Copyright Law Extension Act And The Copyright Term Extension Act

11. Reno v ACLU (501)- the supreme court upheld the lower court’s ruling in June 1997 by unamimously deciding a broad affirmation of free speech rights in cyberspace, arguing that the Internet was more analogous (analogous means comparable) to print media than to television, and thus even indecent material on the internet was entitled to First Amendment protection.

“The Amendment is written in terms of “speech,” not speakers. Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speakers, from single individuals to partnerships of individuals, to unincorporated associations of individuals, to incorporated associations of individuals…Indeed, to exclude or impede corporate speech is to muzzle the principal agents of the modern free economy. We should celebrate rather than condemn the addition of this speech to the public debate.”

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

The duration of copyright determines the length of protection. Limitations on this length exist to ensure works enter the public domain. Therefore, the length of protection is one of the most relevant and debated issues regarding copyright law. The proponents and opponents of copyright term extension make compelling arguments, but both sides agree that copyright law should encourage creativity and innovation. If Disney is successful in once again lobbying for an extension of duration, a substantial number of works will fail to enter the public domain in a timely manner. This will, consequently, lead to a stifling of creativity and a suppression of innovation that could be detrimental to progress in the realms of science and the useful arts.

Issue #3: The legal implications of not enforcing Lakewood’s rights under the copyright is that the statute of limitations is only three years on this type of legal action. This means that any delay in sending a cease and desist letter or attempting ADR brings the defense

There are claims made suggesting that copyright is a direct violation of our freedom of speech. Within the general foundation of protection and enjoyment of those protections, rest limitations, because of the real connection between authorization and copyright law. The goal of research is to investigate and unearth specific facts about the history of intellectual property in relation to old and contemporary court cases. The M. Whitmark & Sons v. Pastime Amusement Decree states that copyright is an indivisible and cannot be split up and partially assigned, as to time, place, rights and privileges (298 F. 470, 1924). Does this case contradict the Digital Millennium Act? Are the copyright rules in violation of any rights concerning our right to free speech? If so, how are those rights violated? The Statute of Anne in eighteenth century Europe, was set up to prevent the unauthorized composition of works that had

States District Court denied the injunction, stating that Citizens United’s movie qualified as an electioneering communication under the BCRA, which was held constitutional in McConnell v. FEC (Oyez, 2009). Citizens United appealed their case, and in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 203 of the BCRA was unconstitutional, citing the First Amendment as precedent. The majority wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech" (Roberts, 2009).

An earlier version of the law -- the 1996 Communications Decency Act -- was struck down as an unconstitutional restriction of free speech when challenged by the ACLU; the 1998 version attempted to address the constitutional concerns by limiting its scope to

MGM also warned of allowing “a copyright owner [to] si[t] still . . . waiting to see what the outcome of an alleged infringer’s investment will be.” Indeed here, Petrella admitted to waiting to file her lawsuit in light of Raging Bull’s questionable profitability. But Justice Ginsburg responded that under §507(b), in practice, “there is nothing untoward” about allowing copyright owners to assess the

The “caveat” to the expressive use exception will have a substantial chilling effect on First Amendment protected speech by increasing the likelihood that publishers,

Perhaps the abundance of disagreement reflects the difficulty of the problem” writes Leval in his article. He also wrote “we can nonetheless gain a better understanding of fair use and greater consistency and predictability of court decisions by disciplined focus on the utilitarian, public-enriching objectives of

Copyright is the legal right, to an inventor to perform, print, publish, film, or record artistic, literary, or musical material, and to allow others to do the same. Copyright law was developed to provide the creators and inventors of any works with powerful and effective rights of exclusivity over their creations (Patterson & Lindberg, 1991). Over the past, these rights were almost unlimited. People would use existing developments as if they were their own without any regard of the creator’s exclusive rights. The need to balance and limit such rights arose, and governments established these limits for the general good of the public.

A copyright gives the originator of literary, artistic, or music works the right to perform, publish, record, or print them. This can include sound recordings, paintings, photographs, films, melodies, television, radio broadcasts, cable programs, performances, and even codes to computer programs (Legal Information Institute). Since copyrights cover several different types of materials, the duration varies depending on what work is being protected. According to the Copyright Act of 1976, musical, artistic, and literary works created after January 1, 1978 have copyrights that last 70 years after the author has passed away, 95 years after publication, or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first (United States Copyright Office, 2011). However, the published editions of these works have copyrights that last 25 years after being first published. Broadcast and cable programs, on the other hand, have a copyright duration of 50 years after being created

The enduring fascination for people is that they want law to be flexible in the matter of copyright. This was clearly expressed by Ed Mayo, Chief Executive of Consumer Focus quoting "UK copyright law is the oldest, but also the most out of date. Before addressing the question it’s important to look at the history and definition of UK Copyright law. It has grown from this beginning to form the main legal basis for the international publishing industry, which contributes so much to literature, learning and culture not only in the UK but it has crossed different nation’s borders.

In 1774 free culture was made because copyright was stopped in the case called Donaldson versus Becket in the House of the Lords in England. In 1710 the copyright was limited to 14 years. Donaldson was allowed to reprint Shakespeare despite other publishers were trying to stop him and demanded a common copyright law that would be forever.