Massive amounts of data are shared online every second of the day. Anything from music to pictures and even movies can be accessed immediately, and to make sure this data isn't pirated, plagiarized or discredited, the Copyright Law exists. The Copyright Law acts as a series of guidelines for what determines fair use of another person's content and how it must be cited to avoid legal issues. However, given the sheer amount of data that is processed in such a short time, some problems can occur with the system. In some cases, people will be incorrectly flagged for misuse of another creator's material despite following the rules of fair use. Large corporations with multiple copyrights have used this when they felt their content was being utilized without their permission and have caused issues for creators who use other artist's content for their work. 

The Copyright Law currently in use was established in 1989 and has been used since then to determine what counts as fair use of another person's material. Fair use is defined under the law as "use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" (Copyright 107). The definition is left purposefully open in order to protect free speech and make works readily available. If a person feels that their work has been unfairly used, they have to contact the appropriate authorities, which are often mediators of the particular site, and file a claim. It's here that the ambiguity of what defines fair use becomes an issue. In his article regarding copyright ambiguity, Christopher Skvarka says "All Internet users must assume that the work is copyrighted, unless otherwise specified by the author." Even if a user has gone through the appropriate measures to properly utilize someone else's work, they can be flagged for copyright violation and have their work taken removed. In most instances, an appeal can be made to reverse the claim and regain control of their content. The process is made to be fairly straightforward and simple to allow for ease of access should a claim be incorrectly filed. 

While the system works to allow the sharing of content, the lack of clear definition when it comes to fair use can be problematic. Depending on how it is done, simply sharing a photograph or sampling an audio track can be cited as copyright infringement. The idea behind the vagueness is to protect free speech online, to limit how much the law will influence what people are allowed to do with online content. With fair use being open to interpretation, the leeway for use of someone else's content is made as available as possible to allow creative freedom. At the same time, the lack of a uniform definition results people in having different criteria for fair use. Common issues result in how a work is cited and if that alone is enough credit, especially if that content is used for monetary gain. For example, an artist might wish to sample part of a song which is under copyright from a major record label, and to do so must make it clear where the piece originally came from and who the rightful owner is or risk legal action. While this counts as fair use, the company that owns the original work might feel that their material is being unfairly used and will flag it for copyright infringement. In most cases, the artist is given the option to dispute this claim and prove that what they have done falls within fair use, however, there are instances when the artist can face a lawsuit. In the case of the former, the artist must file an appeal with the appropriate authorities who often belong to the same company and wait for it to be approved while in the case of the later the artist risks bankruptcy trying to take on a large corporation with significant funding. In either case, the creators' content is taken down and if it is reinstated, they lose the right to monetize it. This, in effect grants large corporation's with multiple copyrights a monopoly over the content on the internet with little to no resistance on part of independent creators attempting to utilize their works. Changes to the copyright system must be made to prevent further issues.

While the openness of the law can work to the detriment of creators, it also works to their advantage. In today's times of mass communication, information is shared more often than it ever has been. In seconds, a picture can be shared by hundreds of people over multiple networks and a song can be downloaded and sampled thousands of times. In order to keep up with the rapid changes made in content sharing, the laws made to protect a user's content must be equally flexible. For that reason, the fact that fair use is as open and vague as possible works to the advantage of creators. The debate over whether adjusting the law would impede free speech has been a major sticking point for people who frequently utilize other creators work in their own projects. In keeping the law as broad as possible, it allows more creative freedom for artists online. They argue that keeping the law open and instead allowing individuals to determine fair use on their own as well as keeping the appeal process simple prevents issues in which large numbers of cases must be evaluated for copyright infringement.

At the same time, the broadness of the law can be an issue. In some areas, the laws are as overly broad as to retroactively stifle and individuals creativity rather than encourage it.  An article by News Media Rights says "The official purpose of U.S. copyright law is to "stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good," but the public's interest in getting the full ability to copy and get value from creative work is often directly opposed to the media industry's interest in making money off of its works for as long as possible." Many argue that the law works more toward the benefit of companies that wish to make money off of a property for as long as possible. It is also argued that the restrictions inadvertently caused by the law stifle creative and scientific progress. People who desire more a fluid copyright system point out the fact that lawmakers have adjusted the laws to protect the financial interests of corporations as opposed to the public it was originally intended for. While the copyright law was originally designed to protect people's rights to their respective intellectual property, companies have led numerous campaigns to increase the limitations in place to guard their own interests, particularly so if the property is intended to make money. 

Another issue is the abuse of the system by large companies. The laws in place were originally intended to protect the public; however, by manipulation of the legal system, corporations are able to use the laws to their benefit. Part of the problem rests with the public, as most people are unaware of what defines fair use, and hold an erroneous idea of what the law means. Many believe that by simply crediting the author of the source they are granted total use of the source. The complex nature of fair use works to the benefit of the companies who have the disposable funds to hire lawyers to oversee copyright matters. Such a scenario would generally be unfeasible for an independent author and thus users must often concede to the whims of the companies rather than risk legal action. An example of this would be YouTube's copyright and fair use system. The popular social media site has often come under criticism for its fair use system being ineffectual and for large corporations being able to abuse the system for their own gain. It is noted on YouTube's fair use policy page that cases in which copyright claims are made by the owners rarely have to be proven to actually have violated the fair use rules. Because of this, if a music artist was to sample an audio track belonging to a major record label, the company could file a copyright claim and have that artist's content removed. If the artist is unable to dispute the copyright claim then the rights to monetize the content go to the company. This way, the company can effectively prevent anyone else from attaining a profit from their content. This habit of disregard for the policies set forth by the government sparked a movement known as #WTFU. Standing for "Where's the Fair Use?" several YouTube personalities have expressed outrage at the sites flawed copyright system. In his article, Matt Jarbo says: 

The need for Fair Use guidelines to be respected grows as well. Content Creators such as Doug Walker (Channel Awesome), Blippi, I HATE EVERYTHING, Sargon of Akkad, The Drunken Peasants, I, and countless others have been affected by people abusing the copyright system on YouTube to silence our opinions, or to take monetization away from content they have no right to.

The system as is allows for lawyers to have a constant workflow handling these copyright cases for companies and allowing companies to have a stranglehold on copyright law. Changes must be made to fix the monopoly companies have managed to create online and limit the freedom of creators.

The problems laid out represent a serious problem for the internet and its users. Artists and content creators struggle to work with the vague and complicated copyright system that while designed to work to protect their rights, has cut them off. With copyright holding corporations able to control content at a whim, creators find their livelihoods are at risk. How would this problem be fixed? The most obvious solution would be to stay within the current framework while making the law regarding fair use tighter and simpler to understand. In an article regarding the subject Professor Zhang Ping said that the ideal solution is to 

Keep an open mind over the Internet's economic model, promote reform of the copyright system within an international context, and seek a feasible authorization model under the existing legal framework.

The issue with attempting to gain permission from every author is the sheer number of cases in which a source might be used. The sheer volumes of cases that deal with copyright claims on a daily basis make this the least plausible solution. Another solution would be to have a group of mediators who determine if a work constitutes as fair use. This is another costly option but would be less cumbersome than having the author bombarded with requests for use. In either case, certain changes to the law itself must be made. A more specific definition of fair use must be laid out in such a way that allows for any creator to apply it in their defense. Removing the complexity and making it more accessible to the public it was meant for would reduce if not eliminate the hold that large corporations have on copyright claims. An important factor to keep in mind is to ensure that power remains in the hands of the public and not the larger businesses. Doing so prevents lawmakers from adjusting the system to work in their benefit and ensure constant workflow through the corporations that file copyright claims. The best way to keep the law open to the public is to prevent the system from being overburdened with legal jargon. Keeping the copyright system at the level of the everyman so that anyone can use it to defend themselves in a legal case ensures it will work for the public audience it was intended for and prevent creative stifling. 

Despite its flaws, copyright laws can be improved to be an effective system in today's age of mass communication. The flow of data requires a system that is flexible enough to adapt to the constantly changing method by which content is shared while also having a solid structure for content creators to follow. It is important that the system be readily available to the public without needless costs or being overburdened with complexity to ensure it retains its effectiveness to the people it was meant for. In doing so, companies can be prevented from holding monetary rights from someone else's content and preventing users from sharing opinions online. The more relaxed the laws are the more freedom is permitted to the users allowing creative freedom and artistic and scientific progress. In order to make copyright laws an effective process, adjustments to the system must be made to prevent future issues.

