Protect Ip Act Research Paper

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

Despite copyright law 's prevalence in out everyday life, few are wary of the potential risks of its uncontested expansion. The law has been allowed to continuously expand with little or no opposition due to a lack of public awareness surrounding the issue. That was until the mufti-corporation sponsored bills SOPA and PIPA made headline news in 2011. These failed bills were an explicit attempt to increase the enforcement of copyright law over the internet.

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

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 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

SOPA, PIPA, and CISPA: though different, these bills were all presented with a similar goal in mind. These bills were intended to stop the digital copyright infringement of American intellectual properties, mainly in foreign countries, but the overly vague wording in the bills made it hard to decipher their real intentions (Yu). For a multitude of reasons, these bills were staunchly protested not only by American citizens, but they also received protest from numerous international groups (York). Though some may argue that SOPA, PIPA, or CISPA may have had some value, they did not have the intended result of ending digital theft, but rather invigorated a retaliating movement. The main

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.

One needs to have a basic understanding of the purpose behind copyright laws as the founding fathers had intended. As stated in the “Constitution. Article I, section 8, clause 8 of the United States Constitution provides that Congress shall have the

SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) was a bill proposed in the House of Representatives that aimed to tackle the growing problem of online piracy and copyright infringement. It targets foreign-based websites that contain any form of unauthorized copyright-infringing material such as movies or music by giving content-creators the right to stop any US businesses from providing payment services, advertising, or even dealing with prosecuted websites; essentially blacklisting and hiding these websites to any US visitors. The bill is split into two main sections: “Combating Online Piracy”, which provides tools for rights holders to protect their content, and “Additional Enhancements to Combat Intellectual Property Theft.”, which criminal law which as applies to intellectual property rights and increases punishments for leaking government information. SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) was not enacted because of very strong opposing public opinion, its highly broad and unconstitutional policies that restricted speech, and presidential leadership against the bill.

In the article “Internet Piracy Harms Artists”, Phil Gardson explains how internet piracy such as online music sharing and other forms of copyrighting music hurts hardworking singers and songwriters. He also asserts that it is imperative that Congress should in act a law against these types of crimes to help protect artists.

A good example of this is the Vocaloid community. Vocaloid is a voice-synthesizer used to create songs that sound like a realistic human voice, with a cute anime (Japanese cartoon) character attached. (Vocaloid Wikia, “What is VOCALOID?”) In the Vocaloid community, one person might post a song that they created. Another person, with the permission of the composer, might create a music video for it using 3D modeling data by someone else, and post it on the same site. (Vocaloid Wikia, “MMD”) When an amateur singer sees the song, they might sing it, use the instrumental provided by the composer, the video by the artist, and their voice to create a unique collaboration. However, if SOPA and PIPA were put into practice, this whole creative process would stop at the music video because of the copyright laws (Wikipedia, “Stop Online Piracy Act”, “Protect IP Act”), and the community irreparably damaged. In this way, SOPA and PIPA would limit creativity online. Moreover, many small, innovated sites created by single users or a small collaboration would be taken down for such a simple thing such as not providing a link to their background image. In fact, the official site for SOPA did not cite their background image, and if the law was put into place, their website’s link would be taken down from search engines. (Wikipedia, “Stop Online Piracy Act”)

The Internet has found a new enemy, in form of cyber-security legislation that has wide-ranging privacy implications. A bill introduced to the House of Representatives late last year could become the centerpiece of the next SOPA-style struggle between the tech community and Washington, D.C. SOPA, or Stop Online Piracy Act, was introduced in a sub-committee at the House of Representatives last fall. SOPA was a United States bill introduced to expand the ability of the U.S. Law enforcement to fight online trafficking in copyrighted intellectual property and counterfeit good, mainly to stop pirating music and movies. PIPA was a similar law with the stated goal of giving the US government and copyright holder’s additional tools to curb access