United States Copyright Office

uploading movies, music, e-books, software, and other copyrighted content online. Piracy deprives the original creators, scientists and artists of the deserved incentives. Digital Piracy has caused the US Copyright Industry a loss of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs. To protect the copyright owners’ exclusive rights and encourage original ideas for scientific progress, digital piracy needs to be curbed with appropriate measures. Thus, this

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. For electronic and audio-visual media, unauthorized reproduction and distribution is often referred to as piracy (however there is no legal basis for this and indeed in one US copyright lawsuit the judge ordered the plaintiff's legal team to stop

murdered). Then again, there are a few rights, particularly Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, that require some type of activity from others. The privilege to free education requires the state to provide or invest in training. Same with the privilege to healthcare services. b) The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) was marked into law by President Clinton on October 28, 1998. The enactment executes two 1996 World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)

without consent and for the purpose of commentary, research, criticisms, etc. (Lau & Johnson, 2014). The Fair Use Doctrine was applied in Acuff-Rose Music Inc. v. Campbell (1992), alleging, Campbell, lead singer of the band “2 Live Crew” had violated copyright

The first issue in this case is that Able Time Inc. bore the mark “TOMMY” on a product that Tommy Hilfiger already offers, that product being, watches. In this case The Copyright Act needed to take place because according to the text, this act gives the copyright holder the exclusive right to distribute copies of the copyrighted work. I believe that this case is only unlawful if there was no agreement between Able Time Inc. and Tommy Hilfiger. For example, if Tommy Hilfiger proposed a Nontariff Barrier

Company’s service is the fact that it will insure and indemnify the end-user from any future copyright claims as long as the new recording is used appropriately under the Company’s Terms & Conditions. Issues Identified This memo will provide perspective and a position on the client’s current operation and its potential liability to existing copyright holders. It will identify potential risks as it pertains to: copyright infringement under U.S.C. § 101 et al, the elements that the Company is particularly

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). First, it is important to discuss the direct, contributory and vicarious infringement claims against Napster. Direct copyright infringement claims are based on a breach of a copyright owners’ exclusive rights to the copyrighted work(s). A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1013 (9th Cir. 2001)

important to know what the law says about this disseminating information to the general public with respect to the first amendment. Looking at this various medium i.e libraries, television and public places and what the law stipulates according to the United State constitution the first amendment expressly forbids against depriving citizens their right to freedom of speech, of press, right to assemble and petition the government. But in this case emphasis is placed on the freedom of speech. The entire medium

Dancing Baby Revelation: Consideration on Notice and Take Down Procedure under Chinese Copyright Law Qianhui Zhang Introduction On February 7, 2007, a 29-second video was uploaded onto YouTube by Stephanie Lenz. The video was about her two toddlers pushing a push-toy and “dancing” along with the song “Let’s go crazy”by Prince. “About four seconds into the video, Lenz asks her thirteen month-old son ‘what do you think of the music?’ after which he bobs up and down while holding a push toy.” As

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). First, it is important to discuss the direct, contributory and vicarious infringement claims against Napster. Direct copyright infringement claims are based on a breach of a copyright owners’ exclusive rights to the copyrighted work(s). A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1013 (9th Cir. 2001)