When the founding fathers put the copyright laws into the constitution, they had the intention of promoting the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. With this in mind, they also wrote the first amendment which has a heavy emphasis on freedom of speech. The founding fathers were extremely adamant that all of America would have free speech. They kept this in mind while writing the constitution. So to say that copyright and freedom of speech contradict each other is being oblivious to what the founding fathers had in mind for freedom of speech, copyright laws, and this country. Yes, copyright law and free speech can be in conflict. Now, with that said, is this really an issue? Well, actually it's a good thing. The U.S. Supreme Court has written: “It should not be forgotten that the Framers intended copyright itself to be an engine of free expression.” (Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 1985.) Meaning that the conflict between freedom of speech and copyright actually support each other. Without copyright laws, freedom of speech wouldn't be as we know it today. This is because copyright is stealing, therefore without copyright laws our voices wouldn't be heard. For example, what could happen is someone with a bigger voice could claim your words as their own. Giving you no credit and no voice in the America we know and love today. So, the government shouldn't change anything to address free speech and copyright because there really isn't a big issue there. What they should be focusing on is copyright and social media. Due to the fact that this is a trickier issue and a growing concern that is going to continue to grow and be a more prevalent problem as time progresses.
How does the history of copyright relate to freedom of speech?
How is copyright relevant to foreign policy?
To fully understand how copyright is relevant to foreign policy we need to understand how these two terms relate. And to do this we must first under stand the terms themselves. So, first of all what is copyright? Copy right is the exclusive legal right, given to an originator or an assignee to print, publish, perform, film, or record literary, artistic, or musical material, and to authorize others to do the same. Copyright is great for the promotion of progress in science and useful arts. This is because the authors and inventors secure the right to their works that they completed. Making no one else be able to steal off their creations which will naturally cause others to make new ideas. Therefore promoting the progress of science and useful arts. Now, what is foreign policy? Foreign policy is a government's strategy in dealing with other nations. The goal of foreign policy is to Preserve the national security of the United States, promote world peace, secure global environment, and Maintain a balance of power among nations. Now, how do these two terms foreign policy and copyright come together? The best way to answer this question is with an example. A man makes a successful television show in the United States of America. The show is doing wonders making 2,000,000$ per season. But, someone over in China is reselling the television series and claiming it as his own. This would lead to hundreds of thousands of dollars lost. The only option the man has is to sue the person who is stealing his content. Which is where the problem with foreign policy and copyright comes in. Since the U. S. Copyright Office is not permitted to recommend agents or attorneys or to give legal advice on foreign laws. The man will have to hire a lawyer in china and use the legal system in that location. Which is a problem because there are some countries that offer little or no copyright protection to any foreign works. This shouldn't be the case though since the work was produced in the U.S. therefore it should follow U.S. copyright laws rather than another country’s copyright laws. The lack of copyright protection in other countries could lead to the loss of millions of dollars. So, what can the government do about this? The answer is to work to get more countries apart of the"Berne Convention". The Berne Convention is an international agreement that governs copyright. Currently there are 176 out of 195 countries that are apart of the Berne Convention. But, the 19 countries who are not apart of the convention are still making a huge problem when it comes to copyright. The 19 countries that are not apart of the convention are primarily countries that aren't as developed as the countries who are apart of the Berne Convention. But, despite this fact they still make a dent when it comes to copyright. And this dent will only get worst as the countries develop.
How do new forms of social media affect copyright laws?
In 1970, the copyright act was passed by congress. Copy right laws were pretty straight forward and had generally no problem. But with the new emergence of social media, copy right is getting a little more instantaneous and harder to deal with. Due to rapid changes in media, the government is having a harder time adapting. So the question is, should copyright laws be changed and what changes should be made? First of all the government should make an effort to take the issue of copyright more seriously. Right now the government does not tend to the copyright issues in a timely manner. Which in the new age of media is a big problem because thousands of dollars could be lost in a matter of seconds. This is because in social media when content is stolen the user who steals it not only obtains the monetization but also renders the video useless for the original creator because most people will not want to re-watch content. This is really scary for content creators on all forms of social media especially youtube. The reason this is so scary for "youtubers" is because "youtubers" are paid by the view unlike Instagram where the vast majority of monetization comes from sponsorships and brand deals. So what can the government do about this? Well first of all they can be more savvy with this issue. There have been many lawsuits that have un-rightly failed simply because the court was not understanding of the issue at hand. Secondly the government can respond to these issues in a timely manner because in today's instant society a second could mean a thousand dollars lost. And finally, the government can restructure the laws so that they fit into the new media age and vote for a new amendment that tends to these instantaneous issues.