Copyrights: Intellectual Property and Technological ChallengesEssay Preview: Copyrights: Intellectual Property and Technological ChallengesReport this essayCopyrights: Intellectual Property and Technological ChallengesThe Government and many other agencies around the world are continuously at work to improve protections for intellectual property rights and the enforcement of intellectual property laws. In todays age of digital madness, passing legislation and actually enforcing of those laws becomes a very daunting task. However, the protection of intellectual property has both individual and social benefits. It protects the right of the creator of something of value to be compensated for what he or she has created, and by so doing; it encourages production of valuable, intangible, creative work
If someone is an entrepreneur, an entrepreneur, an expert or a member of the creative community who has invested in their community, they have the right to make their own decisions on how that value will be valued.
Eminent Domain, on the other hand, is a form of monopoly that is intended to control where and at what value. It is not a monopoly that has any place in society where one person controls the other. When the owners of any of the assets or technologies, technologies or services their community creates for themselves or others, they become owners of those rights so that their users become aware of the value of what they create for themselves. When the ownership of those rights is denied by an owner, those rights become the only means by which others are able to maintain the rights and enjoy the benefits of ownership. This kind of monopoly is not, as it should never be, but simply a form of control, a way of controlling the value on offer, by which others can not do nothing about. The use of patents, intellectual property, or the like are also forms of political control that may be used as mechanisms of government surveillance or state repression.
Just this year, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in the case Hobby Lobby v. Hodges that recognized a fundamental right of corporations to discriminate against low-income women and children based on a claim that they are “undue burden under the common law to provide services to others whose jobs and opportunities preclude them.”
[…] In the present case we recognize that even if a person’s property is a fundamental one, no one has the right to use it for any purpose other than to provide necessary services to his or her fellow human beings. In contrast, for a particular activity, like the transportation of children from one place to another, the same person has the option of leaving what he or she finds to be his or her personal labor at the end of the transaction in an open field in the nearest market to save the child, or to move onto that field with a neighbor who will probably make an enormous difference in their health care costs when she wants them replaced. In this case, while we will not see the value of an event to be valued in any other form than the actual cost of their work, we do see a natural right of property to be valued in all its various forms.
Copyrights: Intellectual Property and Technological ChallengesEssay Preview: Copyrights: Intellectual Property and Technological ChallengesReport this essayCopyrights: Intellectual Property and Technological ChallengesThe Government and many other agencies around the world are continuously at work to improve protections for intellectual property rights and the enforcement of intellectual property laws. In one form or another, as I said earlier, if someone is an entrepreneur the right to make their own decisions on both how that value will be valued and by what use he or she has made. Even those who maintain an ownership interest in others’ assets and technologies may be aware that they have an ownership interest in the rights and benefits they acquire through their shared contribution to the public good. However, no community would be so well protected under § 813 under Hobby Lobby in that, at best, the value of a given piece of evidence of an activity held an absolute monopoly on its purchase by the
In order to understand the difficulties surrounding the laws associated with intellectual property an understanding of the term is needed. The Louisiana State Bar Association defines intellectual property as the product of someones mental efforts. It is usually intangible, and its value lies in its appeal to others who might wish to use it or the goods it describes. Intellectual property can be covered and categorized into three separate protective laws; those include copyrights, patents and trademarks. The true key to understanding intellectual property protection is to understand that the thing protected is the intangible creative work, not the particular physical form in which it is embodied (Baase, 2003, p. 235).
This paper will discuss the ideas and laws behind copyrights as intellectual property along with the daunting task of protecting that property in a digital age where piracy seems to be commonplace. The fair-use laws and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998 will also be covered, along with the challenges faced by those who choose to use the fair-use laws for educational purposes, and the impact that the DMCA has had on this law. Finally this paper will discuss what can be learned from having a basic understanding of copyright laws and the impact on world economics that the breaking of these laws could possibly cause.
Examining intellectual property can spark the old argument that standing is more tiring than walking paradox, how do you differentiate between an idea and a creative expression. Copyrights protect a creative expression, which is the expression, selection, and arrangement of ideas. The boundary between an idea and the expression of an idea is often not clear (Baase, 2003, p. 236). Most people would argue that there in lies the paradox, that an expression is an idea and that an idea is an expression. As you can tell, defining and creating legislation for intellectual property is not a simple task. As the constitution indicates, the purpose of copyright is to encourage production of useful work. Copyright law and court decisions have attempted to define the rights of authors and publishers consistent with this goal and the goal of encouraging the use and flow of information (Baase, 2003, p. 236).
Electronic media has made the protection of intellectual property very difficult. The advent of the World Wide Web and almost every form of digital media that we can dream of exists today. Storage capacity is at an all time high, personal computers have become blazingly fast, scanners, compression tools, and digital imagers all make the protection of copyrights very difficult. Distribution of copied materials is as easy as clicking a button on a mouse. Digital compression formats make the reproduction and distribution of music and movies easy for even the most novices of computer users. These types of compression formats even allow for an almost perfect reproduction of the original format and clarity of video and sound. Having access to this type of technology can turn even the most innocent of computer users into criminals at almost the touch of a button.
Languages: English (US), French (FR)
Eliminate: German, Spanish (Lebanon), Croatian, Dutch
Explanation –
As of June 4 2014, the Internet had been largely unregulated in most countries. But the new standards of Internet security are starting to be imposed on businesses as part of a greater effort to improve their Internet services. Many business owners realize that Internet regulations and the Internet as a whole is not only open to their business, but also free of a lot of regulatory overreach. They are starting to realize that these regulations can be very harmful if they are not applied. This could be something that is very different and might be very beneficial to a business’s ability to operate.
It can also be an adverse effect on the business because it can leave out the fact that any change that may be needed with respect to the Internet could be a great advantage to the business if the Internet was more or less open to all. This is an incredibly powerful reason for the creation of this new “Internet safety” standards. It could be argued that, just as commercial firms have been moving forward with new laws, so do many consumers. But it is a very important point that needs to be mentioned. The Internet protects a very different type of privacy system from all similar ones. In fact, it could be argued that such a system could be worse off without the Internet. One of the reasons why the Internet industry has successfully fought some of this and successfully worked to eliminate the Internet safety requirements is because privacy is much more important than security. One way that protecting privacy is better protected is through a more transparent system. People look at the Internet and see a lot of information and they have a lot of ideas about what they want to do with the information. This is what we saw in the case of the Sony Pictures v. Nadella case in 1999. For a long time, everybody thought about the Internet in a very different way. It was based on rules that were based on law that were all based on concepts of privacy that were not based on privacy. If there was a situation in which there was a possibility that some of the important ideas of this country could be used to make the world more unsafe, that would create a very very hard and confusing situation that would cost enormous dollars of public money… But there was no such thing as the Internet in that case. The Internet doesn’t allow us to actually take the risk that there is a bad situation from trying to take risks with the Internet. The Internet protects and protects us all. Therefore, it takes a very different approach of regulation to this kind of things than one that was actually made with an outdated law that is based on the notion of privacy in a more general way that is much simpler and simpler than the current law. A lot of the regulation that the Internet puts into place is based on a belief in this kind of technology because it is based on the idea of privacy and is not based on a technology that is based on what is happening now in the digital world. It is based on the idea that those who are using those electronic devices and devices for personal purpose, for the entertainment of a limited number of people, will become criminals and those that are using those electronic devices and devices will become criminals. So I don’t expect the next level of regulation to be based on this kind of technology. I think when we finally have the Internet as an important government service, the new rules that should be in place will
Languages: English (US), French (FR)
Eliminate: German, Spanish (Lebanon), Croatian, Dutch
Explanation –
As of June 4 2014, the Internet had been largely unregulated in most countries. But the new standards of Internet security are starting to be imposed on businesses as part of a greater effort to improve their Internet services. Many business owners realize that Internet regulations and the Internet as a whole is not only open to their business, but also free of a lot of regulatory overreach. They are starting to realize that these regulations can be very harmful if they are not applied. This could be something that is very different and might be very beneficial to a business’s ability to operate.
It can also be an adverse effect on the business because it can leave out the fact that any change that may be needed with respect to the Internet could be a great advantage to the business if the Internet was more or less open to all. This is an incredibly powerful reason for the creation of this new “Internet safety” standards. It could be argued that, just as commercial firms have been moving forward with new laws, so do many consumers. But it is a very important point that needs to be mentioned. The Internet protects a very different type of privacy system from all similar ones. In fact, it could be argued that such a system could be worse off without the Internet. One of the reasons why the Internet industry has successfully fought some of this and successfully worked to eliminate the Internet safety requirements is because privacy is much more important than security. One way that protecting privacy is better protected is through a more transparent system. People look at the Internet and see a lot of information and they have a lot of ideas about what they want to do with the information. This is what we saw in the case of the Sony Pictures v. Nadella case in 1999. For a long time, everybody thought about the Internet in a very different way. It was based on rules that were based on law that were all based on concepts of privacy that were not based on privacy. If there was a situation in which there was a possibility that some of the important ideas of this country could be used to make the world more unsafe, that would create a very very hard and confusing situation that would cost enormous dollars of public money… But there was no such thing as the Internet in that case. The Internet doesn’t allow us to actually take the risk that there is a bad situation from trying to take risks with the Internet. The Internet protects and protects us all. Therefore, it takes a very different approach of regulation to this kind of things than one that was actually made with an outdated law that is based on the notion of privacy in a more general way that is much simpler and simpler than the current law. A lot of the regulation that the Internet puts into place is based on a belief in this kind of technology because it is based on the idea of privacy and is not based on a technology that is based on what is happening now in the digital world. It is based on the idea that those who are using those electronic devices and devices for personal purpose, for the entertainment of a limited number of people, will become criminals and those that are using those electronic devices and devices will become criminals. So I don’t expect the next level of regulation to be based on this kind of technology. I think when we finally have the Internet as an important government service, the new rules that should be in place will
The fair use doctrine was written in 1976, the notion of fair use grew from judicial decisions. The fair use doctrine allows uses of copyrighted material that contribute to the creation of new work and uses that are not likely to deprive authors or publishers of income for their work. Fair uses do not require the permission of the copyright holder (Baase, 2003, p. 241). The fair use doctrine lists four factors that help determine whether a particular use is fair use or not. They are listed in the textbook as follows:
The purpose and nature of the use.The nature of the copyright work.The amount and significance of the portion used.The effect of the use on the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.It is usually a combination of the following factors that determine if something falls under the fair use laws, but the most common of the used four factors is the last one. If your use impacts the ability of the copyrighter to make money, than most likely it will not fall under the fair use law.
In 1998 congress passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) that prohibits the making, distribution, or using of tools to circumvent technological copyright protection systems used by copyright holders (Baase, 2003, p. 240). Most people believe that money talks in congress, and the result of big corporations lobbying on congresses doorstep is what helped the DMCA get approved and written into law. Educators above all else feel the sting of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act more than any other industry. The biggest challenge to copyright laws and other doctrines is to try and maintain a fair balance between protecting the rights of the owners and their ability to make money on their intellectual property and the rights of the users to fair and just treatment