Reference no: EM133236682

Please assist with an explanation on the below paragraphs.

1. I feel that the freedom of speech or expression is one of if not the greatest freedoms that us as American's have. I also think that it is probably the most dangerous. Whether talking about expression 50 years ago or 5 days ago, the freedom of speech has been used to create many great turning points in our history, both politically, and personally. However, with the constant expansion of IT and the ever-growing amount of intellectual property that is available in the world. I feel that the freedom to speech, leads to conflicts over who has ownership intellectual property. As with the argument of who created the lightbulb first, or who wrote the original lyrics to a song. The freedom of speech should always be considered and consider whether you should share if you are the original creator. Or, if you are considering taking another's idea and share as your own idea or discovery. Lastly, with these ideas in mind, I feel that the development of copywriting and really understanding it will continue to be very important.

2. This is very tricky issue with many grey areas because it is impossible to take to notion of "freedom of speech" too literally, especially considering the context in which it was said, and the challenges that weren't present at the time, while still honoring its intent. Congress passed the Copyright ACT(1976) that is still being currently used to this day, with amendments added to it as new forms of media, and ways of sharing, utilizing  another person's work. The intent is to safeguard the works of an individual and a group, and protect them especially if the author derives monetary benefit from it.

Many people think that intellectual and copyright laws now are too stringent and create a possible atmosphere of fear in which there exists a hesitancy to truly express one's self out of fear of being pursued legally. I actually think its the opposite. I think it provides safety and assurance that one can create a work, and enjoy the benefits of such, with the ability to safeguard what they have created. Imagine if I wrote a book that was like nothing that has ever been written before, and 3 days later someone word for word creates a book of the exact same content with maybe a different title, with no attribution to me at all for the source material ,inspiration. People would be far more hesitant to release their own work to the public, knowing that it can just simply be claimed by someone else , and make money off essentially the essence of who you are. Intellectual property safeguards against stealing, not freedom of speech. 

3. It is no surprise that with the nearly limitless avenues readily available today for the public to peruse, share, and consume at their leisure that the conflict between freedom of expression and protected intellectual property rights/copyrights/trademarks arise and linger. The ethical dilemma many of us are probably familiar with is freely utilizing protected forms of audio/video media (i.e. music, movies, television shows, etc.). Piracy or unauthorized use of audio/visual media is a fantastic example of the ethical conflict of, "Just because it can be found for free somewhere online with minimal effort does not make it right or just to consume", and almost all of us know and understand that notion, but where the lines are somewhat blurred are other areas of intellectual property vs freedom of expression not often discussed, some specific examples being borderline plagiarism between the ever prevalent content creators across many forms of social media, educational materials including coursework and visual aids being "pirated" by underpaid public school teachers to utilize within their classrooms, removing watermarks from artwork or photography online for personal use, etc. I say the lines are blurred in these situations simply because a moral or ethical argument can be made for both the legitimate and illegitimate usage in all of these situations.

In the instance of the "content creator" or someone who produces videos/podcasts/vlogs etc. when their material is produced and posted to the public it is expected that they hold ownership of their created material however, conflict often arises when other creators, sometimes utilizing the same platform, (Facebook, YouTube, Twitch, etc.) will mimic or in some cases word for word copy material for their own audience with the expectation that the two differing audiences would be none-the-wiser to the plagiarism. When this occurs, there is often no credibility given to the original content creator, or credit is given in an intentionally misleading manner (i.e. giving credit after they've been caught, or burying the contributions within thousands of comments). As long as a portion or snip-it of the original content creators work is not used this is often "acceptable" to do on most internet media platforms as it does not warrant a "copyright strike", even though many of us know ethically this is simply a violation of someone else's intellectual property and hiding behind the mask of freedom of expression (or the idea that it's not breaking any rules necessarily).