What Is Copyright Regime?

Piracy has always been an issue for intellectual property owners. Piracy existed even as early as the 1500’s. In one famous instance, Renaissance artist Marcantonio Raimondi copied some of Albrecht Dürer’s works and claimed it was his own (Gambino, 2011). Politicians and content creators try to combat piracy with laws and lawsuits, but people engaging in piracy remain active and elusive. However, the development of the Internet has exacerbated this issue. Technological advancements, specifically the advancements in file sharing, have made the exchange of information extremely inexpensive, quick, and easy. People have direct access to unauthorized copies of millions of movies and songs due to programs such as Napster and Limewire. Thus, illegal

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 must be flexible in addressing and supplementing the needs of Australia’s modern society. However, the failure of the existing, and outdated Copyright Act 1968 (Cwth) in fulfilling the needs of the Australian public has triggered the need for copyright reform. Copyright reform aims to reconsider the relationship between copyright, innovation, technology, research, and economic growth, where it would provide flexible laws fundamental to the broad dissemination of knowledge. Copyright laws should strike a balance between the interests of the creator and the Australian public in terms of access to knowledge, culture and education. Copyright reform aims to

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.

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.

There was a Copyright Act passed in Congress in 1976 aiming at breaking the traditional association of publishers with all works while little recognition is given to the authors. Section 101 has also been amended to allow owners with exclusive rights to reproduce, prepare derivatives from copyrighted work, distribute, perform; display and audialy transmit copyrighted works (School). The authors, publishers and database companies have since tried to settle original copyright infringement by compensating those with registered works of copyright and those whose works had not been registered. There is a contradiction, especially for the second group. Thus, the Supreme Court declined to approve this

Current copyright protection is entitled to provide the essential mechanism for the insurance of the success viability of creative industries by rewarding and incentivising the creators of original works relating to films, music and broadcasts. The Copyright Act 1968 is initially designed to protect although, despite this, the advancement of technology has led to abuse of the Act, subsequently to withhold its dexterity, the Act has required modification, through; case and statute law. While acknowledging this, it must be understood that the codes; Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), Copyright Regulations 1969 (Cth), Copyright Tribunal Procedure Regulations 1969 (Cth) and the Copyright International Protection Regulations 1969 (Cth) are applied automatically once the work has been published in an accessible format; provided that the author/s are current citizens or residents of Australia. Throughout this report, the Copyright Act 1968 will be analysed in depth to provide a detailed understanding of whether it is possible for the law to be proactive with regards to future technologies. In a developing world of rapid changes and advancements in technology and human behaviour, there is no specific measure that can completely eliminate online copyright infringement.

In any survey of UK law, it must be considered that there are a multitude of options that are made available to both plaintiff and defendant in a copyright infringement case. The

While many people make a living from labor or technical skills, others’ occupations regard the use their intellectual property. For protection of distribution and tampering of their work, those originators copyright their work. As this phenomenon became universal, the World Intellectual Property Organization was created with the purpose of preserving work. As a response, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act was signed. The DMCA implemented both the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. Also known as the “Internet Treaties,” they both were “created to address changes in digital technology and communications, particularly the distribution of

1. Introduction The history of copyright is one of entanglement. Prior to the first official copyright statute a printing guild known as the Stationers ' Company maintained monopoly power over printing and regulating books. Their monopoly power, granted by the Licensing of the Press Act 1662, was revoked in 1694 after the English Parliament refused to renew it in light

Copyright policies have always been an issue throughout history, with the advancement in technology digital piracy being a fairly new phenomenon has made it necessary to reevaluate and update copyright policies to the 21st century. When comparing the Canadian and US copy right and piracy laws it is evident that although there are similarities and differences, the Canadian approach proves to be effective at protecting the owners of the works in the issue of unauthorized downloading and piracy. It is important to understand what Piracy and copyright laws are, how they effect society and the artists, to better control the copyright policies.

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.

The history of U.S copyright law came from England. As a matter of fact, copyright was not intended to reward creators but to prevent sedition. As the number of presses grew in late fifteenth century in England, the authorities started to grant control over the publication of books to a group of printers, called the Stationers’ Company in mid-sixteenth century. The Licensing Act of 1662 confirmed that licensed printers have the right to publish the work forever. The Stationer’s Company didn’t disappear even though the 1662 act lapsed in 1694. Rather, it shifted its focus from printers to authors. Therefore, the Parliament enacted the first copyright law in 1710, called the Statue of Anne, which protects author’s work if they registered their work to the government. Under the Statue of Anne, authors had a right to control their creations and sell their rights to the third person. U.S. Congress has revised the copyright law to broaden the sphere of copyright and to address new technologies as time goes by. This paper illustrates what have the Congress amended in the copyright law and how has the amended law impacted proprietors by looking into major revisions in U.S. copyright law.