Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to further our understanding of the copyright law and how it protects the works of authors and businesses. This report consists mainly of our opinions which are based on numerous cross referencing to media experts and our research through the internet as well as the library. The structure of this report is broken down into different segments, beginning with a recap on copyright law, how does it reward authors and its importance to authors and businesses. This will be followed by discussion on the down side of copyright law and whether it stifles creativity by restricting author’s works. The end of the report body will be an investigation on a case study presented as an article through cross referencing and performing law forensics on the arguments put forward by both sides. This report will be accompanied by a 10-minute presentation where we point our certain key points in our opinions and arguments derived from research and cross-referencing.
Introduction
This report will first discuss the pros and cons of copyright, its limitations, and whether it is important to the success of authors and/or businesses. Thereafter, we will be discussing our opinions as to whether copyright is crushing other’s freedom of creativity by restricting the use of authors’ works. Lastly this report will cover the case of Singapore Press Holdings versus Yahoo! Southeast Asia, we will be looking into the entire timeline of the case, the arguments from both sides, and its final verdict, the twists and turns and finally we will discuss the group’s opinion towards the case.
Report Body
Discuss how copyright can protect one’s works. How does copyright incentivize and rewa...
... middle of paper ...
...incentive to do so.
We have also looked into the other end of the stick, whether copyright is bad for creativity. The introduction of copyright does indeed restrict the ‘freedom’ for creativity, but it also protects against innovations that are merely a ‘copy’ of another’s work. It instills a discipline into innovators and allows them to think beyond the available works so as to not infringe on other’s copyright, which in turn allows truly innovative works to emerge.
After looking into the case study in this assignment, we have learned that copyright can also be a very messy issue. It is sometimes quite hard to determine whether copyright was intentionally or unintentionally infringed, or whether the copyright was ever infringed in the first place. As both sides have rather convincing arguments, we had to cross reference to other articles to confirm our judgment.
...entertainment industry is saying that intellectual property is just as real as physical property. The digital age faces a true balancing act a digital dilemma if you will- the right to freedom of expression while protecting intellectual property.
Details of copyright law vary between nation countries, however, many nations share a common interest through two international copyright treaty membership agreements, the Berne Convention (which consists of 164 member states) and the Buenos Aires Convention (which is an agreement between North and South American countries,) The treaties, established in order to protect an authors’/creators’ original work from copying - whether it be literary, dramatic, design, musical or artistic.
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.
In this notable Ted Talk video "Do schools kill creativity?", Sir Ken Robinson discusses how public education systems demolish creativity because they believe it is essential to the academic growth and success of students. Robinson created a broad arrange of arguments to persuade the viewers to take action on this highly ignored issue, and he primarily focuses on how important creativity is. There are classes within schools that help utilize creativity, but they are not taken seriously by adults in society. Therefore, the value of creative knowledge decreases. Robinson uses an unusual combination of pathos and ethos to make an enjoyable dispute for implementing an education system that nurtures rather than eats away at creativity.
“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.
Music Copyright is a very important aspect of the music industry. The Copyright law was established to preserve the creativity and rights of authors, composers, performers of expression. Copyright is the law that protects the property rights of the creator of an original work in a fixed tangible medium. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/copyright) A fixed tangible medium is something substantial like copying lyrics on paper or putting a song on tape or CD. Copyright can be seen every where in the music industry. Many music artist of our culture today have been involved in copyright issues. Recently, on MTV news it was stated that, "As the music industry becomes increasingly concerned about protecting the integrity of artists copyrights in the age of MP3. Prince has now filed a motion in New York federal court aimed at shutting down several websites offering free downloads of the Artist's songs." (http://www.mtv.com…19990304/prince.jhtml) In addition, in recent music news, "Nine Inch Nails lead man Trent Reznor copyright infringement suit was dismissed. Another artist claimed that the Reznor had stolen material for his last album." (http://www.mtv.com…19991202/nine_inch_nails.jhtml) The copyright law has become an important legal aspect to know our music generation.
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...
Robbert Van Ooijen. "Why Piracy Is Good For Innovation." 'hypebot' N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2014.
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.
Just two decades ago, saying “copyright” to teachers most likely conjured images in their minds only of the fine-print notice in the front of a textbook. Today, with a world of Web 2.0 technology at their fingertips, copyright issues for teachers can be confusing and complex. Add to that an ever-increasing emphasis on technology literacy in our states’ education standards – forcing teachers to incorporate applications and resources that may be uncharted territory to them – and the waters get even murkier. Teachers bear the double-burden of carefully abiding by copyright laws in their day-to-day incorporation of technology in the classroom, while instilling copyright ethics in students as they meet state standards for technology and media literacy. A review of the copyright literature related to education provides some clarity on copyright and fair use applied to classroom practices, suggests barriers to copyright compliance among educators, and provides suggestions on how to teach copyright ethics to a tech-savvy generation.
Plagiarism and Copyright Infringement are two terms that mean different things yet are routinely mentioned as synonyms for each other. This is not the case. The underlying reasoning for people who choose to plagiarize and infringe on copyrights involve some of the same ethics and morals, but from a legal standpoint these terms mean different things. This paper will point out the similarities and differences between the two terms. It will first give some meaning and perspective behind each term then it will go into the details of what each term means. It will point out the types of plagiarism that routinely show in academia and what is covered under Copyright law protection. It will go on to compare and contrast the two concepts.
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
Copyright infringement is a major issue with media ethics. Many people confuse copyright infringement with trademark infringement (Miller, 2012). However, copyright infringement is when someone unlawfully uses a particular work that is protected by copyright law. These works can include: movies, pictures, songs, albums, artwork, pieces of literature, and newspapers. There is no reason for any of the previous to be copyright infringed, because there are ways to correctly cite all of them as sources, without illegally copyright infringing them. Most people simply do not use their resources to help them with their citing.
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