Intellectual property - Essay Example

?Running Head: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Intellectual Property of the of the Intellectual Property The main purpose of having copyright is to provide authors and artists a chance to produce new works. (Aplin & Davies, 2010) Intellectual property law ensures that authors and artists are given their earnings through official distributors (record companies, for example; Economists refer to these as “property stewards”) for recordings of this creative and intellectual work, which eventually give money to the authors and artists. Digital technology developers make peer-to-peer networks, which enable people to obtain the same works without paying. Acquiring the works with this method is similar to stealing, as per copyright law, hence it is must to reaffirm, and even extend, copyright law to criminalise the use of networkers who copy others’ work. Hence, what Kenneth performed should be seen as breaching copyright law. The expression of Intellectual Property provides a logical scrutiny of why the music, TV and movie industries’ arguments to develope copyright and control certain technologies are more persuasive—to judges, justices, university administrators, college students, and the general public—than those of copyright activists who seek to keep peer-to-peer networks free and legal; to restrict the extension of copyright time limits and copy-protection tools; to guarantee a plentiful, continually replenished public domain of content; and to preserve fair use rights for content currently under copyright. By doing research about this topic, one can have a more solid perceptive of the descriptions of “piracy” and “sharing,” and can know precisely why so few of the students in University are capable of presenting an argument in favour of file sharing. According to some experts, peer-to-peer network technology can take our society towards a positive direction, but some argue that the same thing is bad for the society. British Government has a plan of introducing a right of information requiring disclosure of names and addresses of individuals that are involved in the creation and distribution of the infringing goods and services or both with quantities and prices charged. Remedies will be strengthened to permit eternal removal or demolition of the infringing material together with the everlasting injunctions, compensation and damages. Differential attitudes toward theft of physical versus intellectual property (IP) become an increasingly serious problem as the latter become an ever-greater share of the total economic value of production. "Intellectual capital's rising value in the production of wealth has been mirrored by its increasing vulnerability to crime" (Snyder & Crescenzi, 2009). The cost of intellectual property theft in 2004 was estimated to be $250 billion and climbing (Wright, 2004). Losses due to all sorts of piracy in the music and film industries alone are currently estimated to be in the tens of billions of dollars (Szuskin, et al., 2009). Hence, Intellectual property theft has become a very serious problem as the result of computers' increasing role in the everyday life of the public (Picard, 2004). Traditional approaches to the prevention of theft are mainly to protect the goods and to catch and punish perpetrators, but these are increasingly difficult to accomplish in this digital age (Peace & Thong, 2003). The facility with which digital information can be stored, communicated, and disseminated makes it exceedingly difficult to contain and protect. When physical property is stolen, its absence makes the theft far more readily noticed than when digital property is copied while the original data remains intact and appears untouched. Thus, detection of the crime and capture of the thief are no easy matter. Despite these limitations, producers of digital property are striving to develop and improve protective measures (Im & Koen, 1990; Waterman, et al., 2007; Wright, 2004). If you learned that a friend had gone into an acquaintance's home and stolen a piece of personal computer equipment valued at more than $200, you would almost certainly be appalled at your friend's actions. But what if you learned your friend had gone into someone else's office and made a copy of a computer program worth the same amount for his own personal use? Even though the value of the theft is the same, if you are typical of the average individual, you would be far less alarmed at such behavior! Similarly, people who would be outraged to find a friend or coworker had stolen a CD or DVD from their home might hardly flinch on learning the same person had borrowed and made a copy of those media. For reasons this study seeks to identify, people appear to be much less concerned with theft of intellectual property than with that of physical property. Awareness of the probability of detection and punishment has been shown to affect attitudes and behaviour regarding intellectual property theft by individuals (Moores, et al., 2009). In the industry, income and risk perceptions, as well as personal ethics, are important determinants of willingness to pay when "free," pirated copies are available (Chen, et al., 2009; Chiang, E, & Assane, D, 2009). There is also evidence that intellectual property theft may result purely because the perpetrators do not recognise copyright infringement of such intellectual property as training manuals and materials is illegal (Doherty, 2006). If an identifiable individual is personally, directly and immediately deprived by the IP theft that appears to earn substantial condemnation. By contrast, if the individual in possession of the object that is stolen is not personally deprived by the theft - if that person is not a direct victim, others are likely to be significantly more tolerant of the thievery. The following propositions emerge: With the theft of physical property (e.g., a computer printer) the thief obtains the property and the owner is directly deprived of the property. With the theft of intellectual property (e.g., a computer program) the thief obtains a copy and the owner is not deprived of the property. Thus, theft of intellectual property is more acceptable or less reprehensible because there is no direct deprivation of the victim. The extent to which a theft is acceptable or liable is notably determined by whether the owner/victim is seen as deprived or not deprived by the theft. When the object of a theft is some form of physical goods that are the personal property of an individual, that person is clearly an identifiable, personal victim. On the other hand, if the goods belong to a non-personal entity - a company, organisation, or government unit - one or more individuals may be inconvenienced or temporarily deprived of the use of the object, but the precise victim is far less visible and identifiable. To the degree that tolerance or condemnation of theft depends on the perceived effect on victims, respondents should regard theft from an individual as more reprehensible than that from a non-personal victim, (e.g., a company). If the object in question is intellectual property, rather than physical property and the thief merely makes a copy rather than stealing the original, the owner is not deprived of the possession and use of the goods, whether the item is owned by an individual or by a company, organisation, or government. If tolerance or condemnation of theft depends on the perceived effect on victims, respondents should regard theft of intellectual property (by copying) as less guilty than theft of physical property. It is axiomatic in the area of criminology that most people do not abstain from crime mainly because they fear detection or punishment. Rather, they do not commit crimes simply because they are not criminals. (Moores, Nili and Rothenberger, 2009). They do not steal because they are not thieves. It is a moral constraint, but this is only a partial explanation. It raises the question of what lies behind the moral restriction against theft. Aside from religious stricture, the most likely candidate is the individual's sense of empathy. One does not victimise another because one would not want to be victimised one's self. If this is the case, this sense of empathy is particularly potent and prohibitive with regard to stealing the physical, personal property of another individual. The perpetrator knows full well that the victim has been deprived of whatever goods were stolen. There is no escaping the knowledge that the victim has been harmed in direct proportion to the value the owner places on the stolen property. But what of the case of intellectual property? When a thief takes a copy of intellectual property, whether it is "pirated" software, digital music, copyrighted text, a patented design, or some other content, it is vastly more difficult to see who has been victimized (Chiang & Assane, 2009).. The remoteness of the individual or entity harmed enables the rationalisation that nobody has been hurt. Even if there is an awareness of impropriety in the background, the actual victim and the dispossession are nebulous, at best. Obviously, technical and legal protection against theft of intellectual property will always be necessary, just as it is necessary for the security of physical goods, but clearly, intellectual property is something of a special case. It is "slippery" in a way that physical goods can never be. Even when stolen by copying, the original is not gone, so detection is difficult and sometimes theft is almost entirely undetectable. Such difficulties do not suggest technical and legal protection should be reduced or abandon; rather, that they should be intensified to keep pace with the growing threats. As a complement to technical and legal protection of intellectual property, public policy and educational programs could support the effort to create understanding of the harm that results from theft of intellectual property. Until there is as much personal guilt and public shame associated with stealing intellectual property as there is with theft of physical goods, there are likely to be many who continue to break the law by violating others' property rights. Media in every form and those who compose and provide the content might do much in this regard. It is common, even in academic literature, to have authors refer to "pirating" software. It does not seem to create much condemnation. On the other had, most people would be outraged if someone "pirated" their cell phone or laptop! Until such tolerance of intellectual property theft is abandon in favor of vehement, open condemnation of it, the creator and owners of intellectual property, as well as society at large, are likely to continue to be victimised. Public policy favours workable competition. The ownership of intellectual property rights does not necessarily confer market power; however, if intellectual property rights confer substantial market power in one market and the owner seeks to use that power as "leverage" to prevent new entry or deter or prevent a person from engaging in competitive conduct in relation to another downstream market, the owner will have misused the market power conferred by its intellectual property rights. Together with the recognition of information industries, the economic implication of intellectual property, like copyrights, patents and trademarks has also gained recognition. Along with the increase in awareness and popularity of protecting intellectual property, society impacts have shot up. Therefore, it is nothing surprising that great numbers of actors, writers, comedians and musicians are also showing a greater interest in intellectual property. These days it has become more tricky to speak on the subject of parody considering copyright law within the Britain. It is only reasonable to say that in order to do a good parody one needs to have some kind of the source work, otherwise the viewers/ listeners would not identify with it. Yet, when using the source to do a parody, the parodist infact breach copyright. The best solution is, the parodist should make use of source work, however he/she must not use a huge part from the source work. June seems to have used a big part from Kenneth’s verses, which is against copyright law. ‘Parody’ is a word that combines two words in it, ‘Para’ means close by, adjacent to or near and ‘Ode’ means a song. It is interesting that according to majority of the experts there is no specific definition of parody. Yet, parody has some specific features that are given below: In order to enjoy parody, it is must that listeners/ viewers already know the source work; It is good for a parody to have some degree of condemnation and admiration, disapproval and consideration, parasitism and originality; The source work can also be utilised as the objective, the source work can be used as a tool; In most cases, parody is meant to make viewers/ listeners laugh. Nevertheless, it may create anger or confusion. Parody is similar to other sources of entertainment. It is true that parodies may create anger or chaos, mostly people get entertained from parodies. It is also true that high-class parody may bring everlasting and positive changes within the society more than just normal entertainment. In parodies, the parodist makes use of the source work. Parodists can perform against the source work or they can express their opinion on everyday incidents, culture, some modern ideas, lifestyle, political affairs etc. According to experts, parody can be presented as a tremendously momentous phenomenon these days, and in modern times a famous character of carton can give loads of ideas on television, internet, radio or mobile phones through parody. Copyright law is meant to defend privacy of every person not considering their social status or reputation in the society. Copyright is applicable on every individual of the society. This law function as basis for claiming the theft or misusage of someone’s name, work or image. According to a survey which was conducted at University of East London, the vast population of students are anti-downloading music, and for all the same reasons: downloading songs is no different from stealing a CD from a store, and doing so takes money out of the hands of artists, whose talent must be recognised in the form of financial support. First and perhaps most obvious, the content industries have spent a great deal of money to transmit and repeat their message to the public. The main purpose of Copyright law is to make an effective system for rewarding authors and artists and maintaining a public domain of content, not owned by any particular groups or individuals, most of which people can freely use: a commons. This is the steady state, which includes technological innovation, also encouraged as cultural progress. However, the recording and movie industries disrupt this steady state by unbalancing copyright law so that it favours the copyright owners over the public by extending the time limits of copyright and regulating technologies that benefit society. For the greater public good, the original balance between copyright owners and the public (the steady state) should be restored by deregulating digital technologies, even if some users get involved in copyright violation. References Aplin T & Davies J (2010) ‘Intellectual Property Law text cases and materials’ Oxford University Press, Pg 1-15. Chen, E, Pan, C, Pan, & M. (2009). The Joint Moderating Impact of Moral Intensity and Moral Judgment on Consumer's Use Intention of Pirated Software. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(3). Chiang, E, & Assane, D. (2009). Estimating the Willingness to Pay for Digital Music. Contemporary Economic Policy, 27(4). Doherty, W. (2006). Copyright theft. Industrial and Commercial Training, 38(1). Im, J. H., & Koen, C. M., Jr. (1990). Software Piracy and Responsibilities of Educational Institutions. Information and Management, 18(4). Moores, T, Nili, A, Rothenberger, M. (2009). Knowledge of Piracy as an Antecedent to Reducing Pirating Behavior. The Journal of Computer Information Systems, 50(1). Nunes, J. C, Hsee, C. K., & Weber, E. U. (2004). Why Are People So Prone to Stealing? The Effect of Cost Structure on Consumer Purchase and Payment Intentions. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 23(1). Peace, A. G., & Talletta, D, & Thong, J. (2003). Piracy in the workplace: A model and empirical test. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20(1). Picard, R. G. (2004). A Note on Economie Losses Due to Theft, Infringement, and Piracy of Protected Works. Journal of Media Economics, 17(3). Snyder, H., & Crescenzi, A. (2009). Intellectual capital and economic espionage: new crimes and new protections. Journal of Financial Crime, 16(3). Szuskin, L, Fourques de Ruyter, S, Doucleff, & J. (2009). Beyond Counterfeiting: The Expanding Battle Against Online Piracy. Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal, 27(11). Waterman, D, Wook Ji, S, Rochet, L. (2007). Enforcement and Control of Piracy, Copying, and Sharing in the Movie Industry. Review of Industrial Organisation, 30(A). Wright, B. (2004). The Staggering Cost of Copyright Theft. Broadcasting and Cable, 134(46).. Read More