Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Protectionism and free trade
Free trade and protectionism
Arguments for Protectionism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The ownership of commissioned software can often be misleading, and without a clearly defined contract between the client and software programmer, the lines can become blurred as to who holds the copyright of said software program code. A client commissioning a software program from a developer may assume that once they purchase and take ownership of the software, they also acquire the intellectual rights and copyright to the work. Before the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000 came into effect on 1st January, 2001, in Irish law a client commissioning work was entitled to the ownership of copyright once they purchased the artefact (Copyright 1963). This is no longer the case, unless there is a specific contract between the client and the contractor, the contractor is the first owner of the work and therefore owns the copyright, (Copyright Act 2000).
This paper will endeavour to highlight some salient features of the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000 in relation to the re-use or re-distribution of commissioned software code.
Salient Features of the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000
Under the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000 Section 17, Copyright provides the owner of a body of work with the rights to authorize other persons the right to use that work within the State, within the laws of the State (Irish Statute Book, 2000)
Copyright exists to ensure the owners of intellectual property secure a fair return on their work because existing contract law doesn’t offer enough protection. The legal rule of ‘privity of contract ‘ stipulates that a contract existing between two parties cannot be applied to a third party (Law Reform Commission, 2008), therefore the third party would be able to exploit the works wi...
... middle of paper ...
...8. Who owns the software…?. [Online]
Available at: http://www.bllaw.co.uk/pdf/TECH_0508_Who_owns_the_software_CIS.pdf
[Accessed 04 March 2014].
Law Reform Commission, 2008. Privity of Contract and Third Party rights, Dublin: Law Reform Commision.
McIntyre, T., 2007. Copyright in Custom code: Who owns commissioned software?. [Online]
Available at: http://jiplp.oxfordjournals.org/content/2/7/473.full.pdf?keytype=ref&ijkey=PUyOS40LmBKlBXU
[Accessed 11 March 2014].
Moffat, J., 2009. A practical guide to copyright in computer software. [Online]
Available at: http://www.avidity-ip.com/assets/pdf/20100105033033_4036.pdf
[Accessed 14 March 2014].
Sametinger, J., 1997. Software Engineering with Reusable Components. s.l.:Springer .
Somerville, I., 2004. Software Reuse. In: Sommerville, ed. Software Engineering. Harlow: Pearson Educational Limited, pp. 416-418.
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
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.
“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).
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.
Andrews N, Strangers to Justice No Longer: The Reversal of the Privity Rule under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (2001) 60 The Cambridge Law Journal 353
Johnson, R. and Foote, B. (1988) “Designing reusable classes”. In: Journal Of Object-Oriented Programming, v.1, n. 2, p. 22-35, Jun./Jul.
Having evaluated the current state of English contract law, mainly made up of piecemeal solutions, it can be seen that despite being satisfactory and doing its job, there still remain gaps within the law of contract where unfairness is not dealt with. Moreover, due to the ad hoc nature of those piecemeal solutions, the latter have often produced inconsistent justice and have manifested cases of unfairness. Hence, “a relatively small number of respected Justices have endeavored to draw attention to the fact that the application of a general principle might be useful and even necessary in English law.”
Hilary Delany (2009) – Is there a future for proprietary estoppel as we know it? Dublin University Law Journal
8. Samuelson, Pamela. Copyright’s fair use doctrine and digital data, Association for Computing Machinery., Communications of the ACM; vol. 37, Issue 1; New York, 1994. p. 22.
Based on common law and precedent, the English law of contract has been formulated and developed over a number of years with it’s primary purpose to provide a regulated framework within which individuals can contract freely. In order to ensure a contract is enforceable there are certain elements which must be satisfied, one of which is the doctrine of consideration. Lord Denning famously professed; “the doctrine of consideration is too firmly fixed to be overthrown by a side wind” . This is a crucial indication that consideration has long been regarded as the cardinal ‘badge of enforceability’ in the formulation and variation of contracts in English common law.
HILLIARD, J. And O’SULLIVAN, J. (2012) The Law of Contract [Online] 5th Ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available from - http://books.google.co.uk/ [Accessed: 2nd January 2014]
The Statute of Anne (the first modern form of copyright law) was introduced after the printing press was invented. Before this time, books would have to be hand written and for this reason they were ve...
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.
copyrighted software by a person or entity that has not been licensed to use the
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