Technology And Its Effect On The Rights Of Copyright

As mentioned before, one of the acts relating to technology is the Copyright Amendment Act 2000 (Cth). Authors of creative material have an automatic right not to have this material copied or used by others for profit or for gain. This means that people who make copies of TV programs, movies, songs or articles may be committing a crime. Exemptions apply for fair copying of material used for critical review or educational purposes. In 2006, this Act was amended to also exempt the temporary taping of a TV program to watch later and copying from a legal copy of material to another format (such as turning songs on CD into MP3 format for use in music players. The law also allows people to copy works for parody. Most exemptions apply only to individual use and do not allow the sharing of the material. The law also makes it illegal to access pay TV services without authorisation or to modify any protection measures intended to stop people illegally copying digital media.

As mentioned before, one of the acts relating to technology is the Copyright Amendment Act 2000 (Cth). Authors of creative material have an automatic right not to have this material copied or used by others for profit or for gain. This means that people who make copies of TV programs, movies, songs or articles may be committing a crime. Exemptions apply for fair copying of material used for critical review or educational purposes. In 2006, this Act was amended to also exempt the temporary taping of a TV program to watch later and copying from a legal copy of material to another format (such as turning songs on CD into MP3 format for use in music players. The law also allows people to copy works for parody. Most exemptions apply only to individual use and do not

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.

In the twenty-first century there have been many advances in technology which grant us view of more places than we used to be able to see. But with that where do the boundaries lie when using said technology. The history of the Fourth amendment helps to shape how we think about certain issues today, because some of the earlier cases serve as a precedent for the modern fourth amendment cases. There are four different advances in technology that have caused some issues with the rights of the people but also with the rights of the state. These include the use of unmanned vehicles, the use of thermal imaging, the use of GPS surveillance, and how

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.

A motion for summary judgment is granted when the similarities concern only non-copyrightable elements of an allegedly infringed work or when no reasonable trier of fact could find the works substantially similar. Boisson v. Banian, Ltd., 273 F.3d 273 (2d Cir. 2001); Castle Rock Entm 't, Inc. v. Carol Publ 'g Grp., Inc., 150 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1998); Williams v. Crichton, 84 F.3d 581 (2d Cir. 1996); Walker v. Time Life Films, Inc., 784 F.2d 44 (2d Cir 1986). When the works contain protectable and unprotectable elements, the court applies a more discerning test, extracting the unprotectable elements from the works and asking whether the protectable elements, standing alone, are substantially similar. Knitwaves Inc. Lollytogs Ltd., 71 F.3d 996 (2d Cir. 1995) The discerning ordinary observer test must be applied in conjunction with the total concept and feel after the unprotectable elements are eliminated from consideration. Boisson, 273 F.3d 273. An allegedly infringing work is considered substantially similar to a copyrighted work if the ordinary lay observer unless he set out to detect the disparities, would regard the two works appeal as the same. Boisson 273 F.3d 273; Knitwaves, 71 F.3d 996. In determining whether or not the allegedly infringing work falls below the quantitative

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

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.

The second approach to copyright is the democratic approach. All works of art are ideas built on a foundation of other ideas. The democratic approach advocates that intellectual property belongs to the society and should be available for the general good of the public. If the particular usage is intended to derive financial benefit or any other business-related benefits, it is considered inappropriate usage. If the utilization of factual work were more usable than the use of someone’s creative work, then that would not be fair use. There is no specified edge to the amount of quoted work that can be called “fair use.” The courts exercise common sense to determine if it was too much. If the utilization of the material created market or stirred a competition, and if the fair use diminishes demand for the original product, it is not considered as appropriate use (Crews, 1993).

The Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) seeks to protect individuals who have created original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works. Sections 14(1) and 36 provide that copyright is infringed when a person reproduces a substantial part of another’s work without the license of the owner of the copyright. In 2010 the Federal Court of Australia considered whether the flute riff in ‘Down Under’ a song by popular Australian group Men at Work was a substantial reproduction of the iconic children’s song ‘Kookaburra’ composed by Marion Sinclair. This case attracted significant media coverage and public interest.

In the article “Recut, Reframe, Recycle”, the authors state that the four factors that the Copyright Act refers to when considering fair use are: 1). The purpose and character of the use, 2). The nature of the copyrighted work, 3). The amount of the work that was used, and 4). The effect on the potential market for value of the copyrighted work (profit). The purpose of the “Fair(y) Use Tale” remix film was intended for entertainment and educate viewers about copyright and fair use principles. The film was noncommercial, creative

Intellectual property represents ideas created by minds of humans that require certain rights for their use. Intellectual property gives companies a competitive advantage and attracts the attention of other business partners and investors (Lee, 2016). With such importance, it is necessary for the law to protect these ideas from being used by unauthorized individuals. To shield from this, trade secrets, patents, and copyrights are used to protect the ownership of intellectual property (Legal Information Institute).

The Creative Commons by Lawrence Lessig discusses how freedom to create has drastically changed ever since its origin. I think this was the most interesting article I have read about copyright. Lessig discusses the era of creativity and freedom of using one’s work to create and imagine something completely knew. The author uses Walt Disney, Warner Brothers, and comics examples to address his views regarding how the art of creativity and freedom has changed upon the era of digital media. How technology has changed the freedom to created? One thing I was surprised by was how many times the copyright law has been altered. It used to be where copyright material had limited time until it ended up in public domain for others to uses. However, changes to copyright law throughout the years has keep on increasing the year of ownership, which gives big companies to monopolize. This lives no room for others to uses one’s material. “Automatically, copyright law regulates essentially any creative work reduced to tangible form.” (pp.6). Another point I found interesting was how technology itself enforcing the copyright law, not the court. In addition, technology enforcing the copyright law has its own copyright law. It is technology which determines what your freedom is (pp.7). Even the software codes are copyrighted to protect

In today’s society, technology and art go hand in hand. Art has been around for a long time but technology such as computers are still very new. These two mediums have comingled and now evolve and effect the other. Art has changed to reflect the vast improvements technology has contributed to communication and the ability to create using digital space. Technology has also changed with artist pushing the boundaries of what is technical possible in the digital realm. Much of today’s art is created and presented in digital formats. The question of whether digital art is truly art has risen among many critics in the art community.

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.