"Copyrighted Information & Orphan Blogs"

Dianne Graves’s presentation regarding copyrights and fair use was enlightening. I’ll admit I was quite naive about copyrights and the extent at which they apply; but I believe that her presentation was quite enlightening. In fact, the majority of the information was outright new to me. For example, I was not aware that Bit Torrent is vulnerable to tracking, I didn’t know that as soon as a document is saved in any tangible format that it is relatively protected by copy right, and I also didn’t know that a copyright extends not only through the author’s lifetime but ninety years beyond. Basically, much of what I perceived as being true about copyrights was in fact very different from what is actually true. I believed that copyrights ended when the author had perished but little did I know this was not in fact true. Regardless I found the most interesting part of the presentation was that controversy existed over information’s availability to the general public for access. Especially, information which is under the form of “orphan works” which adds another dimension to the interpretation of should be available and what should be protected.

By definition “orphan works” are published works where it is relatively impossible to track down the author or copyright holder who is responsible for these works. These “orphan works” present an interesting conundrum as two destinies are available for the work. Either the work dissipates and goes into hibernation until it can be used and access by others or it is appreciated and can be used by people worldwide. This has launched into an international controversy over who should retain the rights to utilize information in the absence of the copyrighter. Individuals in research are being inhibited from accessing information and thus are advocating for universal sharing of knowledge. Meanwhile authors and copyright owners alike are trying to protect their work and possessions for both personal and financial gains.

I believe the struggles over information provide valid points on both ends of the spectrum. Those advocating universal and accessible information generally emphasize the scientific importance of sharing knowledge thus making communication in medicinal situations easier. One ethical debate presented, was that a doctor was unable to properly treat his patient because he didn’t have access to the information which would have suggested that the doctor not prescribe the medicine that he did in fact prescribe to the victim. In short, because of his limitations on information due to copyright laws, it led to the death of an innocent by-standard. However, those advocating private property are doing so to prevent plagiarism and unfair credit being distributed to other individuals who didn’t put in the work; basically this is cheating. In short, these people are using the Bill of Rights to protect their right of property against malicious theft and abuse of information whether it is profiteering or in another form. It also enables them to gain financially on other researchers work. One could argue that if there wasn’t the financial incentive then growth and scientific advancement would be hampered because an individual wouldn’t be able to devote their time to research. They would instead have to seek a normalized job.

Regardless of these two arguments there is strength and reason behind each perspective. I think that it comes down to an ethical issue of what an individual presumes to be correct and consistent with their morals and values. Unfortunately, deciphering what is presumably correct and ethical is often a subjective opinion. This means that each individual is likely to have developed a unique and distinguished opinion which will likely be in contrast to other individuals. In short, controversy will never completely subside. However, I believe that it is important to consider a few questions when deciphering how you believe you stand within the issues regarding copyrighted material and whether “orphaned works” should be included in public domain and free use. They Include:

 Who does the right to the work belong to? The author? The Public?
 If it belongs to the author or creator of the work, then who is to say what they should do with that work?
 Does the author have an obligation to advance society by sharing his work?
 Is the author liable to society?
 Does the author retain the right to use his work as a profiting mechanism?
 Do I have the right to view the work of others for reason to help out society?
 Do I have the right to republish others work for my own benefit?
 Is it more important to have privacy and property or is more important to have shared work if it has the potential to benefit society?
 Should the author have rights to the work if they are just trying to gain financially?

In my opinion, I believe this is an ethical dilemma. I place more value on knowledge as an asset to society and I believe that the right of property should be put aside if information could be beneficial, especially medically. I believe that because information should be global; it should also have a higher level of consequences for those who manipulate the right to information. I think that those who cheat the system and try to plagiarize work should be held accountable because they’re the reason that this debate even exists. If everyone was ethical and didn’t cheat and remarket falsified information as their own work, then we wouldn’t have the trust issues and all information would be universal. I believe that cheating and profiteering off others is a horrible decision and shouldn’t be stood for but I believe if the consequences are harsh enough we can make “orphaned works” available for public use and share other privatized information available to all individuals.