The Issue Concerning The Ownership Of General Knowledge By Copyright, Trademarks, And Patents

Lionel Bentley and Brad Sherman have, in their book; "Intellectual Property Law” acknowledged that indeed there is tension between competition law and intellectual property law. While discussing the effect of competition law on the exploitation of copyright , they state that a copyright entitles an owner to use the property in a manner which he or she so wishes and that the copyright owner cannot be compelled to apply their rights in a particular manner. This is the exclusivity of a right. They, however, acknowledge that there are circumstances in which competition law may require a property owner to make available the right for use by the public. They state that operators in dominant positions have a special responsibility not to allow their conduct to impair

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 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.

Imagine if anyone could use anyone’s work without permission, you would have bands saying the wrote a song first, 1000’s of versions of Disney films all claiming to be the ‘original’ etc. Imagine if there was nothing saying that you can’t copy someone’s work? It would be chaos.

Due to how abusable current copyright laws are, they must be reformed to prevent copyright trolling. According to Matthew Sag, “The essence of trolling is that the plaintiff is more focused on the business of litigation than on selling a product or service or licensing their IP to third parties to sell a product or a service” (“Copyright Trolling, An Empirical Study” page 4). Copyright trolls seek to acquire their income from suing others on copyright violations, rather than continually creating new works and using copyright to protect them. Copyright, whether one agrees with the concept or not, was not designed for this purpose. People should not be allowed to make a business off of suing others. This is not only unjust, but wastes the court’s time with actual crimes. The United States must reform its current laws to prevent this type of behavior from happening. According to Parker Higgins, “Like email spammers, copyright trolls depend on the ability to cheaply cast a very wide net, sending out hundreds or thousands of accusations at once and getting settlement payments back from some percentage” (“Copyright trolls suffer big loss” par. 3). Many trolls do not target specific groups or people; rather, they spread it in such a way that any company or organization can accidentally “misuse” it. This creates an environment in which it is impossible for many groups to tell if they can use another party’s content without invoking a ludicrous copyright lawsuit. This is not a

Speech: Copywrong and Unjust laws limiting our freedom of speech, thought and opinion Notes: thingies used: Repetition, anecdotes and appeal to emotion Introduction: In our society today, news/articles that are presented to us aren't as beneficial. I believe that most information regarding our lives and those who surround us are kept hidden. We have the right to know about what's going on around us; freedom of speech, thought, and opinion is an idea our government implanted in our brain making us think we have the right to express, but in reality it's something that's blinding us from seeking the truth. And so, I will be talking about the injustice found in these laws, the death of Aaron Swartz and false copyright strikes that prove so. REASON

According to Pamela Samuelson the possibility exists that all this could soon change. In her essay, she refers to a "white paper" that was issued by the Clinton administration in 1995. I did some further research on this white paper and found a summary on line. It is actually a report on Intellectual Property rights written by the Information Infrastructure Task Force. Basically there is a committee appointed by the White House that is looking into fairly regulating the balance between artists' rights and the consumer. According to the summary "Technology has altered the copyright balance-in some instances in favor of copyright owners and in others, in favor of users. The goal of the recommendations is to clarify existing law and adapt it where the balance has shifted". (Intellectual Property and the

The topic of public domain is becoming increasingly important in the modern day. Legislation once enacted to protect the intellectual property of the individual seems to have been flipped on its head to do the exact opposite. Copyright was originally created to inspire original works by individual authors, inventors and scientists for a relatively finite amount of time. In the modern era, we see big corporate interests pushing for the extension of these deadlines while buying and hoarding copyrights, using lawyers as guard dogs. Doing so infringes on the consumer's right to choose. Such actions prevents fair competition in terms of price, quality, and service for an obscene amount of time. Many famous icons all the way from Uncle Sam to Santa

Inherently, by very definition, the notions of copyright and free speech, in their purest forms, appear to be in direct conflict. Yet, equally, the ideas have the ability to not only coexist, but thrive because of one another; a synergistic relationship. Without free speech, copyright, surely, in the form we recognise it, could not exist. Artists would not have the freedom to even express their ideas, let alone claim rights to them. Likewise, without copyright, artists would perhaps be loath to speak their ideas as freely, for fear of theft and plagiarism. As such, copyright can be seen as a protection mechanism for free speech. Currently impeding both, however, is the internet. If used correctly and with noble intentions, the internet has

When discussing a creation or idea, the creator of such concept must be rewarded. This must be the case for any situation. For most cases this is true, but because the ownership of such properties bring financial benefits, and or settlements, regulations will continue to challenge what is right or wrong when dealing with intellectual property. This is accurate for many industries, field, and markets. The owner ship of intellectual properties can take a creation or idea worldwide, the profits from such invention can be endless. This concept is what will push a persons or organizational ethical principles to its limits. With that in mind, such characters will do whatever it takes to gain rights to intellectual property. Another very important opinion for this subject is how long must the duration of intellectual properties last? The longer the patentee holds on to the idea, the more they will benefit. This is where such believes creates issues for its particular market. Many individuals and organizations find that such believes are unethical. Many believe that creations or inventions must be shared with everyone. Such groups want ideas and creation to be enjoyed by everyone, a public domain (Lau & Johnson, 2014). There are many parties that stand firm behind this idea, especially when dealing with items or inventions that can benefit or help the people. An example of such inventions or ideas are the creations of new medicines or medications.

There is such a legal concept as "intellectual property". Intellectual property is defined as the creation of any intellectual innovation by an individual such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs. The law provides him exclusive rights to this innovation and is strictly against theft or plagiarism in any way. Innovators can safeguard their property by one or more of the following: copyright, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights and in some jurisdictions trade secrets.. Copyrights, patents, and trade secrets are each authored by different Offices. Each is based on the Laws of Commerce. (LII. Intellectual property). Cultural attitudes, in fact, esteem words and knowledge above that of certain other property, since knowledge is something that cannot be as easily duplicated as, for instance, an article of common furniture can. To illustrate the veneration that contemporary society accords intellectual invention, software is more expensive and valuable than hardware sink the

There must be a balance between the developer of the intellectual property and the interest of the public. Intellectual property is already a big business among companies. Expanding the monopolies has the effect of allowing companies to negotiate and cross-licensing technology. Microsoft, as recently reported on the Wall Street Journal, is looking to expand the licensing of its technologies, after successfully licensing some video decoders to open source groups.

The immeasurable, ever-accelerating development of technology in today 's society comes with a price. Freedom is a double-edged sword; as we move closer to the realm of unlimited possibility, the task of regulating the use of technology becomes taller and taller. When it comes to governing and policing the infinite expanse that is the Internet, it is not just a question of "how?" but "who?" Who is responsible for the regulation of the electronic universe, and how can it best be regulated while respecting the rights of all creators, both of the copyright-holding and non-copyright-holding variety?

Copyright laws were established to protect the original work of individuals since 1709. At present only two acts are in effect today, the copyright Act of 1909 and 1976. (United States Copyright Laws) These works protect the individuals work but not the idea. With the digital age copyright laws are not adapt to protect these rights. With the vast amount of information that is available digital copyright infringement takes place almost on an hourly

Firstly, with laws to protect intellectual properties, it prevent and stop other companies from commercially using the protected intellectual properties in the marketplace, allowing the owner company to control the usage of their original