Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Legal issues arising from technology
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Legal issues arising from technology
Copyright is the set of significant exclusive rights that have been conferred on the authors of works or copyright owners. It is used to protect their work from unauthorised transmission or copying and to the protection of their moral rights. These moral rights include the right of integrity of authorship, the right against false attribution of authorship and the right of attribution of authorship.
Throughout Australia, copyright is established under the ‘Commonwealth Legislation’, the ‘Copyright Act 1968’. This is updated periodically for the purpose of taking into account, the changes in technology, where International Treaties can also apply. Regulations that specify matter related to the operation of the Copyright Act are the ‘Copyright
…show more content…
One of the most prominent legal issues in copyright law pertains to ‘fair use’. Fair use can be exemplified as a person who stores copyrighted music files on their personal laptop in folders accessible by the public, which are liable for infringing upon the copyright owner’s exclusive right to distribute. Another case exemplified is when a software developer could be vicariously liable for copyright infringement when it distributes technology in which individuals have the option to share copyrighted and non-copyrighted material. In both of these cases, the courts are demanded to “ascertain the limits of statutory language through judicial interpretation and interpolation.” (Jessica D. Litman, Copyright, Compromise, and Legislative History, 72 CORNELL L. REV. 857, 858 …show more content…
The four central factors that contribute to law lag occurs when the law of copyright responds to the new technology. Firstly, the creation of rules takes time and the complex lawmaking process involves various procedural safeguards. Secondly, the unpredictable and dynamic nature of the technological innovations becomes difficult to predict or anticipate future inventions therefore it is difficult to reduce delay by writing laws to anticipate coming trends. This statement complicates any efforts to reduce law lag, acting proactively. Third, is the unpredictability of the necessitates regarding the deployment of open standards in copyright law. Finally, the indistinctness as to the potential economic and social implications of novel technology is the fourth contributing factor to law lag in copyright. To visualise the uncertainty, Figure 1 displays an overview of ten major innovative breakthroughs that gave significant rise to the copyright issues. It can be analysed that the average time that it takes to ascertain an innovation’s copyright status is predicted as seven years and two months. A contributing reason for lags in the Australian copyright law is heavily influenced by underlying technology. By awaiting developments in the law, the legal system loses the opportunity to intervene and reduce socially desired effects. Therefore, early intervention might affect the
The merits of both the adversarial and inquisitorial system will be explored throughout this paper. The Australian rule of law best describes as all law should be applied equally and fairly. The five vital operations of the rule of law includes fairness, rationality, predictability, consistency, and impartially. The adversarial system adopts these operations by having a jury decide on the verdict and the judge being an impartial decision maker. In contrast, the inquisitorial system relies heavily on the judge. This can result in abusive power and bias of the judge when hearing evidence and delivering verdicts. The operations of the rule of law determine why the rule of law is best served by the adversarial system in Australia.
The central message of this text is that increasingly, outdated copyright laws are being manipulated and put to use in a ludicrous manner. This is resulting in the suppression of people’s ability to generate and share their own creative expressions.
Current law declares distributing pirated software illegal even without a motive of profit, but the issue the legislators seemed to be pointing out was whether or not LaMacchia should be punished for making a site available simply for the copying of programs. This issue of whether or not an information carrier or system operator should be responsible for the content that flows through their networks remains unresolved.
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.
“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).
Copyright law confers upon the owner of the work a bundle of exclusive rights in respect of the reproduction of the work and other acts which enables the owner to get financial benefits by exercising such rights. If any of these acts relating to the work is carried out by a person other than the owner without a license from the owner or a competent authority under the act, it constitutes infringement of copyright in the work. Since copyright is granted only for a limited period, there will be no infringement if the reproduction of the work or other acts concerned is carried out after the term of copyright is expired. Accordingly, the type of acts which will constitute infringement will also depend upon the nature of the work. The exclusive rights granted under the act extend also to a translation or adaptation of the work or to substantial part thereof. Thus copyright will be infringed if a substantial part of the work is reproduced. What amounts to a substantial part of the work will depend upon the circumstances of the case.
Along with the development of a file format (MP3) to store digital audio recordings, came one of the new millennium’s most continuous debates – peer-to-peer piracy – file sharing. Internet companies such as Napster and Grokster became involved in notable legal cases in regards to copyright laws in cyberspace. These two cases are similar in nature, yet decidedly different. In order to understand the differences and similarities, one should have an understanding of each case as well as the court’s ruling.
Copyright is a collection of rights that protect creative works, usually not include ideas, concepts, styles or techniques. Copyright is important for creative works. It protects the producers’ right and enable them to be confident that their effort will not be stolen by others. According to Kris, Parody usually is a new creative piece of work which uses an existing work for humour or mockery, includes satire, caricature, pastiche and non-commercial user generated content, UGC. People usually produce parody not for earning profit or damaging the interest of the copyright owners, but to express their feeling towards some issues or criticize some behaviors or words of a person.
Body paragraphs: I. Main Point: Let’s begin by taking about what exactly is copyright, why it is important and how it differs from plagiarism. a. What is copyright? i. It is a legal form of protection, a federal law of the United States for the creators of “original works of authorship,” for a limited period of time. 1. Includes, literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works ii.
Intellectual property is property resulting from intellectual, creative processes. A product that was created because of someone’s individual thought process. Examples includes books, designs, music, art work, and computer files. (Miller R. J., 2011, p. 114) In the music industry a copyright is an important tool for artist to use to protect themselves from infringers. A copyright is the exclusive right of an author or originator of a literary or artistic production to publish, print, or sell that production for a statutory period of time. A copyright has the same monopolistic nature as a patent or trademark, but it differs in that it applies exclusively to works of art, literature, and other works of authorship (including computer programs). (Miller R. J., 2011, p. 125)
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 ...
Copyright is a form of protection given to the authors or creators of “original works of authorship,” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic and other intellectual works. According to Dictionary.com: "The exclusive right to make copies, license, and otherwise exploit a literary, musical, or artistic work, whether printed, audio, video, etc.: works granted such right by law on or after January 1,1978, are protected for the lifetime of the author or creator and for a period of 50 years after his or her death." Different countries have different lengths for copyright. The copyright time ranges between 30-70 years. Click on one of the links below to learn more about copyright.
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.
A copyright is a legal means that gives the creator of mythical, imaginative, musical, or other creative work the solitary right to publish and sell that work. Copyright owners have the right to manage the reproduction of their work, including the right to receive imbursement for that reproduction. An author may contribute or sell those rights to others, including publishers or recording corporations. Breach of a copyright is called copyright
Our legal system is gradually developing a code of laws to provide a legal framework for working with computers and on the Internet. The most prevalent breach of law in cyberspace is software piracy, the illegal copying or use of a program. Copyright laws relevant to computers and software are covered by the Copyright Act of 1976 and the Software Piracy and counterfeiting Amendment of 1983. Instead of building copy protection into their programs, most software developers discourage privacy among organizations by offering site licenses and network versions.