There are benefits of appropriate implementation of copyright strategies to protect the authored materials against the increasing breakdown of copyright laws. For instance, the creative commons license constitutes laws, human-understandable reports, and machine-comprehensible tags. The creative commons develop rules on top of the copyright laws. Additionally, the creative commons enable authors to base their work on the works of others through tying up uncomplicated tags, readable by humans, to their work. Besides, the creative commons allies the sets of authorization to computer comprehensible versions to facilitate automated identification of the materials allowed for sharing (Creative Commons, 2013).
However, the creative commons licensing is affected by various factors. For example, the academic work is liable to misuse as the scholarly materials are unlimited by the number of items available for utilization. Thus, the employment of a unit of the scholarly material does not affect the available materials for later consumption and this contributes to the material abuse. Hence, the usage of the authored material needs the creative commons licensing to prevent its unauthorized duplication.
Additionally, the various models governing the copyright laws influence the creative common licensing. For instance, the long-established copyright management process offers the opportunity to the originator of a document to pass the control of his materials rights to a publisher who oversees the material sharing to the public by charging a fee. In addition, other duplicating models allocate the written materials to the community without a payment. Hence, the creative commons licensing becomes supplementary protection of the materials on these models other than the basic.
Besides, the creative commons license on materials usage is influenced by the increase of digital technology. This eases the reproducing of a material as the emerging digital machinery can duplicate large volumes of the material at cheaper cost. It therefore leads to extensive distribution of the academic products aimed at bringing communal benefits at a low copyright license cost or at free copyright license. However, the distribution of the materials at the lowest cost of copyright license or the increase of free copyright approvals lowers the incentives given to the materials author (Creative Commons, 2013).
In conclusion, the creative commons give a certificate to an author to use another writers work depending on the copyright choices given by the writer who created the material. The owner of the material may fully permit, completely withdraw, or allow partial usage of the material. Hence, the creative commons license gives higher freedom and advanced security of usage of the material than the copyright laws (Creative Commons, 2013).
Open Source as Alternative Approaches to Copyright
The open source policy involves formats that do not discriminate the materials used through scholarly materials copyright laws. The open source policy therefore segregates the moneymaking materials from non-commercial by offering free materials for communal benefits or imposing modest restrictions on them.
As a result, there are various necessities derivable from an open source policy. However, the involved material is considered as scholarly publications governed by the copyright laws. For instance, the extensive dissemination of scholarly materials to the public has societal benefits. However, when the scientific material prices rise, the communal libraries avoid subscribing to the material leading to poor information dissemination. Likewise, the rise of the internet and World Wide Web encourages development of the open source software as the developers and manufacturers of software use this medium to seek modifications to their developed applications.
Furthermore, the open source policy assists in the creation and improvement the author’s materials. For example, many companies have supported provision of free software at open sources through contributing their software to the open sources. They do this to test the effectiveness of their software, advertise the software, and offer users the chance to give feedback after using the software (Feller, Fitzgerald, Hissam, & Lakhani, 2007).
Besides, it is significant to note that the open source software does not conflict with the copyright laws and the software is never regarded as open territory software as the author issuing the product strongly state its terms of use (Feller, Fitzgerald, Hissam, & Lakhani, 2007).
In addition, the open source policy facilitates a direct access to a copy of the material design, which encourages distribution of the material across the globe as stipulated in the certification of free software license. The open source policy avails the software codes to any person willing to modify and restructure the software. Hence, the Open Sources Policy does not infringe the copyright laws as the certificate necessitates improvement of the softwares foundational code (Feller, Fitzgerald, Hissam, & Lakhani, 2007).
Lastly, the open source policy allows the software owning institution to restrict or enhance the policy of open source on its products. In most cases, a company issuing the open source software surrenders the traditional income gained through copyright sale from the authored material. In consequence, the company owning the software in the open sources solely determines if it offers the free software when the application is new or archive as a volunteer work. Else, the company can charge authors doing reproduction of the material.
References
Creative Commons (2013). What is creative common? Web.
Feller, J., Fitzgerald, B., Hissam, A., & Lakhani K. (2007). Perspective on free and open source software. USA: The MIT Press.