Copyright vs. the Right to Copy Essay

I understand and agree with your post. Taking away the protection offered by the Copyrights Act will increase the financial insecurity for the new artist and lower the creation of new material. This is the reason I also completely agree with the court case ruling in against LimeWire

I think stealing is wrong because when you steal bad things happen to you. Stealing is ruining friendship because when you steal from a fellow mate that can ruin your friendship in many ways. Like, it breaks your trust. If you don’t agree that’s bad because stealing is bad exspeacally from a friend. In this passage I’d be writing about is Stealing wrong or right thing to do. To me I believe that stealing is very wrong and negative so no one should do it. Stealing is wrong and the negative route to take so I say stealing is the wrong thing to do.

To answer this, Copyright Law must be understood. Copyright Laws protect intellectual property, and ownership rights. Artists can control their content by selling, leasing it or giving it away. Artists can grant permission for their work and have the freedom to charge. It encourages creativity, and protects the creativity by keeping it exclusive to the creator which allows profit. Mass media embodies the Copyright content,

The use of technology has catalyzed society into an era that is increasingly interconnected yet impersonal at the same time. Despite technology’s endless list of assets, many fail to acknowledge its shortcomings when mentioning what is lost as a result of using it. Although in “Great to Watch” by Maggie Nelson, she is not afraid to share her skepticism of technology, as well as the role it plays in desensitizing individuals on a day-to-day basis. The internet is an invaluable resource to many because it is a public domain for sharing ideas, opinions, and knowledge that any and everyone can have access to. In a sense, it does not restrict what someone may see or do, and this can either be a good thing or a bad thing. The booming use of new media

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

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

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.

For example, many pictures or written documentation can be altered with just a stroke a button. Two years ago, I knew a friend of mind that decided that he want to get back at his girlfriend because she had left him for another man. He decided to scan a picture of her online. He altered her picture by putting her face in a body of another female that was posing nude online; he then decided to e-mail the picture to her parents. This may sound bizarre, but stories like this one happen on a regular basis. In conclusion, I feel that copyright laws are very important, especially now that the internet give us virtually access to the world. I feel that protecting the work of people is just as important as protecting our first amendment rights. Each and every day the copyright laws get harder to implement the upsurge of better and faster technological advances.

The digital age is changing our rights on the subject of ownership: less and less people know whether they can copy, sell or even lend their digital goods. An author named, Christopher Groskopf, wrote “The digital age has destroyed the concept of ownership, and companies are taking advantage of it,” published in 2016 in the Quartz, and he argues that intuition has fallen apart when talking about ownership of digital goods and that companies use their fine prints to take benefit from this. Groskopf uses a survey, reputable sources, facts and statistics in order to appeal to similar feelings and experiences in her adult readers; however, toward the end of the article, he weakens his argument by contradicting himself.

I agree the Internet is a great platform individuals are given to socialize and transfer information. It has enhanced our environment worldwide. You mentioned a solider didn’t have the accessible resources to connect with he/she family, but in today’s society that option is available for Skype to visually connect over the internet. I found “the internet of things has a major impact in our future of mankind and on the daily life of the individuals, we are part of a world where everything has the potential to be connected. As a matter of fact, it is estimated by garner that by 2020, the installed base for the internet of things will exceed 212 billion and will be over 30 billion of “connected things” (Hucanu & Georgescu, 2016). The examples of the soldier, gospel, virtually around the world were great examples that you incorporated in your paper. I agree it’s important to protect the copyright laws. You mentioned individual earning royalty for their music and it’s important to ensure copyright with the music. I found this to be true because “Copyright in a song is different from many other works. Each song holds two copyrights: a copyright in the sand recording and a copyright in the musical composition” (Conte, 2017). Fischer explains how we should follow rules and it shows respect. In Matthew 7:12 (ERV) says, “Do for others what you would want them to do for you”. As it is so many creative people in the music industry it’s imperative to treat people how you expect to be

Circumstantial evidence requires proof of probative similarities in addition to proof of access. See Paul Goldstein. These similarities may be found in the “unoriginal and non-copyrightable” parts of the work in question, like occurrences of the same artistic errors. Id. Essentially, if an author can show that it is extremely unlikely that someone else made the same errors independently, then the author has proven probative similarities.

Op-Ed Contributor Vinton Cerf, a renowned computer scientist has authored an article for the New York Times opposing the Internets status as a human right. While Cerf, as much as anyone, recognizes the impact of the Internet, his argument stems from a purely mechanical standpoint and fails to depict the Internet in any kind of humanistic light. Access to public information should never be transgressed on. Far more than any other technology, the Internet should be regarded and protected as a civil right because it permits individuals ubiquitously to practice free speech.

The Internet already makes it easy for the computer savvy individuals to copy music illicitly. Widespread file sharing has led content providers and distributors of content to view their customers as growing threats to their survival. Anything we can watch, read, or listen to over our computers can be copied. If Americans are willing to steal intellectual property, and if increased access speeds will enable us to do so almost effortlessly, then a large part of our entertainment-based economy is in peril. Napster showed that people who wouldn’t even consider shoplifting would readily download pirated music. Just as people have less incentive to work if high tax rates appropriate the fruits of their labors, so media companies would have less

Creative Commons encourages artists to share and distribute their work for free. And that could be the key to a new multibillion-dollar industry.