I think after all the material we watched, listened to, and read we can all agree copyrights are primarily intended to protect the author. I am not saying this is wrong at all, but it is the truth. We all have seen or heard of copyrights. If it was not in a law class then we all have seen that C symbol or Copr abbreviation somewhere. Original works should be rewarded completely, but seeing some of these copyright infringements I see the third party doing what copyrights claim they intend to do which is benefit the public. I stand with the author and believe they should be paid for their creativity and contributions to promote and advance art, but what I ask the class is where do you stand? With the author or the public?

Downloaded the documentary on Napster tells us the story of how college students did the unthinkable at that time period or how I see it started something revolutionary. Napster was a network where music could be exchanged online. As it gained popularity fast and rapidly spread the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) sued for copyright infringements along with the likes popular music creators like Dr. Dre and Metallica. Although this legal battle of Napster was lost and Napster is gone forever its impact is everlasting. Two teenagers Shawn Fanning and Sean Parker did something that is still used today in iTunes and other music downloading platforms that use similar softwares.

South Park won a lawsuit against a singer named Samwell over a copyright infringement. Samwell an internet sensation created a music video that went viral and blew up. South Park took this idea and ran with it. They took away all credit to Samwell and put the song What What (In The Butt) in one of their episodes. This copyright infringement does not benefit the public nor the creator but solely South Park. Samwell was not being paid for his song and dance being put in the show yet the case was dismissed. A clear copyright infringement was deemed as not substantial and did not impact Samwell’s market. I think otherwise, but we punish the creators of Napster and not big names. The intentions of both are clearly different.

The last two material that struck me were the article on techdirt by Mike Masnick and the academic article on Washington State University’s website. One article is saying that copyright’s sole purpose is to benefit the public and the other is saying it is to protect the creator. Congress and the Supreme Court constantly say copyrights primary purpose is to benefit the public, but is that really the case? Samwell someone who used their creativity to do something beneficial for themselves and the public was not protected by these laws. Copyright laws are intended to “promote and advance art”, but it does not seem that simple. Even Mozart a famous composer was found to be poor while the public enjoyed his works. Sometimes people do things because they love it and are not looking for payment, but some people are doing what they love for payment in hopes to one day be discovered and make a living off of what has a high meaning in their life. They create high demand things that we all want so it is only right the law protects them and their creations. Napster was for the common good what South Park did was for their own good. In both situations I did see creators being robbed of their ideas so maybe we should just be honest the copyright laws should protect the author first and the public second.

WEEKLY NEWS: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/music/story/2020-10-15/donald-trump-ice-cube-contract-with-black-america

Ice Cube reportedly collaborated with Trump and is now facing heat for it. He says it was solely for the black community, but others believe otherwise and he is a sellout. What do you think?