Common belief of the copyright is that it protects the interests of artists by providing them with exclusive right on their works. However, today's copyright system runs counter to this general perception. In fact, conglomerates are those who benefit from copyright, not the artists. 
 Most of the copyrighted works are owned by small number of conglomerates because they are the ones who have power to distribute those works. And as the Internet, which purpose was to share academic information among scholars, became a large part of our society, it invoked a problem of sharing creative works.

    It is not a surprise that the current copyright benefits big companies rather than the real owners of creative works, the artists, because this was the original purpose of copyright in the past. In 1557, Queen Anne in England granted the stationer's guild a monopoly on printing and publishing books in order to control ideas in the society. This is considered as the first initiative for the modern copyright.
Copyright is especially detrimental in the cultural field because it restricts diversity. No ideas, arts, music and anything that form a certain culture are created by a sole mind of a creator. Every person's work is based upon the works of predecessors. In this sense, copyright, which discourage people from building on other people's work is an obstacle in developing cultural diversity.

   However, this does not mean that we should abandon the whole copyright system. Rewarding and protecting the interests of artists must he guaranteed for their further creative works. The problem is to what extent should the rights be reserved? In order to solve this problem, many organizations invented their own copyright system which do not have adverse effect on artists' creative working condition. Creative Common is one of the pro- 'copyleft' organizations.

   Creative Common is a non-profit organization which is devoted to expanding the range of creative works available for others to build upon legally and to share. They found that the problem of the current copyright system lies in the exclusive rights of works. With the current copyright system people cannot build upon other people's works or share it with others because copyright guarantees all rights of the work exclusively to the owner. However, the Creative Common solved this problem by dividing the rights which creators have cut up into several pieces. By using the Creative Common license, people can easily notice which rights are reseved and which are not. Since the license tells people what is allowed, they do not have to ask the owners, which people do so in the current copyright system when they want to use the works. This will encourage people to build upon other people's work and eventually contribute to our cultural diversity.

   However, there still remain problems because creators themselves depend on conglomerates who is the main distributor in the culture industry. We have the key in solving this problem. It is hard for No one c( write your opinion) When there is no demand there will be no supply. Thanks to the Internet, it became much easier to publish our works without distributors. Now we can find much diversity through the online world. The Internet, which original purpose was to share ideas, is the most contributiong factor to our cultural diversity, and it is a flexible copyright system that makes this possible.

Amazon.com selling a 'Pedophile guidebook" outrages consumers

   The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure: A Child-Lover’s Code of Conduct a self-published e-book by Phillip R Greaves II was available on Amazon.com. The book’s title came as a shock to many people and Amazon.com deteriorated the situation by reacting inadequately. People were outraged by its policy and some people even began to boycott the company. The self-published e-book is now pulled from Amazon.com, but controversy on the company’s guidelines for digital publication still remains as the company has refused to comment on it.

   The only official statement on the book was “Amazon believes it is a censorship not to sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable. Amazon does not support or promote hatred or criminal acts, however we do support the right of every individual to make their own purchasing decision." There are many issues to this statement. Is the guidebook for pedophiles just an objectionable book to people which can be protected by the First Amendment or authentically an illegal book? Another controversy is that if it is legal to publish this book, can the inconsistent policy by Amazon.com be justified?

   It is legal to publish a guidebook for pedophiles? The First Amendment protects the freedom of speech in the United States, but there are some exceptions; child pornography laws, speech that incites imminent danger, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. Since the book only consists of text, it does not come under pornography. It is controversial whether this book incites imminent danger or not. Statistics show that 30 to 40 percent of child sex abusers were caught by reoffending crime. Experts say that these child sexual offenders are most likely to conduct this crime again. These reoccurring habits show that they lack the ability to control their impulses. As a result exposing this book will only enhance their vulnerability in this immoral behavior. However, considering that the court maintains a generous position in permitting advocacy of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful the guidebook for pedophiles is likely to be protected by the freedom of speech.

   So let’s say this book is legal. Why is it a problem for Amazon to choose certain books they want to sell? People have a right to run a business related to anything unless it is illegal. The problem is that Amazon does not apply a consistent standard in selecting books to advertise. Pornography is legal and is a profitable business, but Amazon has their own policy not to sell those books. Then why do they sell a pro-pedophile book? People cannot help but to think that Amazon supports this book. Selling this book will not cause a legal dispute, but it is clear that it will cost economic consequences. If Amazon does not make their position clear, outraged consumers of Amazon.com will continue the boycott.