Should Copyright Law Be Changed?

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

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

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.

On sunny spring morning in Aurora , Colorado, I blissfully awoke without any threats to my personal liberties or freedoms. I went to school, same as any other day, and started my classes. Then after lunch, I got to use a laptop for a group project in my history class. However, as a boy without much interest in the electoral college, I was not very motivated to actually work on the project. Instead I went to the news section on Google and I discovered SOPA. SOPA, the Stop Online Piracy Act, was a United States congressional bill that had the potential to change the internet forever. Stopping online piracy is a positive and righteous name but SOPA is far from righteous. SOPA would have given the power to the United States government and Internet

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

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.

Luckily, this bill foresaw possible issues and made sure to specifically state in section 230 that ISPs (internet service providers) and websites hosting content were not to be held directly responsible for information posted by other users. However in some places it overstepped its boundaries by placing unfair restrictions on speech within the internet, therefore it was deemed unconstitutional in 1997. In 1998, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act was passed. This act prohibits the distribution and hosting of services that hold or use copyrighted material unlawfully, however even if no infringing material is hosted – if some form of circumvention is in place the host is held liable. This act gave the entertainment industry extreme power, which has become a major issue in recent years. For example, on sites such as YouTube (founded 2005) entire videos can be removed from claims by entertainment providers, like record companies. Oftentimes these removals are completely unlawful and violate fair use – however, nothing has been done in the terms of stopping the providers. One can dispute a claim, but more often than not there is a robot in place on the other end who will continue to re-instate the claim indefinitely, preventing the “infringing” party from appealing the

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

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.

We respectfully submit this brief amicus curiae in support of the petitioners, Eldred et al. The petitioners owned the copyrights of works now in the public domain. They challenged the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) on the grounds that the act allows copyrights to exist in perpetuity and restricts free speech, so the act violates the Copyright Clause and the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Justice Ginsburg denied Eldred’s challenges, finding that the terms established by the CTEA are limited terms and that the act accommodates for petitioner’s First Amendment concerns. We submit this amicus curiae in dissent of the court opinion that upheld the CTEA.

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.

There was a Copyright Act passed in Congress in 1976 aiming at breaking the traditional association of publishers with all works while little recognition is given to the authors. Section 101 has also been amended to allow owners with exclusive rights to reproduce, prepare derivatives from copyrighted work, distribute, perform; display and audialy transmit copyrighted works (School). The authors, publishers and database companies have since tried to settle original copyright infringement by compensating those with registered works of copyright and those whose works had not been registered. There is a contradiction, especially for the second group. Thus, the Supreme Court declined to approve this

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

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.