Jong Beom Cho_Copyright_Tue 9AM

Copyright

 

Everyone likes freebies. The same logic applies to the intellectual properties such as films, documents, songs. Although producers and originators of such properties seldom give their products out for free, people find a loophole and try to acquire them without paying. There are regulations for the violation of the copyright law; however, it is still widely practiced around the world. Despite the law and regulations, the numbers are growing steadily. This shows that current regulation system is highly ineffective and it calls for a new system to manage the rising dispute about the copyright.

 

             First thing to break down is a question of "why do people rebel against the copyright law?" It is a same as buying groceries at a supermarket and paying for one's phone bill. However, people are strangely sensitive when it comes to paying for intellectual property. It is because of the risk. Often many goods and services we willingly buy are free from risk. We are able to measure them thoroughly and there are many certificates and quality control system that tells people something is worth buying. However, when it comes to intellectual property, the risk is often very high. In other words, it is very hard for the public to judge the item before they purchase it. For instance, one can never know how much Ironman 3 will increase one's utility. Therefore, people try desperately to avoid the risk and go for the risk-free way of trying the film: illegal download. Thus, we must understand that it is the concept of risk that is driving people to become an outlaw in the world of copyright.

 

             Since it is risk that people are scared of the obvious way to resolve the copyright issue is by eliminating the risk. Of course, there are some measures being taken to reduce the risk, such as previews and samples. However, consumers are highly skeptic about the marketing schemes and in order to get them to open their wallet is getting more and more difficult. The current regulation system ignores these consumer behaviors entirely and trying to force them to buy things they cannot trust or think too risky. To get the consumers to pay, we must make them feel it is fair. Therefore, more market base approach must be made so that the consumer will feel they are not being ripped off.

 

             In an auction, every item's price is determined by people. Consumers decide the fair price. In contrast, intellectual properties are pre-priced by the originator and leave no room for people to negotiate the price, therefore, making consumers feel they are taking a great risk and increase their doubt about the product. To solve this there must be some kind of auction system in the market for intellectual property. Then people will be able to pay what they think is enough and will feel less risky.

             To settle the dispute about the copyright matter, a market oriented approach must be taken. Only market can decrease the consumer risk and set the right price. In addition, market system will in a big picture bring what was the real of the underground economy into a realm of legal and fair trade. Regulating people's behavior by whip is almost never effective. In short term it may show some result but in long run it will wipe out the entire industry. We must provide carrots for people, in other word, make them decide what is right. It is the only way to create a sustainable system.

Kayeong Kim / Intellectual Property / Tue 9 a.m.

 Intellectual Property is one's personal assets and it is interesting that we can never see its shape. It covers almost every sector such as literature, arts and scientific technology. Since we don't regard it as a product, it is hard to value it. The problem of intellectual property comes from this reason. It is in our mind and head, we cannot figure out who first had this. I mean the border is ambiguous.

 I agree that there are many pros for protecting intellectual property much stronger. They argue that it is also one's property and we should respect their hard work – mentally hard work. And sometimes it seems they couldn't be paid properly. First, we cannot judge their efforts by their outputs. Second, many people think mental activity is just for self-contentment. I understand those arguments from both sides. However my point of view is different.

 First of all, I would like to express my personal opinion in intellectual property. I think today's intellectual property is overestimated. In my opinion, we need to develop much balanced rule or law for protecting intellectual property. It is unfair that one hit song or one essay could afford one person's entire life by its royalties, while others need to work till they become old and weak. I don't want to say they didn't do their best. I just want to say it sounds weird that metal labor has much value than manual labor.

 It is because the law tends to protect intellectual property too much. The law needs to be standard and minimum way to adopt it everywhere. So it cannot capture a butterfly effect of a certain intellectual property. For example, a famous singer Psy, he introduced 'Gangnam Style' and it became a global song. So he has get love calls from advertisement companies. He earned a great deal of money and his royalty of song is not to mention.

 I would like to mention that the song has other benefit that can be change into other valuable things. I do not mean that we need to share everything because of that effect. Rather than that, I think we need to systemize to value intellectual property much accurate way. It is hard to capture, but it should contain the butterfly effect also.

Hwanhee Rhee_Tue 9 a.m._ Argument

The late Mr. Jin-Won Lee, the singer who was known as 'Moonlight Fairy's Reversing Grand Slam', died in 2010 due to his stroke. He was not a mainstream singer, but well known in the underground. Many people thought that he may not have hardships economically, because he had several hit songs, and lived a life without so many troubles.. However, he died because he had no money to cure his disease. In Korea, copyright law guaranteed the providers very poorly. In addition, most of fans who loved his music downloaded his songs illegally.

We should not make other Mr. Lees by giving more loyalties to musicians who produces their own contents. These days, we can download a song with 600 Won, and if we pay for 100 songs or over at once, it can be much cheaper. From this 600 Won, only 12 Won goes to the person who has a copyright. It means that if you are a musician, even if 100,000 of your fans download your song legally, you can only get 1.2 million Won. Let's remember. Mr.Lee's song, <I'm Hobbling> and <Show Me the Money> was very popular song in Korea so that many people thought that he was rich.

Second, the government should prohibit illegal downloads much more strictly. It is too easy to get some contents free illegally. Checking and arresting every single person who download contents illegally is too hard, so the government should track down all of providers who spreads contents illegally. It is not important whether they provide contents for free or not. They should punished much more strongly than before so that people get to know the significance of this crime.

Above all, consumers should change their minds. It sounds so ideal and unrealistic, but so necessary. If we do not change our minds, it is no use prohibiting it strongly. Someone will find a hole of the rule if they think they need to. We should know the importance of paying the contents so that we can enjoy it much better and longer.

One of the late Mr.Lee's songs, <Show Me the Money> is actually a love song, unlike the title. He sings that "Don't abandon me just like this world did to me." Maybe it was a love song for consumers who bought the song legally, unlike the most of people who did not. We should think again which way is the best way to enjoy the cultural contents both for us and makers.

Ahn Sang-wook/Argumentative Essay/Tue 9 AM

Argumentative Essay

ahn sang-wook

Copyright infringement in Internet is emerging as one of the controversial issues in Korea. It is mainly related with illegal downloading of some movies, music, and utilities. People easily download what they want to by using websites or programs like Torrent. They don't feel guilty and sometimes take the fact that they could freely download without paying for it for granted. However, it is an obvious crime which should be punished. Why then copyright infringement in Internet is considered as a serious issue and why we do not have to commit illegal downloading? Followings are three reasons why.

First of all, Copyright infringement has a high possibility of undermining a desire of creators. Creators who make movies, music, and utilities invest a lot of money to produce them. The process of making those productions is a series of input of money. For example, making a movie needs actors and staffs who are paid by creators and equipment which needs to be brought with expense. However, some people download those productions, thinking those things as "Free goods" like water, air, and wind. Producers then naturally are not rewarded from what they made and they cannot make new movie, music anymore. It is because they don't have enough money to produce again. They also cannot have any motivation to make them.

Secondly, Copyright infringement has not only an effect on a person but also an effect on the whole industry. It can be explainable when combining the background cited above with the following. For example, in the case of the movie industry, if producers cannot get a large amount of money than they spent, they cannot give enough money to many workers who were devoting themselves for making movies. That is, workers cannot receive the wages they are supposed to be given in time. We call this delayed payment of wage. Moreover, with the situation getting worse, no one might want to work at the movie industry. And the movie industry will suffer from the shortage of manpower. This results in the recession of movie industry. It is a vicious cycle started from copyright infringement.

In the end, Copyright in internet is protected by national copyright law so we have to observe the law as a citizen of a nation. Yes, this is so reasonable. No matter what others' opinion about copyright infringement, it really does not matter. We have to follow the law and that is the purpose of the presence of national copyright law. However, if some people freely download something in internet, they do break the law. Even though it looks trivial, breaking law is a serious problem not only to a person but also to the whole nation.

Some people might want to download without payment, thinking that nothing is harmful for them. They easily get fun while producers hardly get fun. If illegal download worsen, it has a high possibility of undermining a desire of producers and it affects the music, movie, and some other industry. Moreover it is a behavior of breaking national copyright law. Therefore, we should have a concept that we have to pay for productions which others make. It has to be observed not only in Internet but also in real society.

Lo Yun Seo(노윤서)/persuasive essay/tuesday_9-11am

   Can you imagine that you have earned money from your own efforts but you are robbed of yours by other people? It is true in our daily life. So I agree that people who plagiarize other people's materials have to be punished by law. Plagiarism means that wrongful publication of other people's language, thoughts, ideas or expression and the representation of them as one's own original work. And in korea we always discover those plagiarism everywhere such as paper, article, etc. Frankly perhaps some of students who write this assignment may plagiarism. So the plagiarism is too rampant in our world, before it's too later, we should strongly enforce the law that can punish plagiarists. I write down about my reasons why we should punish them severely.

  First of all, society have to protect us not to be infringed intellectual property rights. As the information-oriented society has arrived, our idea and thought are much more significant than ever. If we write a book, it becomes definitely our property just like land, ground. To tell the truth, the intellectual properties are much more weighty than any other tangible assets. But if we do not treat the plagiarism as a crime, we can lose those things, not noticing that. So we protect our intangible assets, we penalize those people strictly.

  Second reason is that plagiarism can make our planet stagnant condition. if the plagiarism is allowed, our creative thinkings in society are fade away. For example, as we do our assignment, if the plagiarism are not illegal, we do not try to make creative ideas and just search the internet's materials to copy it. If things come to this stage, everybody's materials are all the same and we can not view things from different angle. If we do not make critical thinking and creative thinking, It can be slow in progress in our society. So we must show the person no mercy at all.

  However, some people believe that plagiarism is not a serious problem and it should not be treated by a legal matter. They think if we just have awareness about the issue, the thing get resolved naturally. So they assert that we are not punished them by law. But as time goes by, our matters related to plagiarism that we are faced with in routine increase sharply. Therefore we can not assign this issue to our conscience. It is not a problem of individual conscience. It is obviously one of the most crucially societal issues. So we do not have other choice except that we punish the people rigidly who copy other's materials.

  For now, I write about my opinion that I disagree with them who think the plagiarism's issues do not have to deal with law. I assert that we should treat this problem by strict law to keep protection of intellectual property rights and to evolve our lives with creative thinkings. So if we do write a kind of materials such as articles, paper and report, we have to only use our own ideas. When we use other's assets, we must reveal the source of funding and identify it certainly.

Sunmin Lee/persuasive essay/tuesday 9

Intellectual Property has become controversial. Intellectual property (IP) rights, including patents and copyrights, are exclusive rights that are granted by the state for exploitation of intellectual creations. Once IP rights have been established, the property cannot be copied or used without the agreement of the owner. Some argue that IP rights should be abolished but my point is that it plays very important roles as it protect our valuable ideas and encourage creations in society.

First, "idea" itself has become a very important property for individuals and groups. In these days, physical property is not the only thing that should be protected. Although intangible, ideas are the most valuable assets for people, so it has to be safeguarded from being exploited by others. Think about drug companies. Before introducing new drugs to the market, drug companies put huge amount of time and effort. They spend years on researching, conducting medical tests, or clinical demonstrations and finally receive an approval from Drug Administration of the state. Just like producing final products, it requires even more efforts and time to create an idea. This shows why our creation of valuable ideas should be considered as our properties and that is what Intellectual Property rights exist for.

Second, if there is no IP, there would be no incentive for innovation. IP rights are to prevent our intellectual properties from being exploited and freely shared by others. Thus, without IP, people would not put efforts on creating new ideas as there would be no good for it any more. For example, if there is no copyrights system, there would be no nice music album or great entertaining movie released because there is no profit for original creators. However, if the ideas and intellectual products are protected under the law of intellectual property, it would encourage individuals and companies to come up with new and innovative ideas, which is also a good thing for the whole society.

Some say intellectual property rights should be abolished as there is no such thing as "intellectual" property. They think only "real" properties exist in the world and it should be the only subject for protection under the law. I partly agree that it is difficult to understand calling what are not tangible or real as "properties". However, we should not forget that all the products we use every day started from someone's ideas at first. To produce a brand new smart phone, Samsung or Apple start from creating an idea first and then get into manufacturing. This means that "ideas" should be considered as another kind of property and protected by IP laws.

Although IP issue is still controversial and confronts many challenges, I think government should defend their position for IP laws as "ideas" have become valuable properties and IP would encourage creative innovations in society. We should remember that Intellectual Property Rights exist not just for benefit of individuals or companies, but of all.

ChanLan Hong / Argumentative Essay / Tuesday / 9 a.m

To many of us, music serves as a mean of entertainment and a mean of relaxation of our mind and soul. In order to obtain music files, most of us sometimes download illegally from the Internet. Due to this, there has always been an ongoing debate over the issue of illegal music download from the Internet. On one side, illegal downloading does no harm to consumer, however, on the other hand, illegal music downloading also imposed negative effects on the music industry. In my opinion, illegal music downloading should be made legal.

           To begin with, music industries charge a ridiculous amount of money for the music CD depending on the singer's popularity. Instead of that, music industry can consider lowering the price suited for low-income consumers as well. For instance, a CD would costs by average $20. As for the CD by renowned singers, it would cost at minimum $50. This price would be fair if one is financially capable, however, this is a huge sum of money to most of us who do not earn that much of an income. Besides that, many times the consumers like only one or two songs. It is absurd having to pay for songs we do not like listening.

          While the music industry has been filing complaints about the loss of revenue due to illegal music downloading, I believe music industry has been making a fortune out of concerts. For example, tickets for concerts are not at all cheap. The minimum costs are as high as $150 as a stander, if one wishes to be  up-close to the singers as possible, VVIP seats would cost $300. Swarms of people filling up the concert hall would definitely bring an enormous fortune to the music industry. Furthermore, posters, magazines or any singer-related merchandise also generates side income for the music industry.

          Last but not least, many of us at most times, discover new artists by downloading free music from the Internet. I do not see how this is causing a negative impact to the music industry. Before an artist gets popular, his songs have to be largely promoted. If the consumers have to pay before even having a chance to get a preview of the song, consumers most likely would not make a purchase. If this happens, consumers will not have demand on this music product, and thus lead no supplies from the music industry. This could instead cause an economy downturn between suppliers and consumers. 

In conclusion, I think illegal music downloading should be made legal. Rather than having both the consumers and suppliers taking this matter to an extreme, there could be a way made possible for both sides. I comprehend completely about the dark side of illegal music downloading, but money constraint would tempt people to find cheaper or even free services on the Internet.