Barrett, Brian. (2012, January 17). What is SOPA?
Retrieved from http://kotaku.com
Sopa was a bill that was being pushed through congress with alarming speed in the spring of 2012. It would have given power to record labels to disconnect the American internet from foreign IP’s that provided access to pirated or copyright-infringing content. However, this bill did not stop there. It also gave these record labels the ability to take down IP’s or content that infringed on copyrights without a court hearing. It was feared that should this enormous power be given to record labels that they would destroy the internet as we know it.
Falkvinge, Rick. (2012, September 25). Opinion: Why file-sharing cannot and should not be stopped.
Retrieved from http://CNN.com
The copyright industry has made great strives to stop file-sharing because the rampant piracy that happens via peer-to-peer file-sharing. However, Falkvinge makes the argument that record labels should give up on their legal battles against this movement. He makes several interesting claims as to why. Firstly, in the near future, harddrives will be available to the public in sizes up to 60 terabytes. This is large enough to store the a copy of all music that has ever been digitally recorded. Additionally, phones are able to communicate and share data, without leaving logs or traces of having done so at up to 25 meters. This leads Falkvinge to say that very soon, everyone will be able to have a copy of all recorded music without having to pay for it in the very near future.
Rimmer, Matthew. (2007). Digital copyright and the consumer revolution: Hands off my ipod.
Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
The first chapter of Rimmer’s work talks a lot about the Supreme Court case, Eldred V. Ashcroft, in which the ability to extend copyright duration was declared constitutional in a 2:7 majority ruling. Rimmer talks further about the historians Mark Rose, Tyler Ochoa, and Edward Waltersheid who brought forth evidence against the ability to extend copyright in court. They found that the founders had intended to prevent the formation of “oppressive monopolies” in the publishing business, and had therefore made copyright duration limited. They had hoped to stimulate creativity by preventing people from copying a work for a time, but also that the public should have access to a work after a certain amount of time.