The Purpose of Copyright Essay

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.

of having to buy the book for themselves. While this is a noble act by the

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

This paper discusses the copyright law in Canada connected with an ethical line in music sharing. Before embarking on the discussion, it is imperative to understand what copyright entails under the umbrella of intellectual property; the latter refers to intangible property, which is entirely a creation of the mind (Alexander & Penalver, 2012, p. 188). Copyright is the exclusive right granted to the original author of literary work. In this effect, it prevents other people from using an authorship without authorization by the original author. The latter grants license for the reproduction of copies of the work, its usage, as well as distribution in lieu of some fee, i.e. royalty. Merges (2011) explains that literary work encompasses a wide

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.

With over three billion people in the world utilizing the internet there is great danger for copyright infringement to occur (Internet Live Stats). Copyright law protects the creator of an original piece of work exclusive rights to the work. Many people who use the internet are sharing files that do not belong to them and are guilty of copyright infringement. Copyright law needs to be tightened up in the digital space to protect the creator of their unique work.

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.

Identify and discuss these copyright challenges in the modern digital economy using examples from case law.

An alternative emerging approach for licensing music, software, research paper and many other resources on the internet, creative common sharing copyright, is introduced.

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.