The Most Ironic Law of all Time
The era of cable television reaches its final breath. Digital media begins flourishing. Online communities and social media reign over, spoiling our fingers with content of all calibers. The internet is causing a change so radical that legal matters are still catching up with it. As the Founding Fathers intended, effective law should include creating law adapts to society’s changes. However, change hasn’t occurred yet. The American copyright law only gets more controversial as it butts its way in. There is now a three-way skirmish between creators, large corporations and legislature for a simple reason. It is preventing creative freedom and distribution of content online. The American copyright law is ironically limiting much of this generation’s creativity by preventing exposure, criminalizing the wrong people and letting others take advantages of its own loopholes.
To provide some background information, the creation of American copyright law dates back to the beginnings of the constitution of the United States. That is, the Copyright law was intended to promote science and useful arts by giving the author the right of protection from copy theft (art. I, sec 8). That means that the published work would be protected from being replicated; it cannot be used by anybody else without permission. That being said, the law offers a way to prevent infringement: public domain. This is material that loses protection from copyright law. When something
Piracy has become a major issue in the United States. For every motion picture that has been featured in theaters also has been pirated onto the Internet the next day, and for every new musical album that is released, yet there is a free torrent file of the album within the same hour. Even though these online pirates steal music and movies from other companies and make a drastic profit, yet these “rogue” websites receive 53 billions visits a year from across the globe according to Creative America. The persistence of the thieves that break copyright laws of the productions has lead the entertainment business to place a definitive complaint to the U.S. government of the constant notion of piracy. While the notion of piracy was not left
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.
Electronic media content can be viewed differently according to personal opinions, but the First Amendment Rights of the United States Constitution lay the foundation for the legal system that is to be followed. These rights form a guide that help citizens have a stronger grasp on what is and isn’t acceptable within the eye of the law. Narrowing down to electronic media content, there has been a rise of tension involving first amendment rights of content regulations. The spectrum scarcity rationale has made it possible to control licensing schemes, along with direct content control to make sure rules are being followed according to the First Amendment. The differences between cable TV
Digital economy as a whole has changed a lot throughout history. Digital economy in the aspect
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.
During the mid-1790’s the Constitution had enact a law for a system of copyright for United States of America but actually for United Kingdom or Britain that intellectual property law became a statute in the early 1700’s also known as, “The Statue of Anne”(Feather, 19). However, for England the book was published by an “approved” printer which did
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 is any expression recorded in any physical form, published or unpublished in any medium whether it is music, books, artworks or newspaper articles. Federal publications, facts and ideas are not copyrighted (www.honolulu.hawaii.edu). The very first copyright law that was established was known as the Statute of Anne, which was authorized in England in 1710 (history of copyright, 2005). The newly founded constitution allowed secure rights to its creators. An act very similar to the Statute of Anne was passed by congress in 1790 as the first American copyright law (history of copyright, 2005). As more and more books were produced and were becoming more accessible domestically and internationally in Europe and North America, it became
In its beginning, the United States based its code of laws on the British Law (Moser & Slay, 2011, 16). Connecticut passed the first state copyright bill: an Act for the Encouragement of Literature and Genius in 1783 (Moser & Slay, 2011, 16). By 1786, twelve out of the thirteen states had passed copyright statutes. However, the fact that each state had its own copyright laws created inconsistency and inconvenience for enforcement from one state to another. A federal copyright law was necessary. On March 1783, the Continental Congress drafted the Constitutional Copyright Clause, which gave to the federal government the power to pass copyright laws (Moser & Slay, 2011, 17). The clause stipulated that the goal of the United States was to promote
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 purpose of the copyright system has always been to promote creativity in society and protect the creators’ interests. In applying copyright laws to any creation, three basic guidelines apply. First is the fair return for a creators labor, second is “Fair Use” of the creators’ labor and finally the Progress of Science and useful Arts to further the public good. The application of these three guidelines in litigation for A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, found that the rights of reproduction, and distribution had been violated, in effect upholding the copyrights of nineteen different music companies represented under A&M Records name, this ruling had protected the music industries interests. However it would seem that the publishing industry would not be so lucky, litigation in Authors’ Guild vs. Google ruled that Google’s actions constituted fair use. Under these two scenarios’ the copyright laws’ have, effectively, protected the rights of music artists’, protected the public’s right to “fair use” and sparked new opportunities for creative growth. However, lawmakers continue to struggle to define copyright boundaries between the public’s right of use and the creators right to profit from their efforts.
Identify and discuss these copyright challenges in the modern digital economy using examples from case law.
Copyright law exist to prevent people from taking advantage on another’s creative work where Peterson J quoted
In 1774 free culture was made because copyright was stopped in the case called Donaldson versus Becket in the House of the Lords in England. In 1710 the copyright was limited to 14 years. Donaldson was allowed to reprint Shakespeare despite other publishers were trying to stop him and demanded a common copyright law that would be forever.
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