Week 5

 I would want to start by sayin that I agree about copyright getting a bit out of control to say the least. DMCA in Youtube for example, they would take away all credit for the effort that was put in by the video makers, editors and actors alike, even if a music clip of less than two seconds was used, all the monetization, that would've gone to the channels owner, would then go into the pockets of whoever owns the song and probably a small cut of that to the DMCA enforcers as well.

Taking away all credit for a fraction of a sec of copyrighted music, is not right, what should be done instead is, if a fraction of an entire video, movie or other type of video media that is copyrighted was used, then the credit should be just as equally shared. Nobody would say it's fair to get full credit for having done 0,1% of the entire project. Thus brings me to the fact that copyrights are only done for financial reasons, greedy ones at that.

Under no circumstances should it be allowed that having privacy is copyright infrindgment, but they try to do so anyway, because of how privacy is already being sold by all sizes of companies. They try to take advantage of time, as people get used to it, they don't stop trying to capitalise on financial gain, even if it meant doing something to others that they wouldn't like being done to themselves. As Facebooks founder (now called Meta), Mark Zuckerberg went faced multiple court cases in the U.S. and the prospect of a $3-5 billion FTC fine for the privacy breaches. Furthermore, during a court case, Mark was asked, if he would like, that his personal life was public, which he expectedly denied. Most importanlty of all, this would impose security threats about privacy bigger than ever, if there would be no more privacy, it would be an arms race to keep data protected and that would cost a lot more than copyright infrindgment costs. 

So far I have only talked about the privacy aspect, if copyright enforcers were to have the availability to peoples personal conversatsions, as it currently already has a lot of flaws of implementing it and being used for greed by artists. I'm not saying that artists shouldn't be paid, I'm saying that they would go as far as to breach basic human rights for extra gain, quite frankly that is unacceptable levels of greed from both artists and copyright enforcers.

I would like to point out that currently there is indeed no good way to monetize artistic work, but recently there has been something interesting going around related to that, which would be NFTs. Non-Fungible Tokens are a non-interchangeable unit of data stored on a blockchain, which can then be sold and bought,  currently types of NFT data units may be associated with digital files such as photos, videos, and audio. It might not be the solution that would work, but I think there would be some merit to take inspiration in this method of monetization of digital art work, considering the fact that it allows the share of ownership of works of art, but also still allowing people to do free sampling and non-commercial sharing.

Overall, the financial gain should only be aquired in commercial use for artists, as some works can be really memorable or liked, which is a joy that can be spread, there is a reason some art pieces cost millions, as they can bring out feelings that can only appear during a specific scenario, similar to how "sad" music can bring feelings of sadness or emphasise it. This gives people the use to also motivate and energise others to do well, which is something that can be hard to come by depending on a situation. No good art work was done with money being on the mind of the creator as it wouldn't give the effect otherwise, thus if money were to become a bigger part of this part of an industry, the creative minds could get corrupted, which it seems to already be, considering how much the industries surrounding copyright want it to be enforced that much.

In conclusion, to keep creative freedom, copyrighting can never go further than it already is and must be altered so that the money gained is fairly shared to the creators of copyrighted work, if another person was to use such work in their own work or project that is meant for monetary gain. Keeping the non-commercial use free.