請各位先登陸 (studentID,Moodle 密碼登陸),後編輯
請各位使用左方之工具列上的上載文件連結上載習作相關的相片

Restricting Recreation-- Creativity VS Information Flow

出自香港新聞網 - 樹仁新傳系學生實習習作

跳轉到: 導航, 搜尋

Geordie Toh, a law consultant of an internet company, said today at Shue Yan University that restricting recreation should strike a balance between protecting creativity and protecting the freedom of information flow.

Joe Ng

Numbers of people recreate others’ work for some purposes, such as making fun or mocking the politicians and celebrities. They alter some finished and published work into derivative work and then, normally, publish online. [Great description of what a derivative work is] The derivative work, for example, can be a song with new words or can be a video with new dialogues. Usually, the materials used are well known and familiar to the public, and it can gain [resonance -?] easier.

The actions of recreation seem to be violating copyright. The government is now debating whether recreation should be considered as a crime and re-creators should shoulder any criminal consequences. However, there are two voices among the society. One says that the authors and their effort should be protected, hoping that they can keep creating. Another thinks that the materials online should be freely used, in order to encourage the information flow.

Geordie Toh believes that if the law is finally enforced, it should not be too restricted, striking a balance between protecting creativity and protecting the freedom of information flow. “It is super unhealthy and should not be supported if the law is too restricted.” Toh said. [Is it too restricted? What does the law actually say?]

According to Toh’s suggestions, enforcing the law can consider three evaluations. Firstly, is the original work comes from a “master”? For example, whether the work comes from J.K. Rowling or from a primary five student? Secondly, is the derivative work is recreated based on the core part, Harry Potter or another minor role, of the original work? The final element is about the purposes of recreation. If the derivative work earns the re-creator something, especially wealth, or the re-creator did it anonymously and the derivative work is free of charge? [Ok, those are three criteria. How are they applied? Is a "master" work ok to be truned into a derivative, or not?]

[You outlined the criteria, which is great, but you need to go that extra step and tell the reader how the criteria should be weighed or applied.]

[Grade: B=]

個人工具