Advantages Of Statutory Damages

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

When The Copyright Act of 1976 was enacted works created after January 1, 1978, are automatically given statutory copyright protection for life of the author plus 70 years. (Miller R. J., 2011, pp. 125-126) For someone to go against the rules of a copyright this is called a copyright infringement. A copyright infringement occurs if a substantial part of a copyrighted product has been reproduced. (Miller R. J., 2011, p. 127) Damages can vary from case to case of copyright infringement. Based on the type of damage caused it will be classified as actual damages or statutory damages. Actual damages are based on the harm caused by the copyright holder by the infringement. (Miller R. J., 2011, p. 127) Statutory damages may not exceed $150,000. Criminal proceedings may result in fines and/or imprisonment. There is a notable way to waive the copyright by

One of the most common, yet controversial, issues of First Amendment law is the subject of copyright and infringement. Although the subject may not seem major at first, many different issues and controversies have risen and become more common than ever over the years. The issues that have become pertinent to this subject are endless, including trademark infringement, piracy, theft, fraud, plagiarism, and many more. With the coming of age and advancement of technology, these cases have become more common and appear more often than ever before. Government officials have always been strict about copyright rulings, and have tried to deliver fair and just rulings for both parties involved under First Amendment rules. Because the owner’s work and material is protected under the First Amendment, it gets tricky when involving another party that can claim the same work of art. In short, the definition of copyright has always been cut and dry: allowing owners of creative works the right to control and profit from their creations. It is basically recognized as a form of property ownership.

The law must come to terms with the difference between artistic intent and economic intent. Artistic freedom is more important for the health of society than the supplemental and extraneous incomes derived from private copyright fees. They create art of police and control, since no matter how the original intent of the copyright laws are, today, they are subverted to censor resented works that suppress the public’s need to reuse and reshape

An article by Anna Jo Bratton, Associated Press, describes well the dangers of my topic: piracy. In the article, Bratton reported a recent legal matter that impacted Sarah Barg, a University of Nebraska-Lincoln sophomore, and her colleges. The RIAA, an anti-piracy and plagiarism society had suspected that many students at the university had been illegally downloading media content. Burg received an email concerning the matter, but she was ignorant and considered it a fluke or scam. The email suggested that she had supposedly downloaded a whopping 381 songs. The letter continued to say that a lawsuit was possible, but they offered here an opportunity to avoid that circumstance. They requested of her $3,000, or $7.87 per song. Sarah, still

Mandatory sentencing refers to those sentences which a judicial officer is required to impose no matter what the circumstances of the offence. In other words, the judicial officer has no discretion to impose a higher or lower sentence depending upon the nature of the crime. In the case of one punch laws, the mandatory sentence is a minimum so a judicial officer is able to impose a higher sentence if he or she thinks it’s appropriate. For example, a person who king hits someone will automatically get an eight-year mandatory minimum sentence. If someone else does the same thing one month later in a different place and is heard by a different judge he will get that same mandatory minimum sentence of eight years in prison and possibly longer if the judge thinks it’s suitable.

Traditional legal principles and processes are constantly challenged by the need to keep pace with copyright issues in particular piracy. The Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015

damages functions as a substitute for relief under the IDEA, a plaintiff cannot escape the

The question of law before the court was whether or not LimeWire should be held accountable for copyright infringement. The court ruled in the Recording Industry Association of America’s favor and the verdict stood that LimeWire was liable of copyright infringement. The RIAA sought up to $150,000 per copyright violation, claiming “ninety-three percent of the program was unauthorized copyright material.” (“LimeWire Crushed in RIAA Infringement Lawsuit”). Mr. Judge Wood of the United States District Court in Manhattan stated in a synopsis that LimeWire and its designer, Mark Gorton, had perpetrated copyright infringement, joined in inequitable rivalry and influenced others to enact copyright infringement. LimeWire highly disagreed with the ruling and declared that they intended to stay in business.

Alternative methods of sentencing are primarily aimed at rehabilitation, so that the offender can avoid further contact with the criminal justice system. This is an effective feature of the justice system as it allows an opportunity for the offender to show remorse and make amends and bring satisfaction upon the victims’ and society as it allows an opportunity for the victim to describe the impact of the offender’s actions on their lives. This is clearly evident in the article Circle sentencing ‘helping to keep our mob out of jail’ by Karina Marlow, which involves an alternative court for sentencing adult indigenous offenders, based on customary law and traditional forms of indigenous dispute resolution. The article affirms the effectiveness

The court awarded Mrs. Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages, but was reduce by the 20 percent she was at fault for, which resulted in a final $160,000 in compensatory damages. In addition she was award punitive damages, which means that this amount was awarded to her as a punishment to the defendant and to serve as a deterrent for the defendant and other in the future. Mrs. Liebeck was originally awarded $2.7 million by the jury, but was reduce $480,000. In the Mrs. Liebeck won a lot of money and put a world wide corporation in the spotlight, and influenced the overwhelming warning label

The era of cable television reaches its final breath. Digital media begins flourishing. Online communities and social media reign over, spoiling our fingers with content of all calibers. The internet is causing a change so radical that legal matters are still catching up with it. As the Founding Fathers intended, effective law should include creating law adapts to society’s changes. However, change hasn’t occurred yet. The American copyright law only gets more controversial as it butts its way in. There is now a three-way skirmish between creators, large corporations and legislature for a simple reason. It is preventing creative freedom and distribution of content online. The American copyright law is ironically limiting much of this generation’s creativity by preventing exposure, criminalizing the wrong people and letting others take advantages of its own loopholes.

For example, along with some new guidelines created for non-willful infringement cases,[n3] the most significant change adopted was a rule that governed that statutory damage awards were now to be given “per infringed work” [54] instead of “per infringement” as the older Act of 1909 had established. This change was in response to the excessive awards that had resulted from the “per infringement” standard sometimes.[56] Regrettably, the ways in which the new provision broadened the statutory damages far outweighed the narrowing effects of the provision. First, the new provision set an increased amount maximum award [70]. Second, it allowed for sole discretion of plaintiff to elect statutory damages at any point up to the entry of final judgement [71]. Third, the provision no longer provided guidelines to tailor to different types of infringements of different types of copyrighted works.[72] Fourth, the new provision deleted section 101(b) of the 1909 Act which rules that statutory damages not be regarded as a penalty. Lastly, and most importantly, Congress created in the new provision a higher upper limit amount of the damage award range specifically for willful infringements, [73] which, through subsequent amendments, have increased to $150,000 per infringed work today. Considering that it is ultimately left to the court to determine “just” statutory damage awards, absent

One aspect of copyright law which has gained much interest recently is music copyright infringement. There are many ways in which copyright infringement in the music industry can occur, but plagiarism is one of the most newsworthy copyright infringements in the music industry. Plagiarism in its most basic form is stealing and misrepresenting someone else’s ideas or words as one’s property and not giving the true owner credit. However, proving plagiarism in the music industry has its own unique challenges, and from these challenges come an important ethical issue. In Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress: “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” The original purpose of copyright law is not just to protect works from theft, but also to promote innovation and creativity. However, as shown in recent cases such as Williams v. Bridgeport Music et al. and Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin, the legal system has shown its handling music plagiarism cases. By examining the standard procedure and case examples for music copyright infringement, two things become evident: The current laws adequately protect artists’ works, but in some instances, creativity is stunted by judicial system’s way of dealing with infringement. Thus, the judicial system has certain issues in heeding to the original purpose of copyright law.

Over the past several years the body of laws governing compensation in tort law has substantially transformed from its common law origins. In the course of what many have advocated in the name of "tort reform," more than half of the United States have revised, or attempted to revise, one or more aspects of tort liability and damage principles to a greater or lesser degree. Tort law is, of course, constantly evolving; everyday in courts across the country, judges, attorneys and jurors are making and reshaping the law. Despite efforts for reform, one still cannot overlook the nature of modern torts and fail to