Boundaries of Ownership
It is important that I make this very clear and that I do so at the earliest possible moment. I must do this because the essay that you are reading is about intellectual property, and that means that this essay must be self-referential. When one writes or speaks or communicates in any way about intellectual property, one is dealing with some of the most basic rules of the very medium in which one is operating. There is no neutral ground here, no possibility of genuine detachment or objectivity. Either I am going to claim the protection of the current laws that apply in the United States and under the World Intellectual Property Organization, or I am not.
So here it is: I am not.
There is a name just under the title of this essay, but that name has no connection with any concept of ownership. What you read here is not controlled by any copyrights, trademarks, service marks, patents, trade secrets, or any other kind of intellectual property. The words on this page are not an "authoritative" version of this essay; no such version exists, and--as far as I am concerned--no such version ever will exist. The only limits on what you can do with this essay and the words in it are the limits imposed by the laws of physics and the extent of your imagination. As the available technologies advance, the limits will move outward, and you will be able to do more and more things with these words. No matter what you do with this material, I will not send lawyers chasing after you demanding royalties or anything else. If you do get into some sort of trouble for using something from this paper, that trouble won't be started by me.
Why am I doing this? Why am I abandoning copyright protection for my own creation, fo...
... middle of paper ...
...t may be. We must look at this alternate world with all the objectivity, clarity, and thoroughness we can possibly muster, for it is only by doing so that we can assemble in our own minds the solid core of intellectual property that is genuinely worth protecting, if such a solid core even exists.
Ultimately, I return to the points I raised on the first few pages of this essay. Anyone can move around any information that they want to, and nobody really seems to be changing that fact in spite of many efforts to do so. I personally have chosen not to fight the fact until the fact changes. Take what you want from these words. Do what you want with them. Change them, send them, mail them, post them, write them, draw them, paint them, speak them, sing them, chant them, record them, film them. This essay is yours, and everybody's, and nobody's.
Nobody owns this essay.
In the 1998 Seton Hall Journal of Sport Law Review, Michael J. Mrvica argues that The National Basketball Association v. Motorola represents a type of intellectual property conflict. Intellectual property rights attributes to someone’s rights in intangible things. The intellectual property rights are in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution. The thesis of this article being, “The expansion of intellectual property law, and the rights afforded therein, has created complex litigation.”
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.”
Murray, Andrew. "Copyright in the Digital Environment." Information technology law: the law and society. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. 268. Print.
“Copyright is a fundamental right of ownership and protection common to all of the arts” (O’Hara & Beard, 2006, p. 8). “It is a form of intellectual Property (IP)” and it gives the owner exclusive rights to the copyright (O’Hara & Beard, 2006, p. 11).
It might not have been how I originally wanted to spend my Saturday night, but then again if I hadn’t of gone it would have been extremely difficult to write this paper. I attended Molly Kleinman’s lecture about copyright and how it’s linked to libraries.
Copyright exists to ensure the owners of intellectual property secure a fair return on their work because existing contract law doesn’t offer enough protection. The legal rule of ‘privity of contract ‘ stipulates that a contract existing between two parties cannot be applied to a third party (Law Reform Commission, 2008), therefore the third party would be able to exploit the works wi...
Way before their time Esther Dyson and Lance Rose both had their own opinions about the future of 'intellectual property' in the digital age. In 1995, two authors noticed this emergence of change. In the Wired article "The Emperor's Clothes Still Fit Just Fine" Lance Rose suggested that the norm of copyright infringement being a criminal act such as stealing a car would prevent this practice from becoming something that would be acceptable in society today. This leads into his argument that we do not need to change the current laws (in 1995) to prevent future copyright infringement. Esther Dyson's Wired article on the other hand titled "Intellectual Value" expresses a completely opposite view of this very same issue of copyright. Her arguments support the claim that copyright infringement would become more prominent in society and cause major revision of how we approach and pass laws toward the handling of intellectual property. Both of these articles were very predictive from the time they were written and have been proved accurate by events through the years.
Intellectual property consists of the fruit of one’s mind and not one’s hands. The laws of intellectual property protect property that is primarily the result of mental creativity rather than physical effort. When we are thinking about rights of any kind, it is important to remember that society, through laws, decides what rights individuals and communities have with regard to property.
Fiesler, Casey, and Amy Bruckman. "Copyright Terms in Online Creative Communities." Proc. of CHI 2014, Metro Toronto Convention Centre, Toronto, ON. Association for Computing Machinery, n.d. PDF file. 24 Apr. 2014.
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.
Over the course of my three years in law school, I focused on employment opportunities that would provide me with practical experience and strengthen my analytical skills. In my second year of law school, I had the opportunity to serve as a dean’s fellow for a leading expert in the field of copyright law, Professor Peter Jaszi. My job as a fellow required me to perform extensive legal research and apply legal principles to produce analytical memoranda on topics such as orphan works, mass digitization, and fair use. Professor Jaszi, subsequently, used my analysis from my memoranda for presentations, workshops, and panel discussions. My work with Professor Jaszi exposed me to domestic and international copyright legal principles, enhanced my legal research skills, and honed my ability to write concisely.
Over the past decade the societal view of creative society has greatly changed due to advances in computer technology and the Internet. In 1995, aware of the beginning of this change, two authors wrote articles in Wired Magazine expressing diametrically opposed views on how this technological change would take form, and how it would affect copyright law. In the article "The Emperor's Clothes Still Fit Just Fine" Lance Rose hypothesized that the criminal nature of copyright infringement would prevent it from developing into a socially acceptable practice. Thus, he wrote, we would not need to revise copyright law to prevent copyright infringement. In another article, Entitled "Intellectual Value", Esther Dyson presented a completely different view of the copyright issue. She based many her arguments on the belief that mainstream copyright infringement would proliferate in the following years, causing a radical revision of American ideas and laws towards intellectual property. What has happened since then? Who was right? This paper analyzes the situation then and now, with the knowledge that these trends are still in a state of transformation. As new software and hardware innovations make it easier to create, copy, alter, and disseminate original digital content, this discussion will be come even more critical.
Because of its intangible nature, and particularly the increase of the digital domain and the internet as a whole, computers and cyber piracy make it easier for people to steal many forms of intellectual property. Due to this major threat, intellectual property rights owners’ should take every single measure to protect their rights. Unless these rights are either sold, exchanged, transferred, or appropriately licensed for use in exchange for a monetary fee, they should be protected at all cost. In order to protect these rights, the federal and states governments have passed numerous laws and statutes to protect intellectual property from misappropriation and infringement. “The source of federal copyright and patent law originates with the Copyright and Patent ...
particular interest to educators is the “fair use” doctrine, which extends a get-out-of-jail-free card (so to speak) to anyone using copyrighted...
Copyright is a protection for authors, composers or artists and other creators who create innovative idea base work. Copyright law is important because of its role to protect the interests of the creator, while allowing others to gain access to it legally. It designed to make sure that creators receive appropriate rights for their own ideas and creativity, and to promote artistic creativity by protecting the creator.