In the second chapter of his book Wired Shut: Copyright and the Shape of Digital Culture, Tartleton Gillespie explores the multifaceted structure of copyright, specifically its paradoxical nature, necessity and difficult definition. One topic that he introduces is the difficulty in defining “frictionless” property, property that still deserves the protection of copyright laws. Gillespie explains that some creative work is “inexhaustible” and can be duplicated easily, thus additional customers can reap the benefits of a work simply by sharing and copying. This concept directly applies to the many videos on YouTube.
Videos posted on YouTube are not tangible like a book, thus it is difficult to prevent them from duplicated. Also, it is nearly impossible to prevent a video posted from being shared with others; Gillespie would categorize YouTube videos as “nonrivalrous,” where use does not exhaust its content. Gillespie states that copyright functions by granting the owner of a work “exclusive rights of reproduction and distribution.” However this same law makes the owner of a work responsible for the originality of his or her production. This becomes a problem on YouTube quite frequently. Many video posters fail to properly cite or accredit sources used throughout their video. The vague definition and complex nature of copyright only become more difficult to understand when regarding YouTube.
It is true that YouTube videos are easily duplicated and shared with many people due to their "nonrivalrous" nature. There are people who monitor the videos and delete those that violate the copyright laws. But I guess there are just too many videos uploaded on YouTube every second which makes it difficult to monitor every one of them.
ReplyDelete