Sony Corporation Of America Et Al. V. Universal City Studios, Inc.

One would think the story has ended here, yet there is more to come. The Associated Press reported on April 4, 2008 that there were other law suits involving PG&E and approximately 1100 residents from Kings, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. The last suit was finally settled in March 2008 for $20 million (SF Gate web site).

In recent years, the file sharing of copyrighted material has come under fire. It is a topic that is becoming increasingly morally debatable, as people question whether downloading copyrighted material is to be considered stealing or not. The government and legal action has taken what is mostly harmless file sharing of pop culture and turned it into a very serious crime due to industry pressures. However, there are still supporters of file sharing like myself whom believe the act can be justified and is still ethically sound. In this essay I will explain how copyright, fair use, and public domain play a role in file sharing and also describe why it is not unreasonable for society to commit the crime of copyright infringement.

violators. So although some form of a copyright law is needed, the one we have

A Supreme Court case usually have a main argument that decides the ruling. The ruling for Barnes v. Glen Theatre Inc. (1991) was five to four (Daniels, Stern). There was mix reactions regarding this case. In Barnes v. Glen Theatre Inc. (1991), the main argument to the ruling written by Justice William H. Rehnquist is that nude dancing is considered an action that is expressive but not within the protection of the First Amendment even though technically it is ("Excerpts From Supreme Court Ruling”). Even though that is the main opinion announcement of this case, there are counter opinions that are worth mentioning. One in particular is by Justice Byron R. White where he concluded that the law passed by Indiana was unconstitutional because it

This case clarifies who is defined as a supervisor in harassment lawsuits. The opinion of the case states that “an employee is a supervisor for purposes of … liability under Title VII if he or she is empowered by the employer to take tangible employment actions against the victim.” This means that if the employee fired, demoted, disciplined, changed the work schedule of, or transferred the victim, etc. then the employer is liable for harassment. But, if the person is a manager without the power to change the victim’s employment status, then the employer is not liable for harassment so long as the employer established a system that allowed the victim to notify senior management of the harassment so that senior management could deal with the harassing

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 Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, wanted to broadcast television to have equal opportunity with cable television. So, they required cable television systems to give a certain amount of channels to the local broadcast television. In Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, broadcasting for the speakers or broadcasters are challenge because they have problems with sharing the same frequency and the physical limitation on the number of speakers, where as in cable, there is no problems with speakers sharing the same channel. Since there have been “rapid advances in fiber optics and digital compression technology” (pg.523). In order for the government to fix the more broadcaster than frequencies available in the electromagnetic spectrum problem. The government would have to “divide the electromagnetic spectrum and assign specific frequencies to particular broadcasters” to prevent any signal collision (pg.523). The government forcing the must-carry law to cable television system questions whether they violate the cable television First Amendment right. But the 5-4 decision, the justices believe that they are creating a competitive market for other broadcast televisions.

Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc. (1992) was a court case which revolved around whether the software altering a copyright protected game contributes to copyright infringement from the fair use and creation of derivative work perspectives. Nintendo of America, Inc. (later in this paper referred to as Nintendo) primarily markets and sells home video games hardware systems along with compatible video game cartridges. On the other hand, Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. (later in this paper referred to as Galoob) is a US based company which sells and markets toy products and is best known for distributing Game Genie in the United States of America. Nintendo sued Galoob on the grounds of copyright infringement and the creation

For example, P2P allows sharing of movies, books, music, etc. This is breaking copyright laws. Copyright laws state that buying music, books, movies, etc. is illegal. You could go to jail for breaking copyright laws.

So, when lawsuit resumed, on April 18, 2013, Viacom, presented another angle to the table to dispute their case using, The Grokster Case, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., they

FACTS: Grokster and StreamCast Networks distributed a software which allows its users to share and download copyrighted files without authorization. MGM has sued these networks for purposefully allowing a violation to the Copyright Act for their own benefit.

To breach the rules of copyright infringement, a person would have to use the work in one of the ways that isn't listed under fair use. Ways to use any pieces of work fairly includes:

The First Fair Use Factor U.S. Code § 107 (1), emphasis on the purpose and the character of the use

The term ‘fair use’ is defined by Hudson as the use of copyright material without permission from the owner for purposes that are deemed fair. In the digital economy however, new challengers arise with ‘fair use’. These challenges are due to the complex and changing nature of the digital environment, and the need for the law to remain relevant, and be clear and broadly understood in the community. Secondly, the purpose of copyright law is to stimulate creation and learning by providing incentives to create and distribute. Therefore, it is important that reforms do not change the fundamental objectives of the copyright law. The ALRC has made recommendations outlining implementation of ‘fair use’ legislation in Australia, which is intended to outline the purpose and character of copyright material that may be used without permission from the owner. The purpose of the ALRC report is build a fair and reasonable legal guidelines where copyright material can be used fairly for purposes that may not infringe copyright.

Copyright infringement is the unauthorized use of copyrighted material in a manner that violates one of the copyright owner's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works that build upon it.