Copyright Compensation and Intellectual Property Case - Essay Example

?DQ1-Copyright compensation Copyright, in its traditional sense, defines the rights of owners of information or product and, in addition, also protects these rights (Liebowitz & Watt, 2006). However, internet technologies and other methods of digital sharing have made it very difficult to protect and enforce one’s rights to get proper compensation for one’s creations. As such, copyright levies and value-added charges have been put in place to make sure that the rightful personalities receive the proper compensation. Focusing on the music industry, Oksanen and Valimaki (2005) propose that while a levy system on Internet connections would effectively rechannel profits to the pockets of music artists rather than recording companies, such a system would be unsustainable due to technological and legal issues. Technological barriers would be represented by the high number of households being connected to the internet wirelessly, thus making it difficult to track down how levies should be charged, and peer to peer sharing that is not done via the Internet (e. g. sharing through portable media and memory drives) (Oksanen & Valimaki, 2005). Suggestions of putting levies on computer hardware themselves have been met with strong disapproval. This is because such an action may led to an unfair charging on people who require the computer hardware but has not intention of using such hardware for infringing copyright purposes. Thus, these consumers will actually be overcharged for something that they won’t use. It is quite clear that levies and value-added charges cannot exactly sustain their purpose in an age where people keep on thinking of ways to get things for free. Thus, rather than focusing on these alternative modes of compensation, the people concerned should be coming up with ways to somehow be lenient with the sharing of the information that they own and devise methods by which compensation will trickle in without having to label it as a “levy” or “value-added charge.” For example, the music industry may suffer from decreasing sales in records but that doesn’t mean the industry should suffer as well. Music personalities go on tours, engage in endorsement deals, and may even use the Internet to their advantage. With these efforts, the artists will be remunerated in a more appropriate level. In the literary industry, best-selling author Paulo Coelho actually publishes entire copies of his books on his blogs for free. Prior to this unorthodox move, Coelho was merely a locally known writer in his home country of Brazil. After publishing his book online and allowing consumers to read the entire book for free, sales of his books skyrocketed and a lot of his books have been best sellers ever since. Such an example illustrates that in the end, shared information will correspondingly remunerate the artist behind such products and ideas. Coelho realized that while a few people would probably endure reading an entire novel on their PC’s, a majority would still want to purchase a hard copy. And purchase they surely will as soon as they get to sample the product. As such, levies and value-added charges are not only infeasible, they are unnecessary as well. References: Liebowitz, S., & Watt, R. (2006). How to ensure best remuneration for creators in the market for music. Journal of Economic Surveys , 513-533. Oksanen, V., & Valimaki, M. (2005). Copyright levies as an alternative compensation method for recording artists and technological development. Review of Economic Research on Copyright Issues , 2 (2), 25-39. DQ2- An IP case Intellectual property is the ownership of information and it comes in different forms. Some of these are copyright, which protects the rights of people behind expression of information; patents protect the rights of those who invented a new commodity; and, trademarks protect symbols that are associated with a given product or company. When the use of any of these things are violated by non-makers of the information, owners may invoke their intellectual property rights in order to process the punishment for violators. In the presented case, NewLeaf Technologies may be considered in violation of the intellectual property rights of both The Sofa Barn and Paul if certain imperative measures were not taken prior to the reusing of the software. Strictly speaking, the parties involved ought to look at the contracts that indicate the terms and conditions set forth in the use or reuse of certain software packages developed for the company (Reichman, 2000). With these contracts of agreement in place, then appropriate action may actually be taken if any of the parties involved violated any section of the contract. Essentially, if NewLeaf was not able to acquire Paul’s and The Sofa Barn’s permission to reuse the software, then intellectual property rights were certainly violated. The most professional way that The Sofa Barn or Paul may take would be to conduct a meeting with NewLeaf Technologies, pointing out the violation that has transpired. As such, Paul may charge corresponding fees from NewLeaf Technologies in exchange for the usage of his software. Such a fee is in full discretion of the parties involved (Korn, 2005). Since NewLeaf itself has acknowledged the applicability of Paul’s software to a great number of other clients, then Paul may be able to charge quite a hefty sum for the use of his software. This compromise should benefit both parties quite well since such an approval from Paul may mean an opportunity to be working with the software’s creator on the process of repackaging the software. As they work together, the capturing of unrelated, unnecessary or potentially harmful elements may be avoided. When this is accomplished, the risks that the resulting software is dysfunctional will be greatly minimized. In some cases, people consider the violation of intellectual property rights as nothing short of stealing, as violators take something that is not there and either pass it off as their own or modify and use it in manners that may only be done by the owner or whoever was authorized to use it. Thus, violation of property rights may actually be considered violation of the law. Developers like Paul ought to be more vigilant in making sure that their intellectual property rights are protected and are not being taken advantage by ill-meaning companies such as NewLeaf Technologies. In the case of other companies or personalities such as NewLeaf Technologies who are looking to make use of an important property without the required permissions, they better think twice and seriously consider whether their actions are still within the boundaries of intellectual property rights. Otherwise, they may be facing serious and damaging suits. Reference: Korn, N. (2005). Guide to intellectual property rights and other issues. Minerva Project . Reichman, J. H. (2000). SYMPOSIUM: TAKING STOCK: THE LAW AND ECONOMICS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS: Of Green Tulips and Legal Kudzu: Repackaging Rights in Subpatentable Innovation. Vanderbilt Law Review . Read More