Introduction The Lisa Coppola LLC v. Higbee case revolves around intellectual property rights and their enforcement on the Internet, particularly concerning the use of images that were allegedly offered for free but later became the subject of copyright infringement claims (Coppola v. Higbee, No. 1:19-CV-00678-CCR, 2020). Discussion Points 1. What is the difference between a '' and a ''? Background of the Case Lisa Coppola LLC, a law firm, used images they believed were free to use, only to receive a demand letter from the defendants (Higbee & Associates) for payment due to lack of proper licensing. The firm filed a lawsuit alleging a fraudulent scheme to extract payments from users of these "free" images (Coppola v. Higbee, No. 1:19-CV-00678-CCR, 2020). …show more content…
What is the difference between a '' and a ''? Key Legal and Ethical Concerns The case raised questions about the clarity of licensing terms for online content and the ethical implications of enforcing copyright infringement in a potentially misleading manner. The court found that the website's licensing language was clear and unambiguous, requiring attribution, which Lisa Coppola LLC failed to provide (CC Legal Database, 2020). 3. What is the difference between a '' and a ''? Significance to E-commerce This case is significant to the e-commerce industry as it highlights the importance of understanding and complying with intellectual property laws when using online content. It also underscores the potential risks involved in using images or other content without thorough verification of the terms of use. (4). The's' of the's'. Protection of Merchants E-commerce merchants are protected by intellectual property laws that safeguard their products, services, and content from unauthorized use. This includes patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets that can be enforced to maintain a competitive edge and prevent unfair competition (WIPO,
Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. Sadler, R. (2005). The 'Second Electronic Media Law -. Thousand Oaks:
2d 574, ***1984 U.S. LEXIS 19 Sony Corp. v Universal City Studios, Inc. Copyright Act 2011. United States Copyright Office.
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.
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
In the case of Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc v. Bartlett 133 S. Ct. 2466 (2013), the plaintiff Karen Bartlett was prescribed a medication named Clinoril for shoulder pain. Mutual Pharmaceutical dispensed the prescription in the generic form. The drug caused Karen Bartlett to develop toxic epidermal necrolysis. At the time of the incident, the label of the drug did not specify development of toxic epidermal necrolysis as a possible side-effect. For Karen Bartlett not adequately labeling the medication caused her medical damages. Was Mutual Pharmaceutical Co guilty of noncompliance with consumer protection and product safety laws?
However, despite the strong copyright policy and punishment of the United States Federal Copyright Act, as enforced by police as well as the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), piracy still rages on, especially...
At the beginning of 2012, a series of coordinated protests occurred online and offline against Stop Online Piracy Act Bill (SOPA) that expands U.S. law enforcement’s ability to combat online copyright infringement. As this protest involved many influential websites like Google and Wikipedia, it certainly draws national attention on SOPA. Whether censorship should be used online against online materials infringing property rights, as included in SOPA, is the controversial issue. Even though SOPA eventually was terminated by the Congress, things behind SOPA cause further debates. The relationship between censorship, free speech and copyrights in this bill is worth discussing. In SOPA, copyrights are enforced by censorship, but censorship at the same time violates free speech. Although SOPA’s online censorship on unauthorized online material is an effective method to protect internet copyrights, it resistants innovation and compromises freedom of speech.
The entertainment industry and many musicians regarded P2P as a big crisis for copyright, so that they sued the company that produced Napster. “Anger leads Metallica to the Internet,” an article by Karen Schubert in USA TODAY, noticed that heavy-metal band Metallica was suing Napster. And now some people in the music industry are fighting with a distributor of P2P software even in the Supreme Court, and lobbying to outlaw P2P technology. In “File sharing goes to High Court,” USA ...
Abstract: This paper discusses the ongoing court battle between the Motion Picture Association of America, supported by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and various defendants regarding the DeCSS program and its source code. DeCSS is a utility that allows the circumvention of the encryption built into most DVDs. Specifically, the paper examines the implications of the court decision on a range of issues including source code as free speech, HTML linking, and fair use.
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.
Amazon.com operates in the Online Retail Industry. The sector is one of the fastest growing globally and is outperforming the ordinary retail marketplace. It was created after 1995 and it was only the Internet that made it possible for such an industry not only to be established but to become one of the most flourishing sectors in the business environment. What is interesting is that Amazon.com, together with eBay is the pioneer in the field. Both companies were launched in 1995 and are still extremely successful. The creation of e-mail in 1996 had a huge impact on the development of online retail by introducing a fast and easy way to communicate with customers. For this two-year period Internet usage doubled annually, thus, allowing for the expansion of the industry. Google is launched a year later, in 1998, only to become the most used search engine in the world and an essential partner for the online retailers by helping them tailor their websites to customer’s personal preferences and by advertising. After that, more and more people see the opportunity in the growing industry and enter it. By 2001 there are more than 513 million Internet users globally, which calls for action in terms of creating regulations and laws to protect the users and personal property. In 2003, Apple launches iTunes, and provides a platform for low-cost digital downloads. Another major change is the appearance of social media from 2004, which is one of the biggest influencer on the state of the industry. With the launch of iPhone in 2007, this trend strengthens as people get to enjoy the Internet anywhere they want to. From then on, technological advancements have made it extremely easy and fun to shop online, making it ...
The internet has revolutionized commerce, giving rise to a thriving e-commerce industry. However, this digital marketplace also presents challenges regarding intellectual property (IP) rights. The case of Lisa Coppola LLC v. Higbee (2019) exemplifies these complexities, highlighting the legal and ethical concerns surrounding online imagery and its licensing. This essay will delve into the background of the case, analyze the key legal and ethical issues, explore its significance for the e-commerce industry, and propose solutions to protect online merchants using IP laws. Background of Lisa Coppola LLC v. Higbee Lisa Coppola LLC, a legal firm, filed a lawsuit against Mathew K. Higbee, Esq., Nicholas Youngson, and RM Media Ltd. (Higbee Defendants)
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.
As American and European markets mature, Asia is turning out to be progressively appealing to businesses, particularly to e-business firms that flourish with global and scalable business models. Yet, barring markets like Japan, most global e-commerce players like Amazon, eBay and Expedia have yet to find in Asia the kind of success that they have enjoyed in their home markets. While late entry and local regulations partly explain their low market share in the region, these firms also face unique challenges in Asia due to diverse cultures, multiple languages and poor infrastructure. Given the rising significance of the Asian market, interest in the territory would seem to be a consistent step. But, it’s important not to forget that the international playing field, in respect of Intellectual Property, is exceptionally dynamic and competitive.
All around the world, people connected to the internet are downloading free digital content through P2P file sharing software. Intellectual property rights are being violated as people are downloading free content through P2P (Peer 2 Peer) networks, and illegal websites online. Production companies can’t do anything about that because developers of this type of software can’t be blamed for what people share.