Lara Cresser is a 20 year old student studying a double degree in bachelor of law / bachelor of media communication at Queensland University of Technology. When she graduates she hopes to work in the increasingly complex field of media and communications law as a policy maker or lawyer. This is her personal page for the Unit KCB336 New Media Technologies where exercises, contributions and assignments are posted for marking.
italics
bold
italics and bold
line
break
I LIKE:
Contents |
This is the first section.
This is the first subsection.
This is the first subsubsection.
This journal article examines the issues facing the reform of copyright laws in the digital age by analysing a recent case of the U.S. Supreme Court that found middle ground between the media firms and the consumer demand for downloadable music. The middle ground was found with the decision that the software firms involved could only be sued if they encouraged their customers to infringe copyright rather than simply by provided the necessary avenues to do so. The article claims that although this decision is a large step forward managing copyright in the digital environment without stifling innovation, the decision is still unsatisfactory as the courts had to struggle to apply copyright laws that are outdated by technological development. Instead it suggests that the focus should be on updating these laws to operate effectively in the current technological environment.
This journal article discusses the founding principles behind copyright law and how it inspires creativity and innovation whilst allowing creators to obtain remuneration from their work. Hunter explains the concepts of the economic and moral rights of the copyright holder and how these rights are affected by the development of new technologies. Hunter gives a detailed analysis of the operation of Copyright law including issues of; distribution, display, public performance, moral rights, fair use, trademark and patents. He also offers insightful recommendations as to how copyright should develop looking into a digital future.
Lara Cresser 17:50, 25 Jul 2005 (EST)
This article gives a concise look at copyright law in the United States. Despite obvious jurisdictional issues where some of the material is not applicable to the Australian intellectual property environment Butler manages to give an enlightening look at many of the underlying theories and issue surrounding copyright law and its evolution into the digital age. Butler discusses Intellectual property copyright from the angle of the potential influences on modern libraries where the online collections are as prominent as the print collections. This practical examination hilights how the potential for unrestricted access and piracy give arise to needs for methods to protect providers (libraries) and users from potential violations and subsequent litigation.
This journal article aims to show how the Internets effects on copyright and intellectual property undermines the music business today and how it is increasingly expanding in its impact into other areas of the entertainment industry. Kontzer also takes a broader view by considering how these challenges posed by the Internet will effect not just the commercial enterprises of the entertainment industry but specifically their online enterprises. He furthermore suggests that the fundamental conflict between the non-commercial Internet based music and entertainment providers and the big commercial entertainment enterprises is one of timing. Had the entertainment enterprises found a way to satisfy their customers obvious desire for downloadable music before the non-commercial alternatives cropped up the conflict would be minimal rather than causing radical shifts in intellectual property policy globally.
This journal article addresses the issues surrounding the peer to peer file sharing of music on the Internet in both U.S. and Australian jurisdictions. Douglas looks into both the legal issues of copyright and examines the ways in which they are applicable to the question of file sharing through the analysis of the Napster case. He concludes that peer to peer networks should not be shut down through the reformation of intellectual property laws. Instead, these laws should take into account the possibility of the cohabitation of private and commercial music supply on the Internet when the inevitable reforms occur.
In this article the author Catherine Lee takes an in depth look at the recent litigation between the entertainment industry and the Grokster and StreamCast networks. After examining the litigation she explains the legal effects and consequences of the use of file sharing systems to download high quality files such as music and movies for free via the Internet. Furthermore she explains why the entertainment industry sees it as so vital to fight the file sharing technological developments by launching the various legal actions against networks for copyright infringements that occur via file sharing.
This book, by examining international and domestic laws and treaties referring to copyright law, offers an answer to the questions facing the development of intellectual property concerning the protection of works being shared internationally and what exactly constitutes piracy in a digital world. Whilst also giving a basic understanding of the function and operation of copyright law, Rodriguez manages to examine alternative ways of protecting technologically development and innovation where copyright law fails to do so effectively.
This books dissects digital copyright and intellectual property laws that have been altered or instigated since 1998’s Digital Millennium legislation. In doing so Litman demonstrates the potential for the Internet and file sharing software to restructure copyright laws on an international scale. She goes on to offer a critique of the manner in which this form of legislation is drafted. The chapters explore the various complex issues raging from a comparison of the legal effects of numerous recent technological developments, to how changing attitudes effects changes in law making. Litman holds this variation in topic together through foreshadowing it with a comprehensive history of copyright law development an how it has slowly adapted to each technological complication and the possibilities of it continuing to do so given the most recent of these complications as seen in peer-to-peer file sharing software and networks.
This chapter within the book edited by Richard A. Spinello and Herman T. Tavani is a collection of essays that relate in various ways to the regulation of the Internet. Whilst most of the arguments are centred on content controls, the numerous arguments based around the freedom of expression are applicable to the fight against more stringent copyright laws in cyberspace. The second article in the chapter by Larry Lesig gives a detailed discussion of exactly what laws are applicable in the online environment and how everyday users may be effected. The other articles are more specialised such as Deborah Johnson’s article that focus’ on the structure of global information and how its sharing demonstrates the return to democratic technology.
In this newspaper article from The New York Times, journalist John Markoff discusses the effects of an emerging peer-to-peer file sharing system. The system was designed by an Irish software designer to make the anonymous sharing of digital information easier whilst simultaneously making corporate and government detection of this practice more difficult. While the developers working on the new software named ‘Freenet’ claim that its purpose is to undermine censorship and political oppression, Markoff identifies the effects this technology would have on an already strained copyright legal framework. He particularly emphasises how it will test the ruling against the Grokster and StreamCast networks held liable for copyright infringements facilitated by their software. Markoff acknowledges and explains that despite this ruling, initiatives like ‘Freenet’ will continue to further complicate industry and government restrictions to digital sharing.
Lara Cresser 12:57, 11 Aug 2005 (EST)
This article was written to iterate the point made by the courts inthe Grokster and Morpheus cases that technology does not infringe copyright, people infrige copyright. Hayes and Spfaking talk about how rather than being against file-sharing technology, the courts unanimous opinion was that the benefits and legal uses of this type of technology make it far from a negative development. The authors aim to make the distinction that technology isn't a problem, instead the networks (i.e. Grokster and StreamCast) that clearly intend to support piracy are the problem. Where other articles relating to the Grokster and Streamcast decision aim to portray the law as repressive to technological innovation and the decision as unjust, this article seeks to show that justice is in fact technologically friendly even if it is used for piracy. Only when it is used to promote piracy does justice find fault with technology.
This article aims to hilight the issues surrounding both sides of the debate on file sharing and create a clear line of interest between the two main parties; those that thrive on free copying and those that profit from copyrights. In identifying these groups the author also demonsrates the crux of the argument - if people are free to copy, remix and redistribute works what happens to those that are giving u their livelihoods to faciitate this freedom? The question is also raised whether creativity and innovation will continue to flourish if state-enforced copyrights are undermined to the point of ineffectiveness.
Lara Cresser 17:20, 11 Aug 2005 (EST)
The point made in this article is a simple one; peer-to-peer technology is useful and is here to stay despite all of the relevant legal issues. Furthermore, the more people who get involved, the stronger andmore resistent and effective P2P is. The article describes P2P networks as the 'ideal system' distinct from the economic infrastructure beset by security scares that is the Internet. It goes so far to sugggest that the Internets security could be boosted through the application of technology usually associated with music piracy. The author goes onto give an insightful definition of what constitutes a peer-to-peer network and the manner in which its technology has been applied in other fields such as content distribution and internet routed phone calls as well as distributed storage and search.
This article serves as a criticism of the recent turn in the file-sharing struggles that sees companies suing their own customers for partaking in the file-sharing of their proprietry material. Moglen further criticises the recording industry for claiming that sharing a song is equivilent to stealing a CD as being technically unsound and morally unacceptable. Moglen argues that the idea behind intellectual property is fractured and it is time to usher in new ideologies that cut out the middleman leaving entertainment product transparently open to everyone.
Lara Cresser 17:51, 11 Aug 2005 (EST)
This article is a record of an interview conducted with Pamela Samuelson, a professor of law and information management at the University of California, Berkeley. It discusses whether sharing music on a peer-to-peer network is really piracy and the types of damaged caused by alleged infringements. Kaplan explores these issues with Samuelson and discusses the various methods employed by copyright owners to fight file sharing such as phony files and decoys to deters individuals from file sharing. Kaplan and Samuelson continue in the article to talk about the possibility of future changes to copyright law in the U.S. and whether an effective solution to the problem posed by file sharing based copyright infringements is possible via legislative intervention. They then proceed to explore alternatives to legislative intervention that could effect changes in the current problem.
This article poses the question, how much copyright protection does the Internet need? The entertainment and publishing industries and entertainment lawyers claim that protection needs to be more stringent. Yet networkers, end-users and cyber-libertarians and consumer advocates claim that less stringent laws would be more beneficial. The author uncovers both of these arguments and concludes that neither argument is strong enough to warrant any drastic changes in intellectual property law. The author continues by explaining what “perfect reproduction�? is and how it has paved the way for the confusion over today’s copyright law and goes on to suggest several “imperfect remedies�? to the problem.
Lara Cresser 23:19, 11 Aug 2005 (EST)
The nature of file sharing technology produces various implications for the laws relating to intellectual property, particularly copyright law. Intellectual property laws afford protection to creative and intellectual effort. Copyright law does this by assigning exclusive rights over the material form of a work to a copyright owner. The rights held by the copyright owners are; to reproduce the work in material form, to publish the work, to broadcast the work and to cause the work to be transmitted to subscribers of a diffusion service (Armstrong 1995:85). Breach of any of these exclusive rights can give rise to liability. File sharing, whilst having numerous legal uses is often used for the sharing of copyright material such as songs and movies. This sharing of copyright material is capable of various breaches of copyright law at different levels depending on whether the person in breach is an end-user or a creator or administrator of the software.
End-users almost certainly violate copyright law. Given that they are directly involved in the discovery, copying and transmission of material being shared any breaches committed by them are ‘direct breaches’. When they download any copyright material as they are essentially creating an unauthorised, therefore illegal reproduction. Furthermore, if the user then chooses to share this material with other users they are publishing and distributing the works, which is a further breach of copyright law. Also, if any user were to use this work publicly eg. in a film or sampled in a song they would yet again be in breach of copyright law for unauthorised broadcasting and public performance.
Creators and administrators of file sharing networks and software are also at risk. The law of copyright extends to include ‘aiding and abetting’ any of the above breaches as giving rise to liability where the creator and/or administrator has the right and ability to supervise users or has a significant financial interest in their activities. Where this is found to be the case and the creator or administrator has made no effort to control the illegal activities of the users they can be found to have committed a ‘contributory breach’ of copyright law.
References:
Armstrong, M., Lindsay, D., Watterson, R. (1995) Media Law in Australia. 3rd ed. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Crews, K. (2004) Filesharing and Copyright. URL: http://www.copyright.iupui.edu/fileshare.htm
Von Lohmann, F. (2004) Peer-toPeer File Sharing and Copyright Law: A Primer for Developers. URL: http://iptp503.cs.berkeley.edu/final-papers/copyright/pdf
A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001)
Lara Cresser 17:18, 5 Sep 2005 (EST)
