W7. Why Free Culture matters? - Hyerim Won
Free culture brings up the idea of copyright.
Copyright is becoming more controversial as the use of social networking sites has increased. However, Wikipedia, which is freely available regardless of copyright, has little to do with this controversy.
After all, the CCL (Creative Commons license) has become a hot topic of conversation recently. It distinguishes between people who will freely share their creations and people who will protect them. That is, a content copyright may attach certain conditions to its work, and under these conditions, make it freely available to anyone. In other words, it guarantees the freedom of both the creator and the user. Rather than excessive copyright law, it is expected that sharing can be activated by leaving it to the creators to set it up freely.
Then, our lives can be enriched as we experience various cultures. It is similar to Wikipedia's direction. You could see that last class. Most Wikipedian participate in Wikipedia with the significance of 'sharing' with many people. If Wikipedia take ownership fees, you might feel pressured to do well, and you might want to refuse to participate, or even abuse Wikipedia because you want to get fee.
It may sound like a word that says a free culture should be free, but the freedoms I want to talk about are similar to freedoms spoken by Richard Matthew Stallman .
He said in the software that ' free ' is not ' free ' like ' free beer ', but ' free ' like in ' free speech. '
However, we tend to convert them into values according to the costs of culture. If free culture were to be active, what would be the value of the creator or author? (Wikipedia is excluded because it is already a free culture.)
Copyright is becoming more controversial as the use of social networking sites has increased. However, Wikipedia, which is freely available regardless of copyright, has little to do with this controversy.
After all, the CCL (Creative Commons license) has become a hot topic of conversation recently. It distinguishes between people who will freely share their creations and people who will protect them. That is, a content copyright may attach certain conditions to its work, and under these conditions, make it freely available to anyone. In other words, it guarantees the freedom of both the creator and the user. Rather than excessive copyright law, it is expected that sharing can be activated by leaving it to the creators to set it up freely.
Then, our lives can be enriched as we experience various cultures. It is similar to Wikipedia's direction. You could see that last class. Most Wikipedian participate in Wikipedia with the significance of 'sharing' with many people. If Wikipedia take ownership fees, you might feel pressured to do well, and you might want to refuse to participate, or even abuse Wikipedia because you want to get fee.
It may sound like a word that says a free culture should be free, but the freedoms I want to talk about are similar to freedoms spoken by Richard Matthew Stallman .
He said in the software that ' free ' is not ' free ' like ' free beer ', but ' free ' like in ' free speech. '
However, we tend to convert them into values according to the costs of culture. If free culture were to be active, what would be the value of the creator or author? (Wikipedia is excluded because it is already a free culture.)
Comments
Post a Comment