrabulous Highlights the Failure of American Copyright Law." The Inquisitr | News. Web. 30 Mar. 2010. http://www.inquisitr.com/2010/scrabulous/.
Sherman, Brad, and Lionel Bently. The Making of Modern Intellectual Property Law: the British Experience, 1760-1911. Cambridge [England]: Cambridge UP, 1999. Print.
"Speech Transcript - Craig Mundie, The New York University Stern School of Business." Microsoft Corporation. Web. 30 Mar. 2010. http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/craig/05-03sharedsource.mspx.
"The Tyranny of Copyright? - NYTimes.com." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. Web. 30 Mar. 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/25/magazine/the-tyranny-of-copyright.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2.
Warren, Jim C. (July 1976). "Correspondence". SIGPLAN Notices (ACM) 11 (7): pp. 1–2.
"Who Uses CC? -." Creative Commons. Web. 30 Mar. 2010. http://creativecommons.org/about/who-uses-cc/.
