Intellectual Products And The Property Right Of An Author

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.

An Introduction to the Law and Economics of Intellectual Property Author(s): Stanley M. Besen and Leo J. Raskind Reviewed work(s): Source: The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Winter, 1991), pp. 3-27 Published by: American Economic Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1942699 . Accessed: 24/11/2011 08:39

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 laws must be flexible in addressing and supplementing the needs of Australia’s modern society. However, the failure of the existing, and outdated Copyright Act 1968 (Cwth) in fulfilling the needs of the Australian public has triggered the need for copyright reform. Copyright reform aims to reconsider the relationship between copyright, innovation, technology, research, and economic growth, where it would provide flexible laws fundamental to the broad dissemination of knowledge. Copyright laws should strike a balance between the interests of the creator and the Australian public in terms of access to knowledge, culture and education. Copyright reform aims to

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.

The purpose of the copyright system has always been to promote creativity in society and protect the creators’ interests. In applying copyright laws to any creation, three basic guidelines apply. First is the fair return for a creators labor, second is “Fair Use” of the creators’ labor and finally the Progress of Science and useful Arts to further the public good. The application of these three guidelines in litigation for A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, found that the rights of reproduction, and distribution had been violated, in effect upholding the copyrights of nineteen different music companies represented under A&M Records name, this ruling had protected the music industries interests. However it would seem that the publishing industry would not be so lucky, litigation in Authors’ Guild vs. Google ruled that Google’s actions constituted fair use. Under these two scenarios’ the copyright laws’ have, effectively, protected the rights of music artists’, protected the public’s right to “fair use” and sparked new opportunities for creative growth. However, lawmakers continue to struggle to define copyright boundaries between the public’s right of use and the creators right to profit from their efforts.

The Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 established that copyright terms now expire 70 years after the creator’s death, which is a 20-year extension from the previous copyright law in 1976 that established term expiration 50 years after the creator’s death. The Act applies equally to future works and works with existing copyrights. The court in Eldred v. Ashcroft upheld the CTEA as a rational exercise of congressional authority in that the copyright extension creates a significant benefit: encouraging copyright authors to produce more creative works. However, the extension has little influence on the motivation of authors to create and it constructs roadblocks in the creation process. Overall, the expected outcome of the 20-year copyright term extension is a reduction in the number of works being created and copyrighted in the future due to the increased costs of production. Without works entering the public domain, the copyright owner monopolizes their work, creating social costs associated with a monopoly market failure. The CTEA should be struck down as it is inconsistent with the ultimate goal of copyright law, which is to promote the

The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) published a report which showed that movie piracy alone cost the Australian economy $1.37 billion revenue per annum. More than $193 million of this amount is the loss of government tax revenue due to the 92 million tax free pirated movies. Consequently, this greatly reduces the funds available by the Australian taxing government to spend on Australian communities.

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.

Nobody would rather pay 10 dollars for a CD when you can get it for free by using Napster. The music industry argued that Napster would decrease their potential sales because people were getting access to the same material for free. The music industry was losing revenue and they wanted to find a way that would increase their net income. They took Napster to court because they wanted royalties of the music they were using. The intellectual property protects the rights of recognition or financial benefits of what the person invented, designed or created. One of the three domains of the intellectual property is copyright. Copyright is a form of protection of your work and has ownership of it. It prevents others from copying your work. I do not believe that music, art and writing should be available without being protected by the intellectual property. I would not want anyone to take credit for what I did nor profit from it. This is what the intellectual property protects you from. If people want to use your work they either have to give you credit for it or get permission by the copyright owner to use it. They would want royalty. It would be a win situation for both parties because you are doing things legally and both of the parties will make

The intellectual property battle in the United States is first addressed in the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution states that (the copyright clauses inclusion is) “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries” (U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8). This once again points at the fact that while human beings may feel that they have ideas that can better society, they may be reluctant to do so if they are not rewarded for these ideas in some form or fashion. The aforementioned

Recent copyright reforms in New Zealand suggest a shift towards strengthening copyright protection, favoured by copyright holders. For example, a ‘three strikes’ regime acts against internet account holders who either upload or download copyrighted content. Prosecution has

Advise the client as to all intellectual property issues it ought to consider prior to proceeding with geological expansion and franchising.

Description of cultural attitudes towards and presumption about whether a person can own words and knowledge. Indicate if modern trends such as globalization and easy access to information affected these and give consideration as to whether are also applicable in an organization. Also indicate if the presumptions hold true in ones career as an employee of the organization and how may this essay be relevant to ones work.