Copy Right or Wrong
There is no limitation for creativity instead of copying. As we did in CIS class, people are seemed to be excited to share their works, feedbacks, and even personal daily lives with others through the spread of social net working servises. Other interenet servises such as You-Tube, Flickr, and Google, providing opportunities and places to share their works and knowledge also are remarkably spreading for educational purposes as well. Today, you can find almost everything that you want in the internet. Even if you were not able to find them, you could easily create, copy, or steal them from others in the internet. It is true that the internet has both positive and negative aspects depending on how people use them. For example, copying something from someone else'sand use them for business is basically illigal. However, if the owner is showing its attribution to allow others to use it, and then, everyone can use it legally. The creative commons license is supporting rights of creators' works, knowledges, and creativity by showing licenses and attributions to allow others using their works bases on each level of licenses. Although most people probably have seen the creative commons license's marks in many advertisements, not quite a few audiences do not know the meaning of mark. While the consept of the creative common licernse is meaningful to protect and respect the right of creativity and works, the benefits of creative commons license still do not outweigh its disadvantages.
Even though the creative commons shows creators' attributions, the degree of familiarity with the license is so low that people still do copy and take something from others. The consept of creative commons license is helping artists' creativity, knowledges, and works and protect them to be copied by audiences. In order to protect them, they show attributions with some levels depenting on how mach creaters allow to share. CC BY is the most free for audiences to copy and adapt it. Through BY-SA, BY-ND, BY-NC, BY-NC-SA, and CC BY-NC-ND is the most limited to copy and be protected well.
((->details about each levels and meanings))2*
As creative commons license states, showing artists' attribution to allow to share is more useful and helpful for not only creaters but also audiences. Audiences might be more able to copy and adapt creaters' works as long as they fallow these attributions. Audiences would still have possibilities to create adapting their works. Instead, the low automatically make limitations to share their works. (More ditails about creative commons license)3* However, most people/audiences do not know what is for and how to use them. Therefore, while the creative commons license is helpful to protect copy right, many people ignore and copy them.
Additionally, although it is true that some of creative commons license are protecting artists' rights; artists can also protect their works by themselves without the creative common licenses. According to Pcunix, once artists posted on the internet, their works are supporsed to be autmatically protected based on the low. If artists put the creative coommons license on their works, it means that those artists protects twice/double. Moreover, Pcunix also states that using creative commons license does cause badly. For example, if audiences are finding something by using the "addvansed search", the advanced search hits more works with licenses. Then, audiences who do not know about the license tend to copy them without following the license. Even though they follow the licence, they are also required to post the same license as well. However, many audiences do not fallow them. Finally, the creative commons allows educational instisutions to use others's works only for educational purporse. http://creativecommons.org/educationHowever, teachers and other users do not mention about the copyright to their audiences, too. The copyright is necessary to protect artists's creativity, but the creative commons license is not effective to protect them.