Copyrights: Intellectual Property and Technology
The Government and many other agencies around the world are continuously at work to improve protections for intellectual property rights and the enforcement of intellectual property laws. In today’s age of digital madness, passing legislation and actually enforcing of those laws becomes a very daunting task. However, the protection of intellectual property has both individual and social benefits. It protects the right of the creator of something of value to be compensated for what he or she has created, and by so doing; it encourages production of valuable, intangible, creative work
In order to understand the difficulties surrounding the laws associated with intellectual property an understanding of the term is needed. The Louisiana State Bar Association defines intellectual property as the product of someone's mental efforts. It is usually intangible, and its value lies in its appeal to others who might wish to use it or the goods it describes. Intellectual property can be covered and categorized into three separate protective laws; those include copyrights, patents and trademarks. The true key to understanding intellectual property protection is to understand that the thing protected is the intangible creative work, not the particular physical form in which it is embodied (Baase, 2003, p. 235).
This paper will discuss the ideas and laws behind copyrights as intellectual property along with the daunting task of protecting that property in a digital age where piracy seems to be commonplace. The fair-use laws and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998 will also be covered, along with the challenges faced by those who choose to use the fair-use laws for educational purposes, and the impact that the DMCA has had on this law. Finally this paper will discuss what can be learned from having a basic understanding of copyright laws and the impact on world economics that the breaking of these laws could possibly cause.
Examining intellectual property can spark the old argument that standing is more tiring than walking paradox, how do you differentiate between an idea and a creative expression. Copyrights protect a creative expression, which is the expression, selection, and arrangement of ideas. The boundary between an idea and the expression of an idea is often not clear (Baase, 2003, p. 236). Most people...
... middle of paper ...
...industry will quickly realize that consumers eventually get tired of being slapped on the wrist for obeying the law, and this is basically what the DMCA has done to people that actually follow the fair use laws. The actual impact of boycotting the industry would be an economic disaster. This will most likely never happen, but Congress is posed with a great task in front them.
The first step towards ensuring copyrights and fair use laws would be to ban the use of technology that is produced for the sole purpose of circumventing copyrights. Congress should then either redefine the Digital Millennium Copyright Act or do away with it completely. Infringement on copyright laws will never completely disappear but managing the problem without stepping on the toes of the owners or the consumer can definitely be accomplished with the right application and redefinition of copyright laws and the fair use doctrine. A new digital age calls for new types of protection without overstepping the boundaries of what is fair and what is not.
References
Baase, S. (2003). A Gift of Fire: Social, Legal, and Ethical Issues for Computers and the Internet. 2nd Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Intellectual property is the product of creative thought. Intellectual property law establishes rules for the registration, administration, sale, licensing, and dispute resolution of intellectual property (Stim, 2017). By taking the necessary steps to claim
Intellectual property abounds in our society, it is the direct result of the expression of an idea or other intangible material (Zuber, 2014). Our laws provide rights which are specific to the owner of the intellectual property. Furthermore, intellectual property is protected by laws just like tangible property is protected (Lau & Johnson, 2014). The most widely known forms of intellectual property rights include: trade secrets for confidential information, patents for a process/invention, copyrights for creative items and trademarks for brands (Lau & Johnson, 2014). While these rights may appear very defined, there are times when questions
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.
Michael C. McFarland, Intellectual Property, Information, and the Common Good, June 4-5 1999, Intellectual Property and Technology Forum, May 27 2004, <http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/st_org/iptf/commentary/content/1999060503.html>.
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.
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 protection has become increasingly popular in the last century. Many factors have probed interest in this area of the law. A few of those factors include musicians seeking protection of their musical talents through use of copyrights, companies seek to protect inventions of advanced production capabilities, companies create trademarks that differentiate their unique goods from competitors, and companies like Coca-Cola protect their undisclosed ingredients for their products through use of trade secrets. These examples are to gain an understanding of how and why intellectual property rights help companies seek advantages in the marketplace. Furthermore, as the world shrinks because of advancements in transportation and computer technology, intellectual property rights become a large part of entrepreneurship and product development. This paper will discuss the interesting and challenging topic of intellectual property protection. The four basic types of intellectual property include copyrights, patents, trademarks and trade secrets; we will discuss the intellectual properties in the order in which they are listed.
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.
...entertainment industry is saying that intellectual property is just as real as physical property. The digital age faces a true balancing act a digital dilemma if you will- the right to freedom of expression while protecting intellectual property.
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 ...
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.
Just two decades ago, saying “copyright” to teachers most likely conjured images in their minds only of the fine-print notice in the front of a textbook. Today, with a world of Web 2.0 technology at their fingertips, copyright issues for teachers can be confusing and complex. Add to that an ever-increasing emphasis on technology literacy in our states’ education standards – forcing teachers to incorporate applications and resources that may be uncharted territory to them – and the waters get even murkier. Teachers bear the double-burden of carefully abiding by copyright laws in their day-to-day incorporation of technology in the classroom, while instilling copyright ethics in students as they meet state standards for technology and media literacy. A review of the copyright literature related to education provides some clarity on copyright and fair use applied to classroom practices, suggests barriers to copyright compliance among educators, and provides suggestions on how to teach copyright ethics to a tech-savvy generation.
Australia’s needs in the internet age are not being met by current copyright law. Discuss.
However, in recent years, it is not uncommon to see copyright in the possession of a third party other than the creator. These companies make use of copyright as an investment and financial tools to gain profit. In this case, the use of copyright loses its original purpose of protecting the creator, but used as a mean for financial gain. This could possibly hinder creativity as innovation becomes a financial tool catered to the tastes of the general public, while the less marketable new ideas goes unnoticed by the general public under the copyright laws. It is crucial to note that online platforms such as blogs, Facebook and Youtube, and people making their music/works available online for free shows the rapid surge in the number of people willing to sacrifice their copyrights to market themselves to the world. In this highly saturated market, copyright laws can become less relevant as marketing and business is placed on higher