Online Copyright Infringements - Assignment Example

Online copyright infringements Overview Copyright infringement is the prohibited use of materials protected by copyright law in a way that contravenes the rights of the copyright holder. Using copyrighted materials without express permission from the owner is a violation that demeans intellectual property of the artist. On the other hand, the right to copy a given work provides an individual with complete rights to reproduce and exploit intellectual property, performed or written, as an incentive or for the purpose financial gain (Kaasa et al., 2011). However, due to lack of thorough regulation, many internet users, especially in sites like facebook and YouTube have tremendously violated copyright laws. Lack of strict regulation may be due to the fact that most governments have given the issue of copyright laissez-faire approach. This contributes greatly to increase in copyright infringement (Papp et al., 2010). On the same note, the distribution of illegal copyright materials in the internet has become commonplace. The theft, unauthorized reproduction and distribution of illegal copyright materials like movies, music, photographs, literature and games have tremendously increased. Modern technology has necessitated sharing and uploading files in social networks. A bigger portion of the uploaded and shared materials is illegal. This essay will examine how Facebook, YouTube and Lime wire infringe software copyrights and also compare the Australian and American copyright laws. Legal issues The World Wide Web and the internet have made access to information fast and easy from any corner of the world and due to this, it has attracted millions of users from all over the universe thereby gaining popularity. However, it is important to note that this powerful medium of information has drawn with it several issues that constitutes infringements and other related matters. For instance, one of the most common examples today of copyright infringement practise found among the users of the web is plagiarism. Today, the need among many to access worldwide information has caused many companies to allow free flow of information in the websites to meet the growing demand of the populations that have crying for net neutrality. This free flow of information in the web world and the internet has not played a role in augmenting cyber crimes it has also led to copyright infringements, child exploitation and counterfeiting of trademark. In addition, other crimes include hacking, counterfeiting of currencies and cyber stalking and so on. According to an IC3 report in 2006, copyright infringement and related internet crimes led to losses of up to $198 million and this number increased in 2007 with a loss of $240 million and a staggering 206,884 complaints from copyright owners. Such challenges rising from web, internet use and the law prompted internet providers like Fujistu, British Telecom, Netscape, Visa and AOL to begin an Internet Law and Policy Forum (ILPF) to redress the ever rising problems of copyright infringement and related crimes. In addition, the USA also came up with an Act referred to as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to check the problems in the internet arena pertaining to policy, technology and internet business. In order for the internet providers and the social sites to compete fairly and avoid incurring losses in the competitive web market, some cardinal rules have been set for them to follow in order not to tread on illegal paths. They should be keen on infringement when it comes to mandatory things like linking and defamation, framing, trademark, domain name, and copyright. According to the copyright law, the illegal distribution, display or reproduction of the services or work of the copyright owners without their prior permission makes a group, a party or an individual liable of copyright infringement. A fatal end is what describes the eventuality of copyright violation of any type. Some of the key areas that will be observed in relation to infringement of copyright according to the laws include the use of graphics. The violation of copyrights act occurs when the users of these sites fail to create their own unique images and instead takes available images or copies from another website without prior permission of owner of copyright. In addition, in the case where the images are available in the internet for free use, to avoid copyright infringement, it is important to observe the rules of the copyright owner, provide a link and give credit to the site and the source author. However, the user will have infringed on copyright by copying the original creations of the owner. Additionally, it is important to observe the licensed agreements on images or files that are provided on the internet and follow the terms and conditions of use. These laws are wide and encompass a variety of other materials such as music, videos, literature and so on. Several networking sites like Facebook, You tube and Limewire have served their users well even though there have been a number of instances whereby the have infringed on copyright as this essay will explore. Facebook and legal issues on copyright infringement It is a networking site that connects people in different geographical locations who study and stay around them online. In addition to being a social site, there are quite a number of other social interests that are carried out. They include sharing of links and videos, knowing each other and uploading photos. The site offers its users opportunities to connect in almost every area in life. It has numerous benefits that touch both social and economic sectors. It gives the user the access to the intrinsic value of the social world (Papp et al., 2010). Facebook has been used in political processes to send messages and opinions to the public (Chung, 2011). Users have posted political ideas on their posts voicing their opinions on the affairs affecting their nation and the whole world. The site has provided a forum for debating political issues as well as register voters online. It has facilitated important events that have brought about revolutionary change. For instance, in Colombia, a huge event to protest against the FARC was organized in 2008 through the use of Facebook that brought together almost a million people. Facebook’s ability of sharing files as a social network has increased tremendously with over 5 million active users and over 200 million people who log in everyday. Photos, music, videos and other literary materials are uploaded and exchanged each day (Chung, 2011). As such, users are capable of displaying and exchanging video and music files vastly and consequently exposing the site to copyright infringement. The postings and most of the uploaded files to one’s profile and those of other users often break the Statement of Rights and responsibilities law that Facebook is supposed to follow. Inasmuch as it is impossible to control and or stop the users from infringing on copyright, it is important determining whether their actions constitute to infringement. For instance, Facebook has the user preference which allow users to make materials and information on wall private and a preference to make the information public (Chung,  2011). The “share” option allows the user to share contents like videos with other friends via a link and vice versa. When referring to friends, it brings up the connotation that indicates privacy and limitation to a restricted group thereby raising the question whether it is copyright infringement. However, the action of uploading and sharing this material privately or publicly violates copyright. It amounts to theft and piracy, which is infringement of a person’s right through prohibited manufacture of copyright work and selling to other people. Valuable products have been produced through Facebook, and distributed across the internet. In summing up, it may prove difficult to draw the difference between infringement of copyright and the fair usage of the many available and easy to access materials the internet offers (Chung, 2011). One may not know which video files, songs or pictures to upload and use without permission. It is therefore the duty of the Facebook to protect itself and its users. This can be made possible by designing an End User License Agreement (EULA), a term of service that will to a certain level, control copyright infringement. This will save the company from suffering losses due to payment of huge fine for any piece of material infringed. Also, it will save its image from severe damage linked to a site where infringement rate is high. Legal issues in YouTube copyright infringement It is a social site where videos are shared. It gives the users an opportunity to view videos in their computers (Chung, 2011). The viewers using You Tube must have their browsers installed with an Adobe Flash Player plug-in to enable watching videos possible. Even though it does not avail all the videos in the site for the user to play, viewers whose browsers use WebM or H.264 to support HTML5 can access and play the available videos. The site has brought numerous benefits into the world and vastly enjoyed by the society, having enriched online entertainment (Griffin, 2010).To begin with, It has boosted the marketing sector by allowing the advertising of products to be done free of charge. Unlike other advertising media that charge for video shows, you tube video advertising accessible to all. Secondly, due to the immense population of YouTube users, anything the business community brings into the market gains global audience. In addition, the site gives its users to popularize their artistic works, for instance, when an individual uploads a video in the site (Chung, 2011).You Tube has given opportunities to small and developing businesses as well as amateur videographers a room to develop themselves. In fact, it is through these very small businesses that it was able to rise to become a stable site. Besides, well established companies have benefited from YouTube. For instance, by airing a Jimmy Kimmel Live! Play on You Tube home page, ABC was able to win awards due to the flocking of viewers to watch it. The violation of copyright laws in YouTube is mostly due the viral video that lack original contents. Frequently, users upload movie music and television clips in YouTube. This constitutes copyright infringement. Controlling and preventing copyright infringement by producers, music companies and record companies has been a huge challenge since it is easy to upload, download and share materials online. It becomes harder to arrest the huge number of YouTube users who infringe on copyright so fast and easily. This poses as a threat to legal owners of copyrighted materials who are seeking to hold liable YouTube if it does not control the infringements (Zhang, et al., 2010). Therefore, it is challenging to know who should control the rampant violations. This prompts the legal owners to seek help from the court to have YouTube automate a mechanism that will remove infringing material. However, the measures adopted in curbing copyright violation by YouTube may partly affect major businesses depending on the online cooperation among companies like Facebook, My Space and AOLI. It is against this background that the battle against copyright infringement is being strongly fought (Zhang, et al, 2010). There are several pieces of legislations that have struck agreements between online companies and owners of copyright materials by setting rights for each party. However, internet service providers are being given security not to be held responsible for transmitting or storing infringing contents a user decides to upload, keep or share without the knowledge of the knowledge company. However, if this infringement becomes known, that online company should remove the content. In case of infringement, copyright owners should alert the online company. This is a notice and takedown act of section 512 DMCA and the online company should respond to it by removing the infringement otherwise it would lose its protection section 512 DMCA gives it (Chung, 2011). Also, the DMCA section 512 gives the online users some protection. An online web user reserves the right to be informed of the removal of an infringing material uploaded or posted. Many online communicators can now communicate freely, share contents and other pieces of information despite the 512 takedown notices being sent by the copyright owners who have come up with the programs of taking down contents infringed. Sometimes they do this without considering whether there is infringement or not (Zhang et al., 2010). This is perhaps the rationale why YouTube had to take down some of its videos like the one called Beijing Olympics Opening Ceremony after an order to do so by the International Olympic Committee. Also, it could be the reason for the takedown of the homemade video called The Little Holden Dancing, an order that was issued by the Universal to the YouTube (Zhang et al., 2010). In recap, copyright infringement should be dealt with by all the sectors in the economy. The government should come up with better ways to handle this form of intellectual property violation. It should avail funds for the government law enforcement departments both at the local and the state levels so that it is possible to investigate criminal trademark and copyright infringements. Legal issues in Lime Wire copyright infringement Lime Wire LCC was incepted at the threshold of the new millennium with a Lime Wire program that was dealing with free peer-to-peer file sharing on Linux, Mac OS X and other java supported software platforms. It ran on computers installed with Java Virtual Machine by allowing its library contents to be shared via the Digital Audio Access Protocol (DAAP) (Zhang et al., 2010). Until its closure in 2010, Lime Wire LCC was based in New York City. It sold and distributed it two main programs; an enhanced version of the Lime Wire Pro and a basic free version. It was also providing direct downloads for searched files. As a software company, it had a security device known as the Frost Wire that could track viruses and remove them from files. However, Lime Wire had to close down in 2010 after its peer-to-peer file sharing service was found responsible for copyright infringement by an American federal judge. A greater population of Americans were producing, downloading and sharing file thereby causing serious violation. This triggered a court action against Lime Wire (Zhang et al., 2010). They sued it for copyright infringement accusing it of allowing its users to exchange music files illegally (Roh, 2010). The accusations were directed at the company’s executives, those who designed Lime Wire and the distributors of the files. The charges levelled against the file distributors were on the basis that they allowed customers to infringe on copyright by freely downloading movies and music on the internet (Dimita, 2010). Due to the infringement, Lime Wire owed Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Time Warner’s Warner Music Group, Vivendi’s Universal Music Group and EMI Music companies a sum of $150,000 for every infringement on music copyright and for punitive damages caused (Zhang et al., 2010). These damages were due to company’s failure to block access of owner’s works thereby encouraging and facilitating theft. This amounted to piracy because its users stole, distributed and sold songs without permission. In addition, Lime Wire, like other programs, made its files available to its users. The availability of these files on a user’s PC who is also connected with other users having the same files, brought about what is known as peer-to-peer file sharing. These files were swapped back and forth (Roh, 2010). The result was that recording companies begun to complain that Lime Wire had turned into file-sharing software that allowed stealing of music files. The company was issued with many warning letters and to which it did not honor resulting into eventual closure. Lime Wire’s ten years of service provided its users with immense music files that to watch and share with other users in its P2P program (Dimita, 2010). However, this brought complaints from various production industries that accused it of inducement of copyright infringement and the violation of common law of the state that prohibits copyright infringement and unfair competition. The RIAA conducted its investigations and laid claims of infringements on secondary liability being that maybe the Lime Wire LCC could not have directly infringed but provided an opportunity for infringement by its users (Roh, 2010). This could also be termed as an inducement that encouraged infringement by its users. This was evident by the fact that Lime Wire was aware of the infringement that was going on and did nothing about it. In addition, it was observed that it depended on infringement for reasons of making its business successful and therefore made less or no effort at all to stop any act of infringement by its users. In its endeavour to serve customers, Lime Wire became liable to copyright infringement (Zhang et al., 2010). This was secondary liability because unlike the actual inducement, the company had actual knowledge of infringement going on and provided assistance by issuing a channel or machinery that helped make infringement easy. It therefore made profits from its users by way of infringement by its users and directly through advertisements (Grimm et al., 2010). On the other hand, Lime Wire was able to benefit its users greatly in marketing and business. For instance, online P2P enabled consumers to lend money or borrow loans from Peer-to-Peer loan auctions and also from one another. P2P did biddings in auctions that were big and benefited individual users as well as collective users. It used herding method where the lenders would give funds. This lending generated up to $118 million in loans in the year 2005 and up to $ 5.8 billion in the year that followed (Chung, 2011).This, despite the negative effects it had on infringement, raised the nation’s interest in doing business in this industry(Anon., August 5, 2006). It helped in developing more traditional lending industries or banks. Through these, people were able to obtain loans via the internet. This internet loan lending concept took over what used to be the domain of the traditional banks. More and more users got involved in this business and at one time it got over 1 million members who funded loans of up to $217 million (Kaasa et al., 2011). This was made possible by first the borrowers requesting loans for sums of money of between $2,000 and $25,000. Investors who also happened to be individual lenders put $25 as investment in every loan listing they selected. Peer-to-Peer had plans to expand and have more investors and develop the society (Anon., August 5, 2006). Peer-to-Peer lending begun as a small business without much security but later developed and became a solution for individuals who were looking for personal loans, capital to start businesses and loans to begin creative projects (Kaasa et al., 2011). Also, it provided micro loans to individuals and gave solutions to refinancing of credit card debt. For those who feared managing bank loans and needed smaller loans turned to Peer-to-Peer. As a banking industry, it had a bright future that was long term since it was easier to do business online and information could flow easily across the web (Anon, August 5, 2006). Although this was apparently a positive attribute of Lime Wire, the free and unauthorized online sharing of music files and videos was a thorn in the flesh for the company. In summing up, Lime Wire could have made great impact in the business world with its banking system. It could also have served its users efficiently had taken measures to ensure no infringement took place. Comparison between Australian and United States copyright law The Australian copyright laws protect the intellectual property of creators of artistic works. This law is embedded in the Australian constitution. For legal owners to earn income from their original productions the given piece of work must have originality or authenticity, copyright and moral rights (Liu, Wang & Xu, 2010). The Australian copyright law is a federal law that the Australian parliament established. It initially followed the influence of the International copyrights agreements and the British copyright law but currently, it has its base in the international copyright law having signed treaties with international organizations. The beginning of copyright act in Australia dates back in 1905 when the country adopted its first federal law, the Australian copyright law (Grimm, Guzzi & Rupp, 2010). Later on in 1912 it fully applied the British copyright act into its own Australia copyright law to turn it into Australian Copyright Act 1912. However, it is worth noting that this copyright act got replaced by another copyright later in 1968. The act that replaced it is known as the Copyright Act 1968 and is in force up to date. It is run by a committee that was established in 1974 to explore the effects of reprographic reproduction. The exploration or examination of the reproduction was to be done on copyright law. It was also to determine the differences in terms of reprographic reproduction and in this case give a balance between copyright owners and copyright users. Later on the Copyright Law Review Committee was established in 1983 to review the copyright law and to which it was able to make necessary adjustments. In addition, it introduced changes in the Australian copyright law by allowing users to record television shows, music and radio programs and later share with family and friends (Nusbaum, Rubens & Nguyen, 2009). The law also allowed them to make CD’s of copies of another person’s work and share with family and friends and to use owner’s work in public sectors like offices, schools, universities and art galleries for satire and parody. However, it expanded its ability to be strict on criminals who will be found infringing by introducing an act that would require they pay on the spot fines for their offenses. Later on in 2006, amendments were done to the Copyright Act incorporating requirements by the US to make it illegal to avoid protective measures to access copyrights owner’s works (Dimita, 2010). The Act in Australia gives the copyright owners exclusive rights to adapt their work, reproduce, publish for the first time, perform and communicate with the public. However, when it comes to artistic works, the exclusive right is limited in that it does not stop individuals from displaying pictures to the public (Grimm, Guzzi & Rupp, 2010). United States copyright law is part of the federal law that protects the rights of the copyrights owners who include creators of works of art (Liu, Wang & Xu, 2010). The US copyright law aims at promoting the growth of useful arts and science by providing exclusive rights to the owners of these works. This act applies to writers and scientists as well as inventors and many other artists with their original works. Matters related to recording of copyright transfers and registrations of copyright claims are taken care of by the United States Copyright office (Kawashima, 2010). Copyright protection in United States is given by the state law and the federal law. This is a duel system. In the U.S, many other states also have their copyright laws referred to as the Common law copyright and it protects works that are not registered. The copyright law governed by the federal state is known as Statutory copyright (Grimm, Guzzi & Rupp, 2010). The laws also protect copyright works that are registered by stimulating the idea of progress by giving the copyrights holders’ absolute protection so that their work cannot be copied or exploited by other users. By doing this, it minimizes the conflict that would arise by creating a room for creativity and giving each work exclusive property rights (Kawashima, 2010). Additionally, it ensures that the ideas of the author of copyright works are accessible freely to the public. However, it does not allow the public to copy the original work of the authors like artistic, musical, intellectual and dramatic works. The copyright act in the US was first established in1790 by the US congress intended to protect the exclusive rights of publishers and other artists who published books, charts and maps. Initially, there was no proper act in the U.S that would protect copyright holders. It was believed that there was nothing that an individual would lay claim to as a personal property. However, in 1783, a law was passed on copyright whose purpose was to promote those involved in useful arts and scientists for them to progress. Their progress would be in the fields like music, literature, science and engineering. It gave them exclusive rights to derive work based upon their work, reproduce copies of their work, distribute their work everywhere, perform in public places as well as privately, and do public displays of their work (Grimm, Guzzi & Rupp, 2010). In the U.S, it is important for an individual to register with the copyrights office for reasons of security and legal rights (Liu, Wang & Xu, 2010). It is provided for by the US copyright act automatic attachment of copyright for original creation of authorship. However, this does not fully protect an individual from infringement. However, U.S copyright laws are subjected to some limitations, exceptions and some defences (Kawashima, 2010). For instance, the copyright law does not apply to authored works that are not registered. It only works effectively if an artist or authors work is registered. Also, it does not hold anyone liable for using fairly any material of the author. In any case of difficulties in determining the fairness, the law provides some factors that are to be assessed (Liu, Wang & Xu, 2010). Also, it provides a safe harbor which keeps the owner of an online company from being accused of secondary liability. Online users may infringe by using or uploading files online and share with others (Kawashima, 2010). The law, therefore, provides a safe harbour for online company owners. Moreover, it protects learning institutions, schools and libraries should they violate by charging lower fines. This offence could be termed as fair infringements (Dimita, 2010). When comparing the Australian copyrights Act and that of the United States, it can be clearly seen that there are emerging differences in both Acts. For Instance, the Australian law permits an individual to make copies or record music, videos, radio and television programs as well as reproduce copies of the same on CD’s and share with family and friends. This is not the same in the US as it would amount to copyright infringement. In Addition, unlike in the US and Europe where there is fee paid by for infringement of this kind, in Australia, there is neither license nor fee paid for compensation to copyright owners for these CD copies and recordings made. In addition, copyright laws in the US give room for the development of the works of creation by the artists. References Anon. (2006, August 5). New York Times (Late Edition (east Coast). p. C.4.  Chung, O. (2011). Cross-Strait Scenario. Taiwan Review. 61(2), 33-37.   Dimita, G. (2010). Newzbin Held Liable for Copyright Infringement. The Journal of Business Law. (6), 532-634. Griffin, J. (2010). The effect of the Digital Economy Act 2010 upon 'semiotic democracy'. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology. 24(3), 251- 255.   Grimm, J., Guzzi, S., & Rupp, K. (2010). Intellectual property crimes. The American Criminal Law Review. 47(2), 741-748.  Kaasa, S. et al (2011). Remembering why: Can people consistently recall reasons for their behaviour? Applied Cognitive Psychology. 25(1), 35-37.  Kawashima, N. (2010). The rise of 'user creativity' - Web 2.0 and a new challenge for copyright law and cultural policy. The International Journal of Cultural Policy: CP. 16(3), 337-343.  Larsen, J. (2010). Ownership of Copyrighted Materials. American Dietetic Association. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 110(10), 1547-1549.  Liu, J., Wang, H., & Xu, K. (2010). Understanding Peer Distribution in the Global Internet. IEEE Network. 24(4), 11-14.  Retrieved April 22, 2011, from ProQuest Computing. Nusbaum, S., Rubens, J. & Nguyen, P. (2009). Survey of the Law of Cyberspace: Intellectual Property Cases 2008. The Business Lawyer, 65(1), 229-250.  Retrieved April 23, 2011, from ABI/INFORM Global Bottom of Form Papp, R. et al. (2010). Campus perceptions of fair use violations: implications for university policy development. Research in Higher Education Journal. 9, 1-9.  Roh, D. (2010). Two Copyright Case Studies from a Literary Perspective. Law and Literature. 22(1), 110-141,213.  Retrieved April 22, 2011, from Research Library. Zhang, Z. et al (2010). Fuzzy risk assessments on security policies for digital rights management. Neural Network World.  20(3), 265-284. Read More