Copyright Protection in the Digital Environment - Essay Example

Copyright xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Name xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Course xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Instructor xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Date Copyright infringement is an authorized use of works which are stated or secured and thus said to be under copyright. This therefore means that, it is illegal to download copyrighted music and films and can lead to prosecuted if caught with the violation of the same. Copyright protection is highly important to the music and film industry for its absence will deny artists their rights (McDermott & Emery 2012). In this case, it is a point to note that, the intellectual property gives rise to propriety rights over original forms of intellectual production and in the long run assigns the holder the right to exploit the work through licensing its copying to get a stipulated compensation in return. This process permits the record label to produce certain works and sell it for a profit. However, the ever dynamic and popular P2P networks have accelerated copyright infringement for unauthorized copying and distribution of copyrighted materials. It is a matter of fact that, the digital piracy is currently a serious challenge to these industries which solely depends on a cycle of pre unit pricing and copyright law enforcement (McDermott & Emery 2012). Additionally, it is a point to note that, the ever developing new technology has made it difficult for the enhancement of the copyright law and it wake. This is attributed to the facts that, individuals can create and disseminate digital contents at a very high speed and this does not mesh well with the complex laws that regulate this behavior in many parts of the world. There has been a very big gap between the technological and the legal allowances which can make copyright infringement cease and this is correlated mostly to the notion that, there has been a substantial lack of knowledge about copyright law in the general public and thus the cultural and the social norms connected to the use and distribution of digital content have diverged far from what the law requires. This has made it hard to enact strict policies to curb the illegal downloading of music and films (Robin Hopkins 2011). In actual facts, the development of peer to peer file sharing technology which makes it easy to share files electronically such as the digital media and the internet have exposed many people who have internet access to consume and share copyrighted materials easily and fast, without any compensation to either the creator or the distributors of these works (John et al 2009). This therefore calls for many reforms regarding the copyright law so as to fit better the practices of the digital era. The relief from this is however shaping up for every device connecting to the internet does so through a unique number that is assigned to it known as the IP address. This number clearly shows the details like the data showing the material that has been used illegally making them easily visible or even be obtained with ease from such services (Robin Hopkins 2011). This being the case, ISPs can be demanded to disclose the customer’s details and that will lead to the identification of infringers. It is however worth noting that, this is only possible through a court order. The internet service providers have been tied by the Digital Economy Act 2010 which dictates that the infringers must be tracked and sued. However, the act first gives the ISP the audacity to recognize the IP addressing to which the computer connects, and then send each IP number to appropriate ISP. The ISP then determines whether the infringement report is valid and then sends a notification to the subscriber of the said IP (McDermott & Emery 2012). Finally, the rights holder requesting a copyright infringement list from the ISP is actively involved where they can approach a judge to get a court order that will give them legal permission to indentify the subscribers in question, and with the information they obtain get a chance to have copyright infringement litigation against them. Additionally, the Digital Economy Act 2010 (DEA 2010) forces a corroboration between the service providers and owners of music and films copyrights to indentifying internet subscribers who have IP which appears to share or even download files illegally. However, this is marred by lots of controversies as it breaches the Data Protection Act 1998 where by there is a need for protection of individuals in connection to the processing of personal data and free movement of the same data which is commonly referred to as Data Protection Directive. Additionally, this has also been said to be highly invasive of the individual subscribers’ private sphere for it involves generalized monitoring of internet users’ activities, as it has been speculated by the European Data Protection Supervisor (Robin Hopkins 2011). DEA aims at curbing the menace involved with illegal downloading of materials and is governed by sections 124A to M of the Communication Act 2003 as dictated by the sections 3-6 of the DEA 2010. However, sections 124A to E are not active and will only be so when the promulgation of an Initial Obligation Code is enacted which is yet to be finalized by Ofcom (Robin Hopkins 2011). However, the copyright owners continue to list IP addresses involved in illegal activities and therefore the ISP is obliged to notifying the subscribers of the allegation aligned against them and how they can appeal against those allegation to avoid online copyright infringement in future, as stipulated by section 124A(4)-(9), CA 2003 and section 5, Initial Obligation Code (Guthrie (Robin Hopkins, 2011) 2012). On the other hand the ISP is also entitled to compiling reports about each subscriber, on an anonymous basis, a copy right infringement list of those who have been subjected to at least three valid allegations from an ISP over the preceding 12 months as it is well indicated in sections 124B, CA 2003 and section 6 Initial Obligation Code (Horten 2012). And those who have more than three strikes process on the ISP list might have their personal details disclosed incase there be a court order. Incase one is guilty of having downloaded files from the internet illegally; the ISP is entitled to dropping the client who will then be required to have another ISP. This being the case, the ISP can help control the same menace in a big way. Additionally, the ISP can also play an equally important role in preventing copyright infringement. For example, with a partnership between the record companies and the internet service providers which have billing relationships and a wider customer base can also be of great importance. In other words, if these partners have subscription services either bundled within the cost of a broadband fee or paid separately, the copyright owners will not be infringed off their rights. Additionally, music and film industry and ISP partnership which have been put in place in some countries have tremendously reduced these infringements. The ISP develops its own branded music service or even partners with an existing music service and offers a monthly subscription to its customers when they sign up to their packages is a better platform to prevent illegal downloading of music and films (Robin Hopkins 2011). The ISP can also block access to websites infringing IP rights. This is mostly through the request of copyright owners for the ISP to block access to the websites that are being used to facilitate illegal downloading of protected works such as music and films. This is for example the forced closure of the Pirate Bay and Newzbin the European courts (Guthrie 2012). When this action is taken, research recognized that the blocking of websites is an effective way to deal with the infringement. It is however worth noting that, the IP address owner accused of committing the act is supposed to be given several warning before the termination of the service, failure to which it will result to infringement of the IP owners’ right. Conclusively, it is a matter of fact that many artist have been denied their rights to reproduce or even distribute their copyrighted works by people who download them illegally through the internet and distribute them or even consumer them. This denies the owners a chance to distribute their work and make profits from the same. This act can lead to prosecution where by one can be penalized for copyright infringement, where one can be ordered to pay either the actual or statutory damages per every work infringed. The internet service providers under the Digital Economy Act 2010 are obligated to making sure that their clients are not the ones denying others their rights (Guthrie 2012). For example, they are entitled to communicating to IP address owners who have been listed as downloading films and music illegally, which if it continues allows them to disclose their identity so that they can face prosecution. Additionally, the ISP is in the best position to prevent copyright infringement because they provide internet services which are the main platform of the action. In other words, when an IP address have been involved with illegal downloads, they can block the same to avoid the recurring of the same process (McDermott & Emery 2012). Finally, ISP can also partner with music and film industries to come up with branded music service or even partners with an existing music service and offers a monthly subscription to its customers when they sign up to their packages and thus ensure that they pay for whatever file they download. Bibliography Emery, M. W. 2012 European Ip Bulletin. Copyright/Injunctions and ISPS, 86 , 1-12. Guthrie, R. 2012 Taking the fight to intermediaries. World Trademark Review , 21-24. Horten, M. 2012 The Digital Economy Act in the dock: a proportionate ruling? JIPITEC, 3 , 81 87. John Palfrey, Urs Gasser, Miriam Simun & Rosalie Fay Barnes,2009 Youth, Creativity, and Copyright in the Digital Age, . Int'l J.Learning & Media, , 80-97. Robin Hopkins 2011 The evolving battle against illegal file-sharing: some data protection observations. Practical Law Company , 1-12. Read More