INTRODUCTION
Copyright holders are given a property right to their work according to section 1 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988). Thus the right holders are given an exclusive right to their work. Anyone who carries out an act, which is exclusive to the right holders, without obtaining their permission prior to the act, infringes on the copyright holders proprietary rights.
A lot of people have been taking advantage of the internet for the commission of copyright infringement and they do so anonymously. Charleton, J, while dealing with a case of online copyright infringement, explains that ‘it is a problem that not only undermines the business of the content industry, but also ruins the ability of a generation of creative persons to earn a viable living’. In their quest for financial gain in respect of their work and the protection of their work, right holders have, consequently turned against the internet service providers’ who serve as the middlemen, seeking to hold them accountable for the infringement of the offenders using their networks to commit these crime. Consequently, the issue of indirect liability against Internet Service Providers has resulted into a floodgate of litigant wanting to enforce their right. Internet Service Providers were reluctant to interfere with their subscribers’ access to website not until the recent epidemic, where right holders are able to bring action against them and hold them liable for their subscribers’
De Villiers, Meiring. 2010. Information Security Standards and Liability. Journal of Internet Law 13.7 Retrieved from
The primary piece of legislation used to regulate telecom providers is the Telecommunication Act of 1996. This paper will examine the characteristics, and point out similarities, of telecommunications providers and information services such as the internet. Additionally, regulation of telecommunications and the lack of regulation for information services will be addressed. Finally, recommendations for potential ways to regulate information services, the potential legal ramifications of such regulation, and the technical considerations regarding the recommendations will be identified.
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.
Current copyright protection is entitled to provide the essential mechanism for the insurance of the success viability of creative industries by rewarding and incentivising the creators of original works relating to films, music and broadcasts. The Copyright Act 1968 is initially designed to protect although, despite this, the advancement of technology has led to abuse of the Act, subsequently to withhold its dexterity, the Act has required modification, through; case and statute law. While acknowledging this, it must be understood that the codes; Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), Copyright Regulations 1969 (Cth), Copyright Tribunal Procedure Regulations 1969 (Cth) and the Copyright International Protection Regulations 1969 (Cth) are applied automatically once the work has been published in an accessible format; provided that the author/s are current citizens or residents of Australia. Throughout this report, the Copyright Act 1968 will be analysed in depth to provide a detailed understanding of whether it is possible for the law to be proactive with regards to future technologies. In a developing world of rapid changes and advancements in technology and human behaviour, there is no specific measure that can completely eliminate online copyright infringement.
With over three billion people in the world utilizing the internet there is great danger for copyright infringement to occur (Internet Live Stats). Copyright law protects the creator of an original piece of work exclusive rights to the work. Many people who use the internet are sharing files that do not belong to them and are guilty of copyright infringement. Copyright law needs to be tightened up in the digital space to protect the creator of their unique work.
Preventative methods do not punish or harm the user; their purpose is simply to make content inaccessible, or to at least complicate access” (Bowen and Marchant). Both countries want the best for their people in terms of their internet usage, but as a result of cultural differences have gone about it in very different
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
Recent congressional proposal to pass the Stop Online Internet Piracy (SOPA) Act was one of the latest attempts by copyright owners and their supporters in Congress to criminalize intellectual property theft through the use of the Internet. The bill has not passed yet partly because of public concerns that the Act could have adversely affect the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech. These concerns over intellectual property theft as well as the potentially negative consequences of copyright protection legislations, however, are not new in the digital age. The debate over electronic theft began during 1990s when increasing number of Americans began to gain access to the Internet. To protect copyright owners, the Congress in 1997 passed No Electronic Theft (NET) Act. It was a logical response from Congress given the fact that the Internet could be used to violate copyright laws on a massive scale unless properly regulated through appropriate legislation. However, the NET Act also turned out to be largely ineffective and its scope reached beyond what was justified.
Australian copyright law as it stands does not anticipate or take into account existing and new technologies in society. The internet has profoundly changed the way individuals’ access, share and create content. It enables widespread and extensive access to knowledge instantaneously, fosters
In the global market that we leave in companies are trying to find any and everyway that they can to get ahead in their respective markets. This most of the time brings out the most innovate thinkers that can come up with a way to keep it’s company on top of their market and sometimes we see that there are companies that like to take a short cut by using non legal and malicious methods. According to Lewis, (1985), Software piracy is the illicit copying of the operating instructions and applications programs, which make computers work, is a large and growing industry. The Pirate Bay is part of a European social and political movement that opposes copyrighted content and demands that music, videos, TV shows, and other digital content be free and unrestricted. In the words of the Pirate Party, “the Pirate Bay is a unique platform for distributing culture between regular people and independent artists, and that’s something we want to preserve.”
To begin, copyright is the privilege of an author of a work to keep others from utilizing his or her work without consent. An author of a work has the selectors right to state yes or no to the different
Identify and discuss these copyright challenges in the modern digital economy using examples from case law.
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.
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
Traditional rules of common law are most times invoked to in making ISP’s liable, the most popular is the Notice and Takedown Order(referred to as NTD), this procedure, is a peculiar kind of internet content self-regulatory measure. In theory it consists of a scheme which sets forth