A Short Note On The Protect Ip Act

Piracy has become a major issue in the United States. For every motion picture that has been featured in theaters also has been pirated onto the Internet the next day, and for every new musical album that is released, yet there is a free torrent file of the album within the same hour. Even though these online pirates steal music and movies from other companies and make a drastic profit, yet these “rogue” websites receive 53 billions visits a year from across the globe according to Creative America. The persistence of the thieves that break copyright laws of the productions has lead the entertainment business to place a definitive complaint to the U.S. government of the constant notion of piracy. While the notion of piracy was not left

The worldwide increase in technology awakened concerns on how to protect minors. In 1998, the Bill Clinton Presidential Administration developed the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) (The Clinton Presidency: Unleashing the New Economy -- Expanding Access to Technology. n.d.). The COPPA was developed to protect children under the age of 13 from the operators of commercial websites that collects information using online services, applications, and websites. In addition, the operators are required to receive a verified consent form by each parent with minor children before any data is collected. In 2012, an amendment was established in response to the influx of public comments and proposed changes.

Piracy is already illegal in the US, and most places around the world, yet it persists underground, but more often in plain sight. Short of passing a law that allows the actual blacklisting of websites like China and Iran, there is no legislative solution. That’s what SOPA and PIPA were attempting to do, but it so obviously trampled on the First Amendment, it was laughed out of existence as the entire internet protested it. The only other thing you could get the internet to agree on was if they tried to institute a ban on cat pictures.(Tassi)

I’m afraid that the issues that had to do with the rights for creators of content (authors of music, books, papers, etc.) to be able to profit from their work without being deprived of their livelihoods due to piracy, was confounded due to the ignorance of law makers about the nature of the Internet (the free flow of ideas, the ability to collaborate with people from all over the world and engage in thoughtful discourse and debate, etc.). Further, the influence of money and pressure being brought upon the government to pass the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA) by very wealthy and influential organizations (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organizations_with_official_stances_on_the_SOPA_and_PIPA ) created undue pressure to get Congress to act without thoughtful investigation into the

Following this, all payment providers, such as PayPal, would be forced to block payments to the website. Finally, they would order ad services to stop placing their ads on the prosecuted website (Summary). The aforementioned companies were required to respond and take these actions within five days of being notified of the website’s malicious activity. If they failed to do so, the copyright holder would take these companies to court on accusations of disregarding the claims of copyright infringement (Summary). The strangest part about all of this is that the bill would take no action directly against the accused website, but would have only cut off access to it (Summary). This marks a primary distinction between PIPA and SOPA, which are often presented as equivalent bills. For one, PIPA does not force search engines to remove a website accused of hosting copyrighted content from their indexes, which is one of the most debated points of SOPA. It also has provisions that require greater court intervention, however it does not contain any sort of penalty for a copyright holder who goes after an innocent site, where as SOPA has provisions in place for such an occurrence (Couts).

D.) The sales tax liabilities to which the Web site will be exposed. Assume that Ellen will operate the site from her home office in Michigan and that EPE will manufacture the merchandise in Texas. The merchandise will be warehoused at EPE distribution centers in New Jersey, Ohio, and California.

This paper will discuss the history of media shield laws in the U.S. and Hawaii. It will argue the pros and cons of the need and importance of such shield laws in Hawaii to help enhance the First Amendment. According to the West 's Encyclopedia of American Law (n.d.) shield laws are statues that “make communications between news reporters and informants confidential and privileged, freeing journalists of the obligation to testify about them in court.” The encyclopedia compares this to a doctor-patient, lawyer-client or priest-parishioner privilege. Where these laws are in action, journalists are free to protect their sources. If subpoenaed by a state court, journalists are free to refuse to give up their confidential sources or unpublished material. This makes it easier for journalists to report on a broad variety of topics, but these laws are also controversial because they challenge the government interests when it comes to bringing criminals to justice (Shield Laws, n.d.). Research shows that Hawaii used to have a shield law – the best in the country according to several people – but it was overturned in 2013. Today, 49 states and the District of Colombia have implemented shield laws of different variation of protection (Riker, 2015). At the same time, there does not exist any media shield laws at the federal level (Shield Laws 101, n.d.).

The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) and the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) were both enacted as part of the state’s efforts to protect children in the United States from any adverse implications arising from Internet use.

SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) was a bill proposed in the House of Representatives that aimed to tackle the growing problem of online piracy and copyright infringement. It targets foreign-based websites that contain any form of unauthorized copyright-infringing material such as movies or music by giving content-creators the right to stop any US businesses from providing payment services, advertising, or even dealing with prosecuted websites; essentially blacklisting and hiding these websites to any US visitors. The bill is split into two main sections: “Combating Online Piracy”, which provides tools for rights holders to protect their content, and “Additional Enhancements to Combat Intellectual Property Theft.”, which criminal law which as applies to intellectual property rights and increases punishments for leaking government information. SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) was not enacted because of very strong opposing public opinion, its highly broad and unconstitutional policies that restricted speech, and presidential leadership against the bill.

The amendment is fairly futile as Australians will still find access to the blocked illegal sites. However, it may limit online piracy as it makes it more inconvenient for Australians to access piracy sites. Urge your friends and family to stop pirating as it substantially affects everyone and must be stopped. Even post anti piracy pictures on social media to make more people aware of the issue and act. So before you click that download button on that new song that just came out, think to yourself, “Is it really worth

Free speech is a crucial part of The United States’ foundation in history, we fought for our First Amendment rights and continue to fight for them every day. That is why the suppression and censorship of the press is so important during World War II. The censorship of the Fu-Go bombs, although not ideal, was for the greater good of America winning the war. This was an instance where censorship was done for the overall benefit of the people, but when censorship is taken too far it can have extreme repercussions.

Describe the legislation and organisational requirements in care setting such as Queensland that ensure good practise in dealing with confidentiality.

In today’s society, it seems as if the internet has become a hot topic for politicians, and issues such as piracy, censorship, and privacy appears in the mainstream media. Whether it’s the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act informing you that some search results have been removed, news of foreign governments controlling what their citizens can and can’t view, or Apple and other corporations refusing to meet the demands of the FBI, the internet, and government dealings are closely intertwined. American media gives coverage to many of these stories but there a lot of bills, acts, laws etc. get no attention. Not only is this lack of information deceptive, but it is also dangerous for internet users. Bills such as SOPA and PIPA from 2011,

My research question is how does the newly-released Trans-Pacific Partnership’s Intellectual Property provisions affect the privacy of the internet. For those who do not know what the Trans-Pacific Partnership is, tppinfo.org defines it as “a free trade agreement currently being negotiated by nine countries: The United States, Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. [1] While my question focuses the intellectual property portions of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (henceforth TPP), it is good to understand what many believe are the pros and cons of the agreement as a whole. Proponents of the TPP believe the deal will boost exports and economic growth, remove trade tariffs on imports and

Such policy seems to be working with plagiarism at e.g. Universities, but in term of intellectual property the intangible aspect of the product makes it more difficult to control. Therefore stopping online piracy is easier said than done, as it would require enormous human resources from a government to track down illegal websites and taking a legal action against them leading to the closure. One case study worth following regarding this issue was on the major streaming website TV SHACK.net has been seized many times by the US government and it kept changing the domain addresses to overseas addresses as .co or .bz. The owner, 23 year old student Richard O’Dwyer from Sheffield has been charged with copyright infringement and the US Justice Department has been seeking to extradite him from the UK since May 2011 – BBC reports. Streaming itself is a grey area in many countries, i.e. Germany, where it is not perceived as downloading but has been sourced using illegal means. Compared with the legal issues and the fact that the content was stored on foreign servers the law enforcement was extremely difficult, but now it has been set an example worldwide of tackling with piracy. On entering the internet address now a video clip displays which in a humoristic educated people on what piracy is and how much a “free” movie really cost. Such attempt is one of the suggested ways in dealing with piracy through