A blog discussing copyright law and how to avoid copyright infringement on major web sites today.
Created by Kristin Wheater for Journalism 497B at Iowa State University
How many of you even know what the penalty is for copying a DVD and selling it to your friends? I'm sure everyone recognizes the warning label, but who knows the consequences it outlines?
Although most of us would just be users of these sites or services, my final advice is to be careful when using them. Even though you may not intend to infringe on someone's copyrighted material, you may still be penalized for it.
The users who are caught illegally using the services will just be fined. Music and movies are copyrighted for a reason. You are supposed to spend your hard-earned money to have the music on your computer or the DVD in your hot little hand. Having access to your favorite music and movies without paying seems unfair to everyone involved in producing it. After all, it's better to spend a small amount on downloading a song on iTunes than $3,000 for illegally downloading a song.
If one day, you are taking copyrighted material and posting it on your own Web site, be careful. Those who directly infringe on copyrights can be sued for their actions. It's best to just avoid this scenario all together.
Remember the scene from the beginning where you yourself created an amazing work. You would not want to have its' market value ruined or to not be recognized as its' original creator.
Copyright law is serious business and something that every Internet user should be well-versed in. It is tempting to download all of these applications that promise you your favorite music and movies for free, but avoid subscribing if possible.
The Internet is expanding into the book industry as well. Google has a new feature which allows you to sample books online, sometimes displaying whole sections of books. I've even found full textbooks for my classes this semester, allowing me to read my books online without buying them from the bookstore.
Is this copyright infringement? Oh, definitely. But I'm not worried. I figure Google runs everything and will get in trouble before I do for using Google Books. (Google books can be found at books.google.com).
As a user of Google Books, I enjoy the access that I have to textbooks that I would otherwise have to buy, I definitely recognize how harmful posting books online can be to their ability to make a profit.
Non-fiction books can also be found online. Dan Brown's newest book, "The Lost Symbol", was released online before it was published. Authors and publishers alike are outraged by this.
For those of you "Twilight" fans, Stephanie Meyer's copyrights were violated as well when she released another installment in the Twilight series, "Midnight Sun." Upon the pre-release of "Midnight Sun", which was only partly finished, Meyer announced that she was post-poning the writing and release of the book. I believe that this shows just how hurtful creators can be when their work is released before they are ready or without their knowledge.
Sources:
Frisch, By Matt. "Digital Piracy Hits the E-book Industry - CNN.com." CNN.com - Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News. Web. 19 Apr. 2010. .
"StephenieMeyer.com | Twilight Series | Midnight Sun." StephenieMeyer.com | The Official Website of Stephenie Meyer. Web. 19 Apr. 2010. .
If the cost of music seems outrageous to you, what about the cost of a movie? To see a movie in the theaters, you're looking to spend about $8 on the ticket alone. To buy a DVD, you may pay up to $25. As a college student, or even as a human being who may have better things to spend their money on, downloading movies and TV shows has become a popular option.
BitTorrent is a web site where you can share files and information with peers. More often that not, this site is used to download TV shows and movies for free. Some of the movies are older and there are no copyright implications anymore. However, users can also download things such as the weekly episode of their favorite TV show. Of course, this brings forth many questions. Is this at all legal? Can I download it to my computer without getting in trouble?
Use of this service can result in fines. Although the program itself is legal, the things you download may be downloaded illegally. The Motion Picture Association and the Recording Industry Association are watching this site closely. Like LimeWire, users can be fined a large amount for the use of this site if they are caught illegally downloading.
According to the BitTorrent Copyright Infringement Policy, it seems that the copyright holders are also somewhat in charge of protecting their own work. Copyright holders are able to file complaints when they see that their work is being unfairly used. BitTorrent also reminds copyright holders of what fair use is, and advises the users to allow users for fair use reasons.
If you use BitTorrent, do so carefully.
While we're on the subject of popular online activities such as downloading music, I'd like to bring up another popular online activity-- watching YouTube videos.
Of course, not all YouTube videos are copyrighted, and if you are an avid watcher, it's not likely that there will be a lawsuit brought against you for it. However, there is plenty of illegal activity that occurs on YouTube.
YouTube sees a great deal of "take down notices". If a user uploads a video that is copyrighted material, YouTube is issued a take down notice. YouTube must then remove the video immediately or face fines or prosecution. These "take down notices" may also be called "cease and desist" notices.
In my opinion, YouTube is pretty good about this. There are plenty of times where I tried to watch videos that are of my favorite movies or TV shows only to find that I cannot access them anymore.
Of course, you can't get into trouble just for watching these videos. Particularly if they aren't available anymore.
YouTube is a safe site to use. However, as a word of advice, be careful of the videos you post.
Sources:
"What Is ?" BitTorrent. Web. 19 Apr. 2010. .
"BitTorrent (protocol) - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia." Main Page - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 19 Apr. 2010. .
This is a question I asked myself while writing this blog and while learning about copyright infringement. As a former user of LimeWire, I was curious as to whether I was legally downloading music or not.
Note: I no longer use LimeWire because a friend of mine was fined $3,000 by the Recording Institution of America for the usage of LimeWire. Because he was connecting via the Iowa State network and downloading an excessive amount of music, he was caught and flagged as a potential hazard and fined before he could commit copyright infringement. It is my belief that my friend was used to set an example for me and the rest of his friends. We saw the consequences for using LimeWire and most of us instantly took it off of our computers.
LimeWire is an alternative to Napster. According to an article on CNN.com, LimeWire uses a "Gnutella" network, which connects users directly to another computer and their files. There is no centralized server facilitating file sharing, which may be why LimeWire has seen less courtroom action than similar programs. For this reason, this may be why users are often fined for the usage of LimeWire, and why LimeWire is not the one being charged for vicarious or contributory copyright infringement.
Though not a lot of research exists online about whether LimeWire is legal, it seems to me that only those who use it in excess should be concerned about being prosecuted or fined.
The act of sharing copyrighted music is what makes Napster illegal. Napster was a peer-to-peer network and most of the downloading came from file sharing with other users of the program. For LimeWire, the program itself is completely legal. The sharing of music would also be considered illegal through LimeWire.
LimeWire, however, has been through many of the same legal issues that Napster has. In 2006, many record companies sued LimeWire, claiming that they were also guilty of contributory and vicarious infringement. The case has not yet been closed, but another peer-to-peer file sharing program Kazaa settled with the record companies for a whopping $115 million.
We will see in the future if LimeWire continues to exist online or if, like similar sites, will be shut down. In the mean time, my personal advice is to uninstall LimeWire from your computer. If you do continue to use LimeWire of any program like it, proceed with caution. The one being fined $3,000 could be you.
Downloading music has become more popular than actually purchasing music. Of course, CDs can be expensive, and with the invention of the Internet, using Napster is a tempting way to obtain all of the music you want.
However, in 2000, the maker of Napster had a lawsuit brought against him. Musical artists and record labels grew tired of the population downloading music instead of purchasing it. They felt cheated because the time and money they spent producing an album was hefty and listeners weren't even paying to support their favorite artists.
Not just one or two record companies were angry with Napster stealing their thunder, there is a laundry list of record companies that lined up to sue Napster.
Record companies against Napster include A&M Records, Geffen Records, Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Records, and many more.
In 2000, A&M Records filed suit against Napster. The case was almost too obvious. It was against the law to share music files between peers without paying. Of course, there were fair uses of the music sharing, such as sampling a song before purchasing it and artists having free songs to download (just as they do on iTunes today). However, most of the use of the site was to illegally download music for free. The 9th Circuit Court found that Napster was guilty of contributory and vicarious copyright infringement.
Contributory infringement is defined as a copyright infringement where the person knows that they are contributing to others infringing on copyrighted work and does nothing to stop it. In this case, Napster knew that their users were infringing on copyright law by illegally downloading music but were not doing anything to stop it.
Vicarious infringement is when one has a financial interest in the copyrighting that is taking place but is not doing anything to stop it. Napster had a lucrative business before the U.S. Circuit Courts slammed down on it, shutting down Napster forever.
While contributing to vicarious or contributory infringement, one does not directly take place in the copyright infringement. Napster was not illegally downloading, but allowing users to illegally download.
As you already know, Napster is no longer in existence but several other peer-to-peer music sharing services have popped up in it's place. LimeWire and Kazaa are the new "Napster" and new legal issues are cropping up with these new services.
As put by an article from CNN.com, law professor Doug Lichtman says "I think the critical point to remember is that Napster is being accused of *helping* users commit the bad act. ... The party who drives the getaway car for his bank robber friends surely shouldn't be allowed to skirt liability for bank robbery, right?" (CNN.com)
Sources:
"A&M RECORDS, INC. v. NAPSTER, INC., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001)." LII | Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School. 18 Apr. 2010. Web. 18 Apr. 2010. .
"A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia." Main Page - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 19 Apr. 2010. .
"CNN.com - Appeals Court to Hear Napster Case Monday - September 29, 2000." CNN.com - Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News. 29 Sept. 2000. Web. 19 Apr. 2010. .
We've all been in this situation. You're put into a group project where you create this amazing piece of work-- whether it's a piece of art or a paper that you've put a lot of time and effort into. Then, suddenly, a classmate or someone you know tries to take credit for some or all of your hard work. In the student world, this isn't as big of a deal, it's more of an annoyance. However, when we all graduate and become professionals with big-shot jobs, this turns into an entirely new kind of annoyance. This turns into the lawsuit-bringing kind of annoyance.
Of course, when someone comes up with something extremely innovative and creative, it can be tempting to claim the work as your own. As the creator of a work, it's important to copyright it right away.
Everyone has a general idea of what a copyright is. We see its' messages at the beginnings of movies, the trademarks on the labels of our CDs (if anyone buys CDs anymore). A copyright makes something yours, it ensures that all of the credit belongs to you. It gives you the rights to every aspect of your work.
Because it can be tempting to copy someone's work, the Supreme Court has had to make legislation protecting copyrights. Two laws that have been put into place are the Copyright Act of 1976 and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.
The Copyright Act of 1976 outlined what works can and cannot be copyrighted. These works include the obvious to the not-so-obvious. Section 102 of the Copyright Act of 1976 states that copyright protection extends to "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression." Literary works such as books and articles can be copyrighted. Musical works such as songs and recordings (including lyrics and accompaniment) can be copyrighted. Dramatic works such as movies and plays can be copyrighted. Choreographed works and dances can be copyrighted. Art work such as sculptures and paintings can be copyrighted.
The works that cannot be copyrighted are broader. Ideas, facts, and mathematical equations cannot be copyrighted because they are not a creative work.
The Copyright Act of 1976 was the first law to make a precedent on copyrights. The Copyright Act of 1976 protected the rights of the creator of the work. Under this act, the creator is given the exclusive right to reproduce or copy their work, to create derivative works, to sell their work, to perform the work publicly, and to display the work publicly. The creator can keep the rights to some or all of these rights or can sell the rights to another. For example, the creator of a widely-known film can sell the right to a publishing company to create books based on the film.
However, just because the author of the work has these rights, that doesn't mean that people are not allowed to use the works in any way. The Copyright Act of 1976 also discusses what is considered fair use of works without infringing on copyrights.
Fair use allows for people to use the work for educational purposes, for criticism, or for parody works. There are four factors to determine whether one has fair use of a work. 1) The purpose and character of the use (is this for educational purposes?) 2) The nature of the copyrighted work 3) The amount and substantiality of the portion of the work used (how much of the work was copied? Was the amount copied the most important part of the work?) 4) The effect of the new work on the market of the original work (does the new work take away profit from the original work?)
To submit a copyright, you can simply place the copyright symbol on your work. To be safe, you should submit your work to the Copyright Office, assuring that there will be a copy of your work on file in their official office in case someone does infringe on your work. This will provide you with the evidence you need to win your case.
Of course, with the invention of the Internet, some modifications had to happen for this Act to keep up with technology. Therefore, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act was created in 1998.
In short, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998 prevents people from circulating copyrighted material online. Not only are people not allowed to post things online, but it is against the law to create a device that “snakes around” copyrights and copies works. One thing that the DMCA also does is protect Internet service providers (ISPs) from being blamed when someone does post a copyrighted material through their network. Theoretically, the ISP would not know about the copyright infringement taking place and should not be held liable for any claim made against them.
In this time period, it is easy to copyright a material and publish it online for the whole world to have access to. We see examples of this on www.youtube.com. A person will take a video camera into a movie theater and post the video on YouTube, allowing people to see the movie for free. This violates the Copyright Act of 1976 by taking away from the market value that the movie would originally have and also violates the Digital Millenium Copyright Act by using the Internet to circumvent a work.
On YouTube and many other similar sites, there is such a thing as a “take down notice”. This is when a web site will issue a notice demanding that a video or post be taken down immediately. It is in violation of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, and the notice serves as a warning to let the publisher know they must take it down. If they do not, legal action can be taken against them.
Now that a thorough background on Copyright Law has been given, a couple of the more famous and interesting cases can be explored.
Sources:
Borade, Gaynor. "Facts About the Copyright Act of 1976." Buzzle Web Portal: Intelligent Life on the Web. Web. 19 Apr. 2010. .
"The Digital Millennium Copyright Act - Overview." Graduate School of Education and Information Studies. Web. 18 Apr. 2010. .
