Nicole Schiera
CS320-I01
Professor Covert
4/4/14
Response 8
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.
When comparing both the articles to today's prevalence of the internet and rise of copyright infringement, the most relevant article is Esther Dyson's. In her article she states "Intellectual property that can be copied easily likely will be copied. It will be copied so easily and efficiently that much of it will be distributed free in order to attract attention or create desire for follow-up services that can be charged for" (Dyson). This same concept is what many popular mobile applications and software companies have adopted to create revenue for their company. Many software applications such as Microsoft Wor...
... middle of paper ...
...intellectual property copyrights would be escalated. With the increase in the pursuit of charging those who commit copyright infringement and more internet companies holding their customers liable, offenders could be scared off enough to dwindle this growing concept of downloading free movies and music. If this were to happen Rose's arguments would become more concrete in predicting even farther into the future. However, the current state of more and more people becoming aware of ways to access free content and software back the initial predictions made by Dyson. Rose and Dyson may disagree on many points, but both arguments have the optimistic goal of bringing the internet and laws of copyright back to why they were originally created, for the creators/owners to get the recognition and profit they deserve while satisfying and informing a global base of consumers.
More advanced technology users can make copies and distribute it to the general public for free. The people who are the originators of this information seem to be a step behind the those users who attempt to distribute the information for free. Many internet users are aware that there are ways to get this information for free and will go to lengths to avoid paying for it. Some users risk downloading viruses onto their electronics in order to avoid paying fees charged by the makers of information that they are trying to get a hold of. This problem caused a big push more legislation around copyright
Prior to the enactment of the Statute of Anne in 1710, the idea of copyright law, remained in the private law context, was in hands of profit-making stationers' company who only served to uphold their own interests in printing the materials. The Statute of Anne deeply affected the American law of copyright (Patterson, 1965) marking the beginning of copyright in a public context. Although the Statute itself had handful of loopholes like it only governed the printing of books and did not stipulate any means to identify the author, it was still often referred as the most authoritative legislation document because of its groundbreaking, historical impact on its protection to the natural and property rights of authors. In my essay, the Copyright Ordinance in Hong Kong will be illustrated to show that it succeeded the spirit of Statute of Anne, favoring the vigorous and prospering development creative work in our city. I would also suggest some ways to amend the Law in the modern circumstances where Web 2.0 Communication Tools reinvented the creative industry significantly.
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.
Abstract: In 1995 Lance Rose and Esther Dyson wrote articles in Wired Magazine expressing polarized views on the future of copyright law and copyright infringement. This essay reviews those articles, analyzes each article's accuracy as defined by current trends years later.
According to our textbook, “Real property constitutes land and all things permanently attached to it (i.e. a house, a tree or coal below land). Intellectual property such as copyrights, patents and trademarks is personally owned but generally treated as a separate form of property by the law. Personal property is characterized by its portable nature; it can be carried from place to place (i.e. tangible personal property or intangible personal property)” (Roger, 2012).
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
“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).
The Internet. It is a vast network of millions of users, surfing and sharing billions of files, all day, every day. To individuals holding copyrights on intellectual property, this is a frightening proposition. After all, there is virtually no protection for these copyright holders from the misuse of their property. But, as Scott Sullivan, writer for The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin stated, “as history has proven, technological and societal advances usually come with a price.” The price society is paying for the Internet is a loss of copyright protection by laws for their intellectual material.
The World Intellectual Property Organization, Intellectual property is the ‘products of the mind: inventions, literary and artistic works, any symbols, names, images, and designs used in commerce’. Intellectual Properties such as Patents, designs, trademarks and copyrights are protected by laws .The US government offers different types of protection for these properties. The Lanham Act (15 U.S.C.A. section 1051 et seq) also known as the trademark act of 1946 provides protection for trademarks. A trademark is defined as a name, a word, a symbol, or device or any combination thereof, adopted and used by a manufacturer or merchant to identify his goods and distinguish them from those manufactured and sold by others. (Miaoulis 1978)
...en the biggest hurdles the music industry has overcome. Thanks to iTunes and Google Music record labels and artist can reach almost anyone in the world with their music and know that their work won’t be infringed upon. In the next five years copyrights will still have the respect it has today. As technology moves along copyrights will be right behind it revising the rules and regulations to make sure that an artist intellectual property is safe and that the artist or label can receive compensatory damages for copyright infringement.
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 ...
Although online file sharing debuted in 1999, lawmakers and copyright industries are just beginning to address the myriad questions the practice has generated. In At Issue: Internet Piracy, authors attempt to answer some of those questions.
In the article “Download this essay: A defence of stealing eBooks” (THINK, 2013) by Andrew Forcehimes, eBooks are an electronic version of a printed book which can be read on a computer or a specifically designed handheld device and which can be downloaded illegally without intending to return it. Forcehimes states that any argument regarding copyright law which favours the presence of public libraries will certainly also rationalize the stealing of eBooks. It is submitted that, at least economically, there is a qualitative and quantitative dissimilarity between authorizing public libraries and permitting the online distribution of eBooks for free download without the copyright owner’s agreement. This difference rationalizes the dissimilar
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
Intellectual property is information, original ideas and expressions of the persons mind that have profitable value and are protected under copyright, patent, service mark, trademark/trade secret regulation from replication, violation, and dilution. Intellectual property includes brand items, formulas, inventions, data, designs and the work of artists. It is one of the most tradable properties in the technology market.