`` For The Love Of Culture `` By Lawrence Lessig

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 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.

Throughout our Communication Studies, we have examined the capitalist economy through a critical lens and as a result, corporations always appear at the forefront of debate, blame, and power. From a neo-liberalist economic standpoint, the typical “prosumer” is encouraged to create consumer-generated content, but what happens when you put your creative labour to the test? York University consistently advocates, “this is your time”; in other words, students are responsible for their own success and are held liable for any failures or mishaps they may endure. While contemporary technologies have multiplied and democratized opportunities for musical creativity, intellectual property law has been used to repress our right to free speech, which is guaranteed under the first amendment (Demers 2006). Therefore, the industry’s effort at convincing people that file-sharing is equivalent to thievery have turned an increasing number of artists into intellectual property activists.

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.

In “Cultural Baggage”, Barbara Ehrenreich talks about her feelings regarding her ethnic background. She starts her paper with sharing a conversation that she had with her friend who just found her family heritage. When her friend asked what her heritage was, she replied: “none” ( ??). she mentions that she is Irish but she never raised up with an ethical background. And She explains that as a child she suffered and could not find her ethnical identity. Furthermore, she says that she learned a little about her ethnical background from her grandmother. in addition, she says that she tried to get back to the ethnic gene she wants for her children by marrying a European man. Ehrenreich states that her older child made a statement “you don’t

Copyright Laws Stifle Creativity? Foratv.12 mar. 2009. Web. Nov 12, 2015. Lawrence Lessig is a professor of law at Stanford Law School and founder of the school's Center for Internet and Society. He teaches and writes in the areas of constitutional law, contracts, and the law of cyberspace. Lessig discuss the influences of “remixes” in this generation when everything can be copy and post. He stress the point of the future of originality of arts or ideas in this when everything can the forward. In this context my position was neutral, because I am not completely informed about this issue. As a result, I have not made my mind yet. Lessig is focusing on the informations that the neutral audience need in order to make a decision. He shows us relatively videos, such as the one of a mother celebrating his son, with a song in the background. Lawrence Lessig is using “Ethos,” to deliver his message. He is a recognized Law’s professor and has authority on the subject.So, automatically this impact the audience by trusting his ideas and beliefs. Additionally, I found his message to be persuasive, I would not change it. Because, he is not only an authority in this subject, but he also stress his message while using persuasive arguments. Also, he uses the media and relatively videos, that proves his point and a neutral audience can

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

This paper discusses the copyright law in Canada connected with an ethical line in music sharing. Before embarking on the discussion, it is imperative to understand what copyright entails under the umbrella of intellectual property; the latter refers to intangible property, which is entirely a creation of the mind (Alexander & Penalver, 2012, p. 188). Copyright is the exclusive right granted to the original author of literary work. In this effect, it prevents other people from using an authorship without authorization by the original author. The latter grants license for the reproduction of copies of the work, its usage, as well as distribution in lieu of some fee, i.e. royalty. Merges (2011) explains that literary work encompasses a wide

Copyright is any expression recorded in any physical form, published or unpublished in any medium whether it is music, books, artworks or newspaper articles. Federal publications, facts and ideas are not copyrighted (www.honolulu.hawaii.edu). The very first copyright law that was established was known as the Statute of Anne, which was authorized in England in 1710 (history of copyright, 2005). The newly founded constitution allowed secure rights to its creators. An act very similar to the Statute of Anne was passed by congress in 1790 as the first American copyright law (history of copyright, 2005). As more and more books were produced and were becoming more accessible domestically and internationally in Europe and North America, it became

RIP: A Remix Manifesto offers a convincing case for copyright reform raising the issues about the viscous control on the ownership of intellectual property against the free access to share ideas. Gaylor (2008) is passionate about the ridiculous copyright laws and their ongoing restrictive modifications in the USA that are demolishing the creativity of new ideas and innovations that these copyright laws were originally meant to protect. Gaylor (2008) uses his favourite artist ‘Girl Talk’ who samples and remixes music, to centre his documentary in an effort to defend the public domain and its ability to share free idea, along with the use of the remixer’s manifesto- Number 1. Culture always builds on the past. Number 2. The past always tries to control the future. Number 3. Our future is becoming less free. Number 4. To build free societies you must limit the control of the past. The first point made in the remixers’ manifesto involves Gaylor (2008) exploring the history of artists who have used the creativity of the past for the inspiration of their new idea; including Walt Disney and Metallica- who has borrowed previously made song structures from musicians- both have now become harsh advocates for the current copyright laws. In keeping with Gaylor’s (2008) style, the remaining remix manifesto points will become a guideline for the remaining essay along with the issues and case study that will be represented on the poster.

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.

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.

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

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.

Many infringement claims involve simple cases of copyright infringement where the copying is obvious. Others, however, are more difficult to resolve because copyright protection is not limited to exact copying. It is inevitable that creative and commercial works will take inspiration from the culture at large, and it is often challenging to determine when this "inspiration" has crossed the line into infringement. There also may be a question of whether the allegedly infringed work is even protected by copyright. Unprotected works may include, for example, compilations of facts that lack the requisite creativity to be covered by copyright, or those works that are in the public domain because the copyright term expired.