Advancements within handling data experienced by digital innovations and the development toward the reinforcing of intellectual property rights at global grade, especially after the selection of WTO/TRIPS, heightened the paradoxes identified with legal monopolies (Steinwandter and Herwig 2019). On account of copyright, for example, the focal point of gravity of its routine seems to have moved from the maker to the right holder, who successfully abuses the work within the markets (Geiger 2008, p.249). Under this viewpoint right holders are much progressively urged to grow the choices and plans of action for expansion inside the extent of protection of copyright, in a digital environment and to guarantee returns and remuneration for the utilisation of copyrighted works (Mueller and Yang 2019).

Previously, this was confirmed by the successive revisions of the Bern Convention (Li et al. 2019). With regards to the incorporation of new types of secured works in the topic of copyright (Ahmed and Khidzir 2018). The present, remedies against the encroachment of copyright within a computerised domain are created and built up under a maximalist approach, for example, the dispersal and full improvement of digital rights the board frameworks (DRMs) in various settings (Mueller and Yang 2019). This focal concern is likewise lucidly scrutinised by (Geiger 2008) proposing that in the field of copyright some essential standards have continuously fallen from view and the topic has encountered a significant mutation (Li et al. 2019). Copyright, which was at first intended to secure the creator’s rights and to give impetuses to him to serve society, is these days adjusted as a legal mechanism to ensure investment, without considering the effect on future artistry  (Steinwandter and Herwig 2019). Indeed ‘Creative Commons’ does not escape from the justification of dynamic appropriation of information and knowledge, since the multiplication of restrictive licenses may prompt a privatising system of innovative products (Elkin-Koren 2006). 

On the off chance that Creative common’s strategy depended on a solitary binding together rule engaging creators to oversee their work, in this manner, under a restrictive predisposition, there may be dispersal and fortifying of a proprietary routine in the information  (Mueller and Yang 2019). As Elkin Koren fights, the absence of institutionalisation in Creative common’s routine may build the expense to end clients in deciding the obligations and benefits identified with a particular work (Elkin-Koren 2006, p.18). Thus, the expansion of legally binding terms could build vulnerability among end clients and make new hindrances to access (Elkin-Koren 2006, p.18). In the end, guaranteeing ‘property in information‘ could be a technique for makers of innovative products, since it would as of now offer them more sureness concerning the designation of their rights (Bogoviz et al. 2019). Besides, this strategy does not escape from intellectual property basis under the standard patterns (Steinwandter and Herwig 2019).

The paradigm alteration within the field of copyright, for example, from the questionable moral and monetary situated point of view received at first by the drafters of the Berne Convention (for example copyrighted works as ‘creation of minds’) (Mueller and Yang 2019). To a corporate-arranged point of view focused in the quality of possession and security of speculation, premiums have been extensively forming a restricted and conventional orthodox on the utilisation of data inside business sectors gave to abbreviate the shapes of the open domain (Lipton 2005, p.113). In some sense, clients (and people in general) lost their status both as ‘individuals’ and ‘addresses’ of data and all of a sudden have been methodically treated as alleged pirates, especially within the internet (Bogoviz et al. 2019). As information accessible on the internet would be defenceless to allotment by copyright or any ‘sui generis’ rights’ (Ascensão 2002).

This perspective has concentrated more on the individual consumer behaviour than on the right holders training and actions identifying with procurement and maintenance of select rights exemplified in copyright  (Steinwandter and Herwig 2019). Accordingly, it might be a puzzle that the discussion within a global grade is by all accounts regularly swaying between over-defensive methodologies and those identified with the expanding of exemptions and constraints and new structures for antitrust scrutiny (Li et al. 2019). Under this comment, the ‘eigenfunction’ of copyright is no longer the stabiliser between impetuses for a persistent creative literary and aesthetic movement, open interest and proprietors’ rights, yet instead the value ‘per se’ of copyright in regard of generation costs, speculations and requirement of rights against the ‘misuse of consumers’ (Barigozzi et al. 2019).

Then again, a privatisation pattern over the data in a prevalently corporate-situated point of view does not seem to fit the customary qualities epitomised in the innovative and aesthetic estimations of universal copyright law (Barigozzi et al. 2019). The creativity factor from the view of Berne Convention standards; is to be built up the connection among creators and a legitimate arrangement of motivations (Chang et al. 2019). The ‘status quo’ of intellectual property overwhelmingly underestimates those genuine free employments of manifestations and developments in worldwide markets and extols right holders as the foremost holy people and relinquished gatherings (Li et al. 2019). Indeed, even the customary character of ‘creator’ gives space for unimportant ‘parties’ as though copyright needed to do less with the production of articulations and more with the assurance of rights exemplified in private speculations and unadulterated monetary investigation of ‘copyrights’ (Bogoviz et al. 2019). In this sense, as proposed by (Geiger 2008), the privatisation of data by copyright law examples and classes (and further neighbouring rights and ‘sui generis’ rights) ought to be helped by adaptabilities (and maybe, ‘escape provisions’) accommodated in a global and domestic legal system (Bogoviz et al. 2019).

As discussed above, intellectual property rights are a global matter. The link between the podcast and intellectual property is that a podcast provides links and can be classified as user-generated content, which is voluntarily produced by individuals or groups of enthusiastic, skilled amateurs who are not affiliated with traditional media groups (Dawkins 1982). Because due to the nature of the subject matter control and content is the centre of discussion this week, therefore the point is that no one owns the technology (Markman and Sawyer 2014). Podcasting form users allow access to potentially everyone “to become media producers without going through traditional gatekeeping channels” (Markman and Sawyer 2014, p. 21). This is the concept of independence within property where a topic or subject matter is created with consciousness to one another; or created by one sole creator and is or was distributed, imitated, and altered via the web by various users or individual (Jenkins et al. 2018). The connection of remediation was to create a remixed podcast that discusses the importance of intellectual property and content control in the digital sphere, as I wanted to show the engagement of political and social matters in which rights contribute to in digital networks (Dawkins 1982). While also being about to express the concept of the matter and gain the attention to how innovation, technology and media affect our condition, while even framing the traditional media forms with the new (Jenkins et al. 2018).

References: 

Ahmed, S, A, A, M & Khidzir, N, Z 2018, Legal Protection of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) in Bangladesh, International Journal of Law, Government and Communication, vol. 3, no. 12, pp.71-89.

Ascensão, J, D, O 2002, ‘A transposição da Directriz no, 01/29, sobre aspectos do direito de autor e direitos conexos na sociedade da informação’, in Revista da Faculdade de Direito da Universidade de Lisboa, vol. 43, no. 2, pp.915–933. 

Barigozzi, M, Campi, M, Dueñas, M & Fagiolo, G 2019, Intellectual property rights, imitation, and development, The effect on cross-border mergers and acquisitions, The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, vol. 28, no. 2, pp.230-256.

Bogoviz, A, V, Pozdnyakova, U, A, Lobova, S, V, Ragulina, J, V, & Popova, E, V, 2019, The Mechanism of Tax Stimulation of Industry 4.0 in Modern Russia, In Optimization of the Taxation System: Preconditions, Tendencies and Perspectives, Springer, Cham, pp. 189-197. 

Chang, C, W, Yamanaka, T, & and Kano, S 2019, An enforced loop-out knowledge flow facilitates industry competition: Learning from the pharmaceutical and genetically modified seed industries, Technovation, vol. 79, no. 1, pp.11-24.

Dawkins, R, 1981, In defence of selfish genes, Philosophy, vol. 56, no. 218, pp.556-573.

Elkin-Koren, N 2006, ‘Creative commons: a skeptical view of a worthy pursuit’, in Guibault, L, and Hugenholtz, P, B, (Eds.), The Future of the Public Domain, Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp.1–21.

Geiger, C 2008, ‘Flexibilising copyright: remedies to the privatisation of information by copyright law’, International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 254–258. 

Jenkins, H, Ford, S, and Green, J, 2018, Spreadable media: Creating value and meaning in a networked culture, United States of America, NYU press, pp. 245-300. 

Lipton, J 2005, ’Solving the digital piracy puzzle: disaggregating fair use from the DMCA’s anti-device provisions’, Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, vol. 19, no. 111, p.11

Li, X, Meng, D, & Rong, K 2019, Industry-to-university knowledge transfer in ecosystem-based academic entrepreneurship: Case study of automotive dynamics & control group in Tsinghua University, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 141 no. 4, pp.249-262.

Markman, K, and Sawyer, C, E, 2014, Why Pod? Further Explorations of the Motivations for Independent Podcasting, Journal of Radio & Audio Media, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 20–35.

Mueller, M, L, & Yang, F 2019, Internet Governance in China: A Content Analysis, In The Palgrave Handbook of Local Governance in Contemporary China, Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore, pp.441-463.

Steinwandter, V, & Herwig, C 2019, Provable Data Integrity in the Pharmaceutical Industry based on Version Control Systems and the Blockchain, PDA journal of pharmaceutical science and technology, vol. 1, no. 1 pp.2-3.