The issue of originality in art works has been controversial issue for a long time. Additionally, there were severe debates about should government protect art works' rights by legal force. About this issue, the writer says there are no originality in art works and commercial works in the sense of usage of words and symbols to communicate. Furthermore, he has an opinion that copying doesn't harm who was copied because it is not sure that he could get more money, or more fame.
These opinions seems quite reasonable, but in my thought, they don't make sense in three aspects. First, if artwork has some kind of features of other things, it cannot be called original? For instance, we are all human and we have some kind of common features because we are human. However, can we be called the same person? Absolutely not. That means, having part of something doesn't mean it loses its originality.
Secondly, the writer is underestimating the economical loss by plagiarism. It even seems he is ignoring the negative side of plagiarism on purpose. There are numerous examples of how plagiarism can devastate original works' owner, and get profit in appropriate ways.
Third, the writer says thanks to development of IT, plagiarism has lost its power because of the individuals' power. However, is it really true? There are many people using illegal copied contents like megafile, wedisk, and etc.. This makes artists hard to make living and demotivated, which results in negative effects on art-producing ecosystem.
In some aspects, the writer's opinions make sense. The era is changing and we are now right in front of the most successful technology based society, and for that, redefinition of plagiarism and copyrights seems quite reasonable. However, the writer's opinions seem unreasonable. In order to make our society healthier in another aspect, artists' copyright has to be protected in various ways.
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기