The Internet is the biggest copy machine.
Many of you have read these words. Everything about the online world make reproduction very easy. We see this when we email someone, suddenly there are two copies of the same version (actually at least 4 since both email servers are backed up at least once). This situation only multiples with the advent of social media. Pictures, videos, and songs are all passed around to each other without a second thought. Copy after copy is created without regard to ownership or copyright.
Of course, the average person is not the only one guilty of this. Google fought copyright complaints for years citing "fair use" regardless of what was posted. The expansion of YouTube required content people wanted (and couldnt get anywhere else). So, to foster this, Google used its size to basically tell content creators to screw off. Of course, this situation is multiplied because people often take YouTube videos and embed then on different sites.
All standard practice for the Internet.
Copy/Paste has become a tool that creates a great deal of controversy. People are taking stuff from all over the Internet and posting it in other places, copying it if you will, where is the line in the sand?
Of course, this only gets magnified on Steemit.com since there is financial rewards at stake. When people are upvoted, they are essentially being paid for the content. But what if the content is not theirs? Where do we stand on that?
I must say that it is very easy to define what stealing is when it comes to content. If I copy/paste something of yours without mention of you while trying to pass it off as my own, that is stealing. It is rather easy to discern my intention. I am out to pass the work off as my own while profiting from it. Simply put, I am stealing your content.
Outside of that, the line gets very hazy. What about the videos we embed, the memes we pass around at will, or the news stories we toss up? Some of this stuff is referenced while other information is not.
People say that copy/paste is wrong and should not be done. However, for decades, when smaller newspapers existed, it was common practice for entire stories to be printed that came from Reuters. I grew up with a local paper and I can tell you that I knew the name Reuters as a teen yet had no idea what it was. In short, I guess it was standard practice in the news industry (still is since I see the name Reuters and AP all over the place).
Another factor in this discussion is benefit. Obviously, you would state that the one who gets the content taken is adversely affected. But is that the case? Steemit.com is now a top 700 site in the US and top 2,000 globally. Backlinks are an important factor for determining a sites value in the search engines. Having a link from a site like this can help. Also, depending upon who the poster is, that person could get that content creator a large number of fans. As Steemit.com raises higher in the rankings, its links only become more valuable and the number of eyes on this site will grow.
On the subject of links, what about just posting links? I see many people write a sentence or two with a link to either a story or just a YouTube video in it. Some of these people rake in $40, $50, $60..a fair bit of money for riding the coat tails of someone else. Is that even considered quality content? I guess we can make a case the person deserves it since he or she took the time to cultivate those who are upvoting and establishing a network of people on here.
Or is this discussion even necessary?
While it is not well known, every content creator has the option of monetizing his or her work. Everyone posting on YouTube has the choice also to put the video up on D.Tube. All blogs and site can post their articles on the steem blockchain to get compensated. This is not a closed system, it is open to existing content creators this very moment.
Of course, at this stage, it sounds absurd to say that it is their own fault if they aren't monetizing their content. Few know about this blockchain and what is going on. However, in a couple years, that might not be the viewpoint. By the time, only a horse's caboose will not be monetizing content via a source like this. Consensus them might be if it isn't monetized it is free.
Obviously, the stealing of content is completely wrong. When one tries to pass off someone's work as his or her own, that is deceptive and fraudulent. However, if someone posts something on there that is cited, I have no problem with it. Personally, I would rather remain on Steemit and get all my information. As long as I know where it came from (which adds value to the content because it can often tell a lot...something from Huff Post will be different than WSJ) I prefer to read it here.
The other factor is time. In this era, anything that is over an hour old is history. For example, if I put up a video from two weeks ago, that could have already been viewed 1 million times. Half the people seeing it on here would be upset at me posting something so old. Grabbing the video three minutes after it went up can be viewed as a different issue. Or maybe it isn't.
So what does the community think? The rule of thumb that everyone tried to agree upon was "fair use". Of course, that is a subjective term anyway. Google determined fair use was an entire Hollywood film (at least until they started charging for the YouTube service) and it had the money to withstand any attacks.
Perhaps we are simply entering an era where it is unreasonable for one to expect copyright protection. The Internet is a huge copy machine and, now with decentralization, there are no administrators to take down content. Once it is up there, that is where it stays.
Hell, even on Steemit, if a post isn't voted upon in the first 30 minutes, it is ancient and not going to get much.
Where is the line?
Please share your comments below.
If you found this article informative, please give it an upvote and resteem.
Pictured by Google Images