Extra Credit #5: Free Digital Material

I do not agree with the limitations proposed by the lawsuit against YouTube. I have really enjoyed what the online community has had to offer in terms of “free” digital material. I think that it is lawful for a person to post up short clips of copyrighted material because it helps spread information. For example, by putting up songs online, a band can hope to expand their audience. Whereas normally a consumer would be turned off by the fact that they need to pay $15 just to listen to a band for the first time, free online content makes it possible to listen to new bands without a large cost. Similarly, I think that free video material can also enjoy similar benefits. Short clips posted from major movie productions could incite viewers to buy the movie or investigate more about what the product is about. This could actually work to increase their audience and help them increase profits as well. It can also serve as a basis for inspiration: a movie producer may gain a valuable insight from a short clip posted on YouTube that they would normally not have access to due to copyright issues. I think that this is far more valuable than the monetary loss that would be felt by producers. The spread of information has enormous potential benefits to society as a whole. However, the only cost of free digital material is monetary: certain companies won’t necessarily be making as much money because viewers can access their content for free. This may lead in a lesser value placed on intellectual property because producers would be less inclined to create a feature film that costs them a lot of money. This could be a big downside, however, because it could create a snowball effect and eventually producers may not feel like they are being subsidized enough to create a film or clip, and we may loose out on digital content in the future.