There are lessons to be learned from Roadshow Film Pty Ltd. v iiNet Limited (AFACT v iiNet) (Moore, 2012)
In 2005, a United States Congressional subcommittee met to discuss the revision of the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act to allow consumers to exercise their fair use rights by allowing them to make copies of protected works for personal use. Opponents of this revision included those that believed that any failure to tighten up copyright laws would lead to large scale piracy (Bangeman, 2005)
The copying must be for (a) only one course in the school where copies are made, (b) not more than one short poem, article, story, essay or two parts from longer works copied from the same author; nor more than three from the same anthology or collection or periodical volume during the one class term (Newsome, 1997). The teacher must credit the copyright owner on all copies that are distributed or used, and students may not be charged more than the actual cost of making the copies (Fishman, 1997)
Technology as further complicated the problem by easing the manufacture of digital processes involving music and film, as well as the widespread availability of material on the Internet. Federal copyright can be viewed as a bargain between the creator of the writing or invention and the people, as represented by the federal government (Hollaar, 2002)
Fair Use Focusing on Educational Uses The fair use exception as it applies to educational cases has raised significant issues for teachers and public relations practitioners. Emerging technologies bring new challenges for today's teachers; the Internet and availability of computers and digitizing equipment provide ready access to great reservoirs of information and knowledge (Newsome, 1997)
During the 2003 case of Victor's Little Secret vs. Victoria's Secret, Victoria's Secret was forced to prove that the trademark had been diluted causing a monetary loss (Moseley, dba Victor's Little Secret v
Samantha Lundberg, formerly Samantha Bucks can also attest to the fact that a personal name does not guarantee trademark ownership. Sued by Starbucks for trademark infringement for naming her coffee shop Sambucks, the judge ruled that she must eliminate the word Buck's from her business name (Stossel & Goldberg, 2005)
He believes that the only way to make illegal downloading obsolete is "by making something so great they have to own it." (Barnes, 2004) Another artist, Steve Erle, expresses a similar view by stating, "If I make records that are indispensable to my audience, they'll go out and spend money to buy them, even if they've already downloaded them
Some ethical theories that may guide us in determining whether people are justified in exchanging music files over the Internet include John Locke's theory about the "fruits of labor," the Utilitarian theory of "happiness for the greatest numbers," and the Deontological theory about one's "duties and responsibilities to federal and universal laws." (Benech et al
And more than 800 Internet users have settled their cases by paying roughly $3,000 each in fines and promising to delete their illegal song collections. (Bridis, 2004) Such individuals, who have little chance of defending themselves when confronted with the recording companies' high-powered lawyers, have invariably had to plead guilty and pay the fines
These new organizations circumvented the ruling against infringement of the copyright laws by using peer-to-peer network sharing, without the need for a central Web site like Napster's. (Burgunder, 2002 p
At the beginning of the twentieth century, when music was sold in the form of printed "sheet music," pirates took advantage of a the-then newly developed technology called photolithography and sold duplicate copies of the 'legal music' at half the price -- causing great annoyance among the music publishing companies. (Johns, 2002, p
4 million users can be found on the Kazaa network at a time and over 700 million MP3 files available for exchange at any given time over this single network alone. (McLaughlin, 2003) Ethics of Free Music Downloads Before examining the arguments for and against the desirability of unrestricted music downloads on the Internet, it would be worthwhile to briefly look at the ethics behind the issue
Then came the data compression technology called MP3 in 1996, which made digital audio file transfer over the Internet possible and music piracy on the net took off in a big way. (Paradise 1999, p
Three Australian universities were charged with copyright infringement during the year and were ordered by a court to allow the record companies access to their files. (Pearce, 2003) ComCen, an Australian ISP was also sued for copyright infringement -- the first time an ISP was taken to court in Australia for allowing the use of its infrastructure to be used to trade files illegally
Therefore, people might feel that the customers don't get the fair rights when it comes to DRM solution but the truth of the matter is that in the past years the restrictions have been uplifted to a great extent mainly due to the increase in competition (Gee and Ivanova, 2006). Now customers have a lot more flexibility than they had in the past, for example, in 2003 when the iTunes was launched for the first time the people could listen to the songs that they purchased only on 3 computers and then by 2005 iTunes increased that number to 5 computers (Apple Press Release, 2003)
The artistic work is now recorded and then displayed in a way that it had never been done in the past and all this is due to the advancement in the technology. Now it is hardly a click's away for the users to not only download the songs of upcoming movies but to also watch their trailers and download them without the quality being affect at all and share all that media stuff with friends on the internet network in a matter of seconds, this kind of sharing had never been possible in the past (Gee and Ivanova, 2006)
Because of the availability of the copyrighted media on the internet they can now download individual songs rather than the complete albums and people can download these songs on their iPods and home computers etc. (Lipton, 2009)
However, at the moment most of the companies prefer using their own DRM systems and all these companies have their own particular pricing structures as, they use various different business models. Although the prices of the online content like movies and videos had decreased a lot due to the competition along with lesser number of restriction for the customers now (Pang, 2006)
Shared DRM system here means a system that is being shared by many content holders. According to Park and Scotchmer it is a lot better to use the shared DRM system for the following reasons (Park and Scotchmer, 2006): The cost of maintaining one shared DRM system will be a lot less than maintain an independent system