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
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
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 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.
“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).
Intellectual property is an incredibly complicated facet of the law. In the United States, we have many laws in place to control and limit profiting from others intellectual property. The issue is not only profiting from others intellectual property, but not purchasing the property from the originator as well. We will discuss why it is important to protect this property as well as why it is tremendously difficult to regulate all these safe guards. “Intellectual Property has the shelf life of a banana.” Bill Gates
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).
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.
...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.
Computer Laws The No Electronic Theft Act of 1997 (NET Act) was enacted to provide law enforcement and prosecuting attorneys with the appropriate tools to combat copyright violations on the Internet (Easttom & Taylor, 2011). “This law made it a federal crime to reproduce, distribute, or share copies of electronic copyrighted works (Easttom & Taylor, 2011)”. Basically, you can’t copy, sell, or share copyrighted software, videos, music, eBooks, games, etc. It is also a crime to distribute such copyrighted material, even if the distributor does so without any financial gain (Easttom & Taylor, 2011).The No Electronic Theft Act of 1997 also made it a crime to remove a copyright notice from an electronic product and knowingly place a false copyright
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.
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.