Consequences and Limitations of the No Electronic Theft Act of 1997

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 pervasive nature of the Internet has made the copying of music and software exceptionally easy, fast and for the most part, undetectable. The ubiquity of the Internet and the speed at which music and software can be copied is also changing the sociological and legal aspects of computing as well (De George, 2006). For the first time the availability of technology is driving a level of expertise with computer users globally that give them the opportunity to capture, distribute, duplicate and even re-publish massive amounts of intellectual property that isn't theirs (Wilson, 2007). This is forcing the issue of copyright infringement and the protection of intellectual property at a global scale. In so doing, this dynamics is also re-ordering ethics surrounding all forms of digital content as well.

SOPA, PIPA, and CISPA: though different, these bills were all presented with a similar goal in mind. These bills were intended to stop the digital copyright infringement of American intellectual properties, mainly in foreign countries, but the overly vague wording in the bills made it hard to decipher their real intentions (Yu). For a multitude of reasons, these bills were staunchly protested not only by American citizens, but they also received protest from numerous international groups (York). Though some may argue that SOPA, PIPA, or CISPA may have had some value, they did not have the intended result of ending digital theft, but rather invigorated a retaliating movement. The main

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

Luckily, this bill foresaw possible issues and made sure to specifically state in section 230 that ISPs (internet service providers) and websites hosting content were not to be held directly responsible for information posted by other users. However in some places it overstepped its boundaries by placing unfair restrictions on speech within the internet, therefore it was deemed unconstitutional in 1997. In 1998, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act was passed. This act prohibits the distribution and hosting of services that hold or use copyrighted material unlawfully, however even if no infringing material is hosted – if some form of circumvention is in place the host is held liable. This act gave the entertainment industry extreme power, which has become a major issue in recent years. For example, on sites such as YouTube (founded 2005) entire videos can be removed from claims by entertainment providers, like record companies. Oftentimes these removals are completely unlawful and violate fair use – however, nothing has been done in the terms of stopping the providers. One can dispute a claim, but more often than not there is a robot in place on the other end who will continue to re-instate the claim indefinitely, preventing the “infringing” party from appealing the

B. Relevance: The Internet has changed the way we all live. It is at our disposal with many advantages and some disadvantages, piracy being one of them. The Stop Online Piracy Act,

The underlying motivation behind the attacks was to gain access to high profile companies’ login credentials and intellectual property with the purpose of stealing the technological ideas and research and use it as their own (Chuck & Taylor, 2011). The fact that this type of attack originated from China is a sure indicator that this stolen information was intended for malicious purposes. The targets were strong sources of technology and intelligence and were considered powerhouses in the technology

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 immense growth of the World Wide Web has astounded large corporations for its easy access, fast communication, and ever growing usage of the large network connecting ordinary people on a daily basis. The internet’s rising popularity and the shifted attention of their competitors’ consumers towards this new innovation, which is cheaper and more accessible, has struck fear into the senior industries. One problem that could affect them, and supposedly the economy, are the loosely regulated websites that allow copyright infringement. These sites are gateways for an endless collection of music, movies, books, video games, and T.V. Programs that can be illegally downloaded for free in one click, through the use of the internet. Copyright regulation

On October 28, 1998, President Bill Clinton signed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) which was designed to address issues in copyright laws created by evolving technology -(“Piracy and File-Sharing”).  The law was also aimed at international concerns involving copyright, and even ended up setting the rules for copyright infringement on the internet - (“Piracy and File-Sharing”).  In 1997, President Clinton signed the No Electronic Theft Act (NET) which provides for enhanced criminal remedies for copyright infringement. The law was designed to stem the widespread theft of computer software -(“Piracy and

Intellectual property, or IP, is an area of secular law dealing with copyright, trademarks, and patents and is largely misunderstood area of law to the average user. Everyday people from all over the world go on the internet and copy and paste words, videos, and ideas for their own needs; “but the results of eras developing legislation and precedent now transitioning into the current digital age” have left most of us oblivious of how deeply it affects our lives (). The ignorance of the secular world in IP has not come full circle on “what is right” and “what is wrong”. At times it seems as if it was easier to ignore this thing called “copyright”, “patent”, or “trademarks” and keep moving on with our lives. “The digital age changed everything” ().

We all know that downloading pirated music and films is illegal, but what exactly is it? The term piracy refers to the copying and selling of music, films and other media illegally; in other words you are copying and selling copyrighted media without the permission of the original owner (NiDirect, n.d.). With the massive growth of the internet and its ability to store and capture vast amounts of data, we have become much more reliable on information systems in all aspects of life, but it does not come without the risk of information technology being used unethically. With the number of IT breakthroughs in recent years “the importance of ethics and human values has been underemphasised” often resulting in various consequences. Not surprisingly one of the many public concerns about the ethical use of IT is that “millions of people have downloaded music and movies at no charge and in apparent violation of copyright laws at tremendous expense to the owners of those copyrights” (Reynolds, Ethics in Information Technology, 2015). This essay covers the ethical issues of downloading pirated music and films and the impact it has on music corporations and recording and film companies.

Identify and discuss these copyright challenges in the modern digital economy using examples from case law.

The rise of the Internet era opened the whole new market for traditional media full of opportunities as well as threats. Online piracy being one of them because the music and film industry loses £5.4bn in a year and if it was reduced by 10% it could have created up to 13 thousand jobs in the UK. There are various attempts taken to fight with online piracy; a case study of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement will be considered as well as other legislations attempting to regulate copyrights in the Internet. This

Unfortunately, with each announcement of new protective software, a counter program almost instantly is created, matched, and supported through counter hacking technology that makes files available to these large copying networks. Any person with knowledgeable code in computers is capable of decoding these files. This desire to ‘liberate’ files by many hackers is only a sign to show that the industry should be developing ways to work with the technology and not against it. The Recording Industry Association of America recently filed lawsuits against four college students, running ftp servers on campus networks. A federal judge in California settled the case quickly, and despite the fact that the students never actually accepted responsibility, they settled to pay $12,000 to $17,500 in fines. A case that ended without a clearly defined verdict proves that it is difficult to have a true scapegoat for responsibility of piracy violations and copyright infringement. “The internet is like one gigantic copying machine,” says David Nimmer, a lawyer who spends most of his time with disputes in Intellectual property. “Once on the internet, copying becomes effortless, costless, widespread, and immediate.” Nimmer is an experienced lawyer who is well aware of the easy access to the copied files and has trouble himself challenging illegality in certain situations. Copyright law does not make a distinction