The Ethics Of The Copyright System

Is important for anyone who has created any intellectual property to protect it. In the music industry, in order for someone to protect their work, they must obtain a copyright. Music has been around before anyone could obtain a copyright and when the invention of the computer came along it made it easier for someone to steal another artist's intellectual property with the help of the internet. This paper will cover what events have taken a big role in copyright protection for artist, the consequences if someone was to break the rules of a copyright which is called copyright infringement, and how will a copyright hold in the future. Were copyrights enacted without the thought of life changing technology, and how can some music companies

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.

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

Throughout our Communication Studies, we have examined the capitalist economy through a critical lens and as a result, corporations always appear at the forefront of debate, blame, and power. From a neo-liberalist economic standpoint, the typical “prosumer” is encouraged to create consumer-generated content, but what happens when you put your creative labour to the test? York University consistently advocates, “this is your time”; in other words, students are responsible for their own success and are held liable for any failures or mishaps they may endure. While contemporary technologies have multiplied and democratized opportunities for musical creativity, intellectual property law has been used to repress our right to free speech, which is guaranteed under the first amendment (Demers 2006). Therefore, the industry’s effort at convincing people that file-sharing is equivalent to thievery have turned an increasing number of artists into intellectual property activists.

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.

Copyright Laws Stifle Creativity? Foratv.12 mar. 2009. Web. Nov 12, 2015. Lawrence Lessig is a professor of law at Stanford Law School and founder of the school's Center for Internet and Society. He teaches and writes in the areas of constitutional law, contracts, and the law of cyberspace. Lessig discuss the influences of “remixes” in this generation when everything can be copy and post. He stress the point of the future of originality of arts or ideas in this when everything can the forward. In this context my position was neutral, because I am not completely informed about this issue. As a result, I have not made my mind yet. Lessig is focusing on the informations that the neutral audience need in order to make a decision. He shows us relatively videos, such as the one of a mother celebrating his son, with a song in the background. Lawrence Lessig is using “Ethos,” to deliver his message. He is a recognized Law’s professor and has authority on the subject.So, automatically this impact the audience by trusting his ideas and beliefs. Additionally, I found his message to be persuasive, I would not change it. Because, he is not only an authority in this subject, but he also stress his message while using persuasive arguments. Also, he uses the media and relatively videos, that proves his point and a neutral audience can

Over the past fifty years, the British Music Publishing industry has undergone dramatic changes. It has evolved as an entity with innovations in technology, changes and creations of laws and new mediums to promote and exploit songs to a wider audience. Therefore, the way in which the music publishing industry operates and exploits its assets has completely transformed, and continues to do so at a rapid pace. This paper will attempt to explore the ways in which publishers exploit song copyrights and the way in which this has changed over the past 60 years. It is important to define what is meant by copyright and its role within the industry. The Performing Right Society website states: “Copyright

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.

Emily Toronto is the director of opera, and associate professor of music at South Dakota State University. She has received a Doctor of Musical Arts degree from Michigan University, and has performed in a multitude of different opera groups. The fact that she is a musician gives her a unique perspective on the topic of copyright. Stephen G. Wood is a law professor at Brigham Young University, and has served as a consultant to the US Department of Labor, and Administrative Conference for the United States. Toronto and Wood begin this publication by explaining why copyright is needed, then continue on to show examples of copyright reforms. They finish by informing music teachers what they can do to encourage copyright reform. This paper argues

Along with the development of a file format (MP3) to store digital audio recordings, came one of the new millennium’s most continuous debates – peer-to-peer piracy – file sharing. Internet companies such as Napster and Grokster became involved in notable legal cases in regards to copyright laws in cyberspace. These two cases are similar in nature, yet decidedly different. In order to understand the differences and similarities, one should have an understanding of each case as well as the court’s ruling.

Music has a powerful influence on society, like mass media and television. In our society today, music has the ability to define our culture. Many people around the world listen to music while driving, at work, doing housework, or even studying. Music may be seen as simple and unproblematic, but looking at the structure behind it is very important. One of the key features of music is music copyright and what that means to the music industry. Defining what this means in the historical context is of great significance. Music and copyright is a vital aspect of the music industry. The question that remains, however, is what happens with motivation or intension when samples of music are not originally controlled in a larger network.

This essay will serve as an advocation for the instatement of compulsory licensing practices in regards to sampling in music. I have been intensely interested in the workings of copyright for a couple years, but have only recently sought out avenues to express my thoughts, findings, and ideas for change. I must begin with an admission: I do not believe that anyone can own or monopolize upon an idea. Intellectual property is a fundamental assumption held by copyright law, one which I will hopefully make the reader question and rethink for themselves. Before beginning, I feel it is only fair to those reading that I answer the question: “Why should you care about changing the copyright system?”

A&M Records v. Napster is a landmark case in which the application of intellectual property laws has forever impacted contemporary culture with regards to digital works. The legal issues and applicable laws presented in the instant case resulted in a holding, which set forth a precedent that has influence the mode and means of digital works distribution. The outcome of Napster affects both businesses and individuals.

Producers of musical content cannot undo the adverse effects that piracy has had on the industry. Because of the internet and the way individuals have manipulated it to obtain music, many people are unwilling to change their habits. Here lies the issue between the producer and the consumer. Acts like the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECT Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) work against the incentive of many consumers by telling them that they cannot do what maximizes their utility. Producers are thus working against the likings of the consumer. This is wrong.

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.