Intellectual Property Rights and Laws

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Analysis
Conclusion
Works Cited

Introduction

It is well known that the inventor of the specific machine, the author of a book, or a composer, one way or another, usually owns their work. This aspect leads to other specific consequences, and, probably, we are familiar with the fact that we cannot simply copy or buy a copy of the works of these authors without taking into account their rights. In equal measure, it seems natural that the original industrial samples of furniture, wall-papers, etc. are managed by someone or some organization.

Each time we buy such protected objects, the part of the price, which we pay, returns to owners as compensation for the time, the money, the efforts, and the thoughts, which they put in the creation of their works. Over time this led to the development of science, industry, music industry, which was being developed in the entire world; inspire new talents for the creation of ever more original ideas and articles. This paper shows some of the aspects that demonstrate the need for a better-managed law to protect intellectual property, which with the beginning of the electronic era has not to stop bringing controversies to the issue.

Analysis

The rapid development of information and communication technologies led to the fact that everywhere in the world exceptional attention is given to the legal regime of intellectual property. The violation of intellectual property rights in the informational century reached unprecedented scales. The existing mechanisms of copyrights protection, trademarks, patents, software, databases today, cannot manage those problems, which are encountered everywhere in the world.

This becomes an especially difficult task under the conditions when making an electronic copy of a document or a file has never been easier and innovations and inventions are implemented with light speed and the information is distributed instantly and free of charge. Each country unavoidably encounters very knotty problems, and the matter reaches conducting of international, regional, or national reforms. In this case each time it is necessary to formulate the internal laws, which regulate relations in the sphere of intellectual property.

Looking at history, it can be seen that there already have been attempts to solve such problems legally. This includes a judicial precedent Universal City Studios, Inc., et al. v. Sony Corporation of America Inc. et al. et al. In 1976 it was one of the first attacks the American film and television industry evolve toward a new home video. At that time, after the first few unsuccessful attempts by SONY, has finally proposed the first VHS Betamax.

Therefore, the plaintiff – Universal and Walt Disney Productions, on behalf of the majority of Hollywood companies, filed a suit in court against SONY, which provided a tool for illegal copying on videocassettes and reviewing exclusive programs and films, broadcasted on television. Looking at today’s realities, we feel that we stand on the threshold of a new confrontation as in the distant 1976 where this court decision became the most cited in the intellectual property cases. (Samuelson 2006 101).

Now, between the younger generation who uses mostly the progress of new technologies associated primarily with the opportunities provided by Internet networks on the one hand, and media companies, which primarily feel the limitless possibilities of the developing new technologies and the related threat to their business on the other hand.

A serious shift to the side of creative solutions occurred with the advent of the phenomenon of Napster. American media companies rapidly sounded alarmed after filing a suit to the law court for violating copyrights by Napster. The Law court prohibited this activity of copying MP3 files. Then other companies with the peer to peer technologies arose such as Grokster, KaZaA, Morpheus, eDonkey, and others. Their essence consisted of providing software, which makes the possibility of exchanging the files between the computers of the users of this program located on the Internet. For media companies similar technologies are a serious threat for the same reason, they cannot compete with the free propagation of music, although with worse quality than usual CD.

The issue of intellectual property and the means made to fight its violations is very controversial. While you are not allowed to copy copyrighted material, some laws might restrict copying materials already bought by you. Another case could include were to distinguish between piracy between users and the process of lending some owned copyrighted material to a friend. These issues could be expressed in the opposition between Electronic Frontier Foundation and any violations of consumer’s rights that could be included in the PRO IP Act (Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act).

The draft of the document provides an increase in the maximum compensation for the violation of copyrights for one work up to 30000 US dollars. It is planned also to stiffen punishment for the repeated violation of copyrights. The existing law calls a criminal any user who intentionally violates copyright illegally distributing materials with the cost of more than 1000 US dollars. On the 5^th of May, this act was passed while removing “the most damaging provision in the bill (seemingly written solely to increase damages in the RIAA’s file-sharing lawsuit campaign), the bill would nonetheless significantly expand federal enforcement of copyright law.” (Esguerra 2008)

Conclusion

How this act will protect copyrights without violating consumer rights will be evident as time passes by. However, history shows that such narrow and controversial issues which are hard to prove will remain in the courts until some real effective law will be introduced or a new way for consumer-product relationships is invented.

Works Cited

Samuelson, Pamela. “The Generativity of Sony v. Universal: The Intellectual Property Legacy of Justice Stevens.” Fordham Law Review 74.1831 (2006): 101. Web.

Electronic Frontier Foundation. About EFF. : Wiley, 2008. Web.

Open Congress. PRO-IP Act of 2007. : Crisp Learning, 2003. Web.

Esguerra, Richard. House Passes Controversial PRO IP Act. , 2008. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!

Intellectual Property Rights and Laws

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)