Universal Music Australia Case Summary

A June 2014 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in Limelight Networks v. Akamai reversed a 2012 decision by the Federal Circuit that had held Limelight liable for infringing an Akamai patent that covered methods for storing and delivering large files via the Internet.

In the case of The Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright) vs. York University, I believe that the plaintiff, Access Copyright, will not be successful in their lawsuit against the defendant, York University.

Australian copyright law as it stands does not anticipate or take into account existing and new technologies in society. The internet has profoundly changed the way individuals’ access, share and create content. It enables widespread and extensive access to knowledge instantaneously, fosters

Traditional legal principles and processes are constantly challenged by the need to keep pace with copyright issues in particular piracy. The Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015

For many years illegal file sharing and music swapping has been going on. Two very popular cases are the MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster case and the A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster case. Both cases differ in many ways however they also have similarities. A lot of music and other sorts of entertainment are being distributed for free all over the internet. What some people do not think of are the consequences that will be faced if they get caught. Not only is the distributor at risk for getting caught but those of us that download the software illegally can be charged.

The battle of the Recording Industry Association of America (R.I.I.A.) vs. LimeWire had as its goal to settle an issue over music piracy. LimeWire was a free peer-to-peer file-sharing network which shared both authorized song and unauthorized songs. The legal campaign of RIAA v. The People started on September 8, 2003, and lasted for five years (1).

The users of these sites could have found themselves in legal fines and possibly even jail time from the illegal use of file sharing. Over the years of its operations, LimeWire had cost the music industry over a million dollars in revenue. The ruling in this case should have driven people to legal sites, such as Itunes store and Spotify, and hopefully aid in users understanding the crime being carried out by sharing these

Facts: Grokster, Ltd. and another company, StreamCast Networks Inc, created software that allowed users to share electronic files through a series of peer-to-peer networks on computers without using a central server. This software allowed users to share any type of digital file, but most people used the software to share and distribute copyright music and video files without permission of the copyright holders, which was encouraged by the software companies. As a response a group of movie studies and other copyright holders sued Grokster and StreamCast for the infringement on their copyrights, arguing that the software companies were knowingly and intentionally using their software

We respectfully submit this brief amicus curiae in support of the petitioners, Eldred et al. The petitioners owned the copyrights of works now in the public domain. They challenged the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) on the grounds that the act allows copyrights to exist in perpetuity and restricts free speech, so the act violates the Copyright Clause and the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Justice Ginsburg denied Eldred’s challenges, finding that the terms established by the CTEA are limited terms and that the act accommodates for petitioner’s First Amendment concerns. We submit this amicus curiae in dissent of the court opinion that upheld the CTEA.

Napster, a free online file sharing network, allowed peers to share digital files directly with each other by way of connections through its software and system. The no cost peer-to-peer sharing gained popularity, particularly with trendy music. A&M Records took notice of the free digital music downloads and brought suit against Napster for direct, contributory, and vicarious copyright infringements (Washington University School of Law, 2013).

The law that the defendant is accused of violating is the United States Copyright Act. Copyright liability for peer to peer (P2P) developers include infringement, vicarious, contributory, liability, and inducement. Copyright law applies to every form of expression. In this case it is file sharing, music and videos. Copyright is the exclusive legal rights reserved to the owner their right to produce and distribute their material.

Judge Kimba M. Wood of United States District Court in Manhattan ruled a year ago that LimeWire had violated copyright, and when the settlement was reached, the case was in trial to determine damages. Mr. Gorton who was co-founder of the hedge fund that was in 2007, had a reported $117 million in set

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.

Napster, a free online file sharing network, allowed peers to share digital files directly with each other by way of connections through its software and system. The no cost peer-to-peer sharing gained popularity, particularly with trendy music. A&M Records took notice of the free digital music downloads and brought suit against Napster for direct, contributory, and vicarious copyright infringements (Washington University School of Law, 2013).

1. The legal issue involved in this case is the piracy of music from various artists that is easily accesible to everybody from the website called “Napster”. The moral issue in this case is the music being stolen according to the music companies or the music was just being borrowed by people all over the internet according to Napster supporters. The difference between the two is the legal issue is based on actual evidence like there is a law imposed about this case while the moral issue is based on strong likelihood or firm conviction. The systematic, corporate issue is about the website booming and how it affects the music industry while the individual issue is the persons who makes