“Ask your average high school kids if they use Kazaa, and the answer is a resounding 'duh,'” (137) according to Jennifer Peloso. Kazza, BitTorrent, and other technologies like it allow the sharing of information, all for free. There is a stark contrast in the availability of information today than there was just a few decades ago, due in large part to the internet. On the internet, all information is free. Capitalism is based on the idea that to be successful, you need to have something that others want; something that is worth money. The internet made information a commodity, bringing an end to an era where in order to create and access content, you must have money. Over the past decade and a half, the United States government has created a few, but all encompassing, laws to help publishers keep their intellectual property under their control. But is the dissemination of intellectual property bad? The United States government has created these laws in order to try to protect the intellectual property of companies and individuals. The most important laws being the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (hereafter referred to as the DMCA) and the upcoming Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (hereafter referred to as the ACTA). These laws are in place because of a fear that the present day capitalistic economy will fall apart without a creator-money-consumer relationship. In a society where technology allows people to create and acquire information for themselves, both on their terms and prices, it is difficult for the creators of intellectual property to make money. In Lois Lowry’s book The Giver, the inhabitants of the community have no choice in the information that they can access. In the end of the book, this proves to be a fatal mis...
... middle of paper ...
...ent Institutes, Inc., 1996. Print.
Lessig, Lawrence. Free Culture. New York, New York: The Penguin Press, 2004. Free Culture. Web. 8 Feb. 2010. .
Lowry, Lois. The Giver. N.p.: Random House, Inc., 1993. Print.
McRae, Hamish. “Hamish McRae: Why intellectual property is a vital trade for the English-speaking world.” Editorial. The Independent. N.p., 12 Oct. 2006. Web. 11 Feb. 2010. .
Patel, Sandip. E-Mail interview. 23 Feb. 2010.
Peloso, Jennifer, ed. Intellectual Property. N.p.: H.W. Wilson, 2003. Print. The Reference Shelf.
Whitman, Walt. "Pioneers! O Pioneers! ." 1855. Leaves of Grass. Princeton. Web.
18 Feb. 2010. .
In week 10 of spring semester we discussed chapter 11’s Intellectual Property Law. “Property establishes a relationship of legal exclusion between an owner and other people regarding limited resources.” In this chapter, we learn that the Constitution allows Congress “to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors to the exclusive Right to their respective writings and discoveries.”
Thierer, Adam D., and Clyde Wayne Crews. "Napster." Copy fights: the future of intellectual property in the information age. Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute, 2002. 108-120. Print.
The entertainment industry and many musicians regarded P2P as a big crisis for copyright, so that they sued the company that produced Napster. “Anger leads Metallica to the Internet,” an article by Karen Schubert in USA TODAY, noticed that heavy-metal band Metallica was suing Napster. And now some people in the music industry are fighting with a distributor of P2P software even in the Supreme Court, and lobbying to outlaw P2P technology. In “File sharing goes to High Court,” USA ...
Nealon, Jeffrey T., and Susan Searls Giroux. "Culture." The Theory Toolbox: Critical Concepts for the Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences. 2nd ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2012. 51-88. Print
This case study will examine the moral issues of intellectual property rights and the effects they have on society. There are many varying stances on the subject of intellectual property, with people opposing either or both of intellectual property ownership and creative commons for various reasons. Mandatory copyrighting and patenting of inventions and published works has the potential to majorly restrict advancements in science and culture.
The evolution of the Internet into a mainstream resource has provided its users with access to whatever their hearts desire, often at no cost. Such free access has instilled in the minds of users that they are entitled to possess all that they may obtain, without regard to those from whom they are taking. Causing the damages to our economy and society on a global scale, and challenges to the current state of copyright law, resulting from the growth and advancement of digital technology, which has created a pandemic of apathy among an entire population of users toward the interests of copyright owners.
International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition. (2005). The negative consequences of international intellectual property theft. Retrieved from http://www.iacc.org
Intellectual property rights (IPR) are extremely boring. This is a simple truth. There is nothing exciting about discussing copyrights, patents, trademarks, trade secrets. There is no such thing as an invigorating discussion revolving around the legal battles of Isaac Newton v. Gottfried Wilhelm. It just doesn’t happen. What does happen, however, are “invigorating discussions” revolving around sites like Limewire and megashare being shut down. A woman who was sued for illegally downloading ten songs was found guilty and forced to pay a fee of $10,000.
Intellectual Property Law used to only protect art, music, and literature, but because of technological development, Intellectual Property Law now also protects a greater variety of innovations including designs, inventions, symbols, discoveries, and words. The phrase “intellectual property” was first known to be used in the late 1700’s; however, it was not widely talked about, nor was the Intellectual Property Law in actuality commonly implemented. Intellectual Property Rights slowly gained more attention by mid-1800’s after the Industrial Revolution had taken place: more companies were created, competition between corporations became fiercer, and owning unique innovations were crucial to winning the competition. However, as Intellectual Property
Intellectual property (IP) contributes a great deal to economies. Dozens of industries rely on the ample enforcement of their patents and copyrights, while consumers use it to ensure they are purchasing secure, guaranteed products. IP rights are worth to be protected both locally and overseas. Protection of IP is a non-partisan issue where these rights are embraced by all sectors of industry, consumer groups, labor organizations, and other trade associations we bring together.
McArdle, M. (2010). The Freeloaders How a generation of file-sharers is ruining the future of entertainment. The Atlantic.
Much of Rose's argument for the retention of current copyright laws stems from the faulty belief that copyright infringement will remain much of an underground practice. In his article Rose asserts that "Net users who aren't at least mildly familiar with the [file-sharing] underworld will never even hear about such systems before they are dismembered" [1]. While file-sharing might not have been an important issue in 1995, the word "underworld" does not accurately describe the flourishing file sharing situation today.
We have to remind legislators that intellectual property rights are a socially-conferred privilege rather than an inalienable right, that copying is not always evil (and in some cases is actually socially beneficial) and that there is a huge difference between wholesale piracy'the mass-production and sale of illegal copies of protected worksand the filesharing that most internet users go in for.
At the dawn of the internet, many things such as books and text became obsolete, due to insufficient monitoring of internet activity and sites. Individuals were able to gain free access to books and publications that normally needed to be bought, or required a fee. This is something that has caused problems for booksellers and publishers. Now, as technology advances, it also begins the decline of music, software, and television industries—but something can be done before it’s too late. Illegal downloading is a problem that affects us all, either directly or indirectly. Many people do not take it too seriously. They have not realized that it is an epidemic; like a disease that keeps growing as people become more knowledgeable about computers and learn more about how software runs. People openly burn music CDs and download music and movies for friends who in turn give it to their friends; it’s a never-ending cycle on illegal practices. The problem started when Napster came out and should have ended when it was shutdown. Unfortunately, not enough has been done to stop the illegal transfer of files. It’s time someone takes full action and ends this detrimental offense.
The first reason why downloading and uploading copyrighted materials from the Internet should be legal is that downloading copyrighted materials positively affects the economy. The European Commission Joint Research Center reported that the profits of music companies would be 2% lower if uploading and downloading copyrighted materials were banned. However, music companies are able to acquire more profits despite illegal downloading because many people tend to purchase CDs or DVDs after watching or listening to copyrighted materials for free. Moreover, the research showed that people who download music illegally spent more money to buy music than people who did not download illegally. In addition, research conducted by the Swiss government informed that one-third of Swiss people downloaded copyrighted materials from the Internet because personal use of copyrighted materials is legal in Switzerland. Even though there is a fact that many people can download copyrighted materials from the Internet legally in Switzerland, the amount of money that people spend to buy copyrighted materials is not f...