An ongoing debate has been evolving over the role of digital copyrights in the future. Some proponents of legislation may violate consumer rights (Music, 2004). Digital products have always been limited in their profitability because they are susceptible to duplication. Pirating jeopardizes the ability of creators to recoup initial costs associated with researching and developing digital media products. The monetary incentive behind creation is diminished by theft. The United States government is adamant in their effort to deter the misuse of intellectual property (Music, 2004).
Evaluation of Copyright Legislation The Congressional Budget Office or COB is a non-partisan legislative agency f the United States that was established in 1974-”by the Congressional Budget Act-”to report on budgetary and economic issues. Members of the COB are not considered based upon their political partisanship. The COB uses expert analysis by way of impartial and objective reviews (COB Overview, 2013). The U. S. Congress relies on the COB to offer in-depth analysis on digital copyright law. Congress may tackle copyright legislation in three ways: forbearance, compulsory licensing, and copyright law revision.
Under forbearance, the U. S. Congress would stand back and let market forces solve issues on their own. Product innovation and consumer demand may come to an amicable resolution by way of digital rights management or DRY technology. Some forms of DRY are very effective at rebuffing piracy. DRY can also be utilized for differential pricing (Music, 2004). For instance, a different price might be charged for using a digital music file for listening or mass-producing. DRY can prevent consumers from making duplicates. Another avenue of profitability is providing access, to digital media products, in a limited capacity.
Nettling and Tunes are examples of this type of revive (Music, 2004). An example of compulsory licensing would be Congress setting a flat-rate tax on certain products or access points to copyrighted works; then, royalties for creators of intellectual property would be determined by the amount of usage. No system is perfect though. Applying a flat-rate tax will undoubtedly cause problems. For example, people using tunes for uploading daybooks or bedposts to their pods may be disenfranchised by taxes on the use of tunes to generate music industry royalties.
Compulsory licensing could have unintended consequences on the economy (Music, 2004). Revising copyright law to benefit those most affected by copyright infringement is another way in which Congress can handle future legislation. DRY and limits on fair use policies could limit the ability of society to use digital media products freely. Sometimes the “greater public good” requires society to use certain types of digital media without having to pay for it. People may need to discuss things in a public forum like educational institutions, news media organizations, opinion blobs, and research development entities.
Strict digital copyright laws could impede development within the economy (Music, 2004). Technology is digital media’s own worst enemy. The absence of a tangible piece of hardware like a CD makes protecting copyrights very difficult. Music files can be ripped and shared without a creator receiving monetary compensation. The digital media industry is now at a crossroads between extending their commercial interests and alienating the interests of consumers. People generally want to do what they want with their purchases, which is not always in line with the interests of digital copyrighters.
The U. S. Govern meet is constantly reassessing the economic engine behind digital media creation (Music, 2004). There are social and private incentives for creating works. Neither parties-”creators or consumers-”should hold exclusive rights over the issue because their existence is codependent. There should not be a monopoly on the school of thought driving copyright law. A consensus on copyright law should be determined by market efficiency (Music, 2004). Digital Media Copyright Laws The U. S. Copyright Act of 1 976 details the difference between theft and copyright infringement.
Theft is characterized by actually having complete control over a stolen piece of property. Copyright infringement is depriving he owner of potential revenue by misusing their creative work, as in the court case Dowling v. United States (Music, 2004). Copyright ownership is for a limited time. Book copyrights last an author’s lifespan plus 70 years. Copyrighted works-for-hire last 95 years. Afterwards, the works enter public domain. The first sale doctrine would allow a consumers to give away a book or resell it, but there is legislation impeding consumers from giving away digital media files.
Licensing has become the preferred method for allowing consumers to purchase digital media; licensing agreements control the use of these products (Music, 2004). The advent of the videocassette recorder (VS..) led to the court case Sony v. Universal Studios. Universal sought resolution On the matter of Vicars being used for making copies of TV shows, which was viewed by them as copyright infringement. The term affixed to this was called time shifting: recording television broadcasts for later viewing. The Supreme Court felt that time shifting was mostly used for watching TV shows at a later date, which is not detrimental to the media industry.
Despite pirating, the economic wellbeing of the media industry was not undermined significantly enough to ban Vicars. Making copies under the fair use policy had been permissible (Music, 2004). Copyright laws for software were the earliest forms of digital media legislation. In the 1 sass, Congress made concessions for archival duplicates. The Computer Software Rental Amendments Act of 1990 contained preventative measures against renting purchased software. Comprehensive copyright law was first established in the Audio Home Recording Act (AURA) of 1992.
This law was more impartial in considering ownership rights and consumer rights. Digital audio recording devices-”without measure to prevent serial popping-”were illegal to manufacture. The AURA taxed the sale of these devices. Tapes used in conjunction with digital audio devices were taxed too. All these proceeds went to copyright owners. In exchange, consumers were allowed to make copies without infringing on copyrights (Music, 2004). The Internet sets the tone for later types of copyright law. The No Electronic Theft Act of 1997 or NET penalized personal and commercial data sharing on the Internet.
The Technology, Education, and Copyright Harmonistic Act of 2002 or TEACH exempted educational studies from the purview of copyright awe, especially towards distance learning institutions like University Of Maryland University College (Music, 2004). The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1 998 (TDMA) redefined many aspects of copyright legislation. The TDMA awarded copyright owners royalties for music used on the Internet. Internet Service Providers, also known as, Sips were no longer permitted to obstruct copyright owners from seeking resolutions on copyright infringement.
The TDMA limits the distributing or manufacturing of products used for circumventing DRY. For instance, purchasers are allowed to make archival copies. An IT department f a company may carry numerous archival copies of cloned computer setups for employee workstations within their company (Music, 2004). The TDMA has provisions for tackling cases of copyright infringement. To limit the liability an ISP (I. E. You Tube or Google) might incur from users violating copyright laws, the TDMA mandated the issuance of attacked notifications.
Once an ISP has been informed-”by way of a attacked notice-”they must comply by removing the information from their network. In addition, resulting subpoenas require Sips to hand over private information on offenders (Music, 2004). Most of the time, peer-to-peer (POP) file sharing of music takes the spotlight because it is Of the most concern to copyright owners. There have been numerous business enterprises devoted to ripping original music files, converting them to compressed digital versions (MPH format), and distributing those copies.
The effects of POP file sharing are evident by the drop in revenue from music sales: 4% in 2001, 8% in 2002, and 6% in 2003. Circumspection reveals that overpriced CD sales-”among other things-”inflated the losses sustained by the music industry; meaning, POP file haring alone did not diminish the music industry (Music, 2004). Figure 1 depicts the annual rate of decline in the industry shipment value from 1987 to 2003: Figure 1 (Milk’s, 2004) The Recording Industry Association of America (ARIA) has shifted their primary focus from pursuing website proliferates to the individuals directly engaged in POP file sharing.
The ensuing legislative actions are called “John Doe” lawsuits. The TDMA allows for subpoenaing POP file sharers on behalf of copyright owners. The next viable option would be petitioning Congress to change the law on matters concerning digital media copyrights (Music, 004). Notable Criticisms The evolution of digital copyright law is determined by how technologies use digital products. For instance, the company Victim has brought numerous TDMA cases against other companies, claiming a violation of “safe harbor’ provisions.
Safe harbor provisions limit liability from opposing legal action provided that a company was acting on good faith or within the prescribed standards Of law. Victim tried to unsuccessfully prosecute Youth for purposefully allowing users to Infringe on their copyrights. For instance, You Tube being ignorant of a user posting an illegal copy of a movie is not rounds for an actionable lawsuit (Moochers, 2012). David Sunshine of the New Yorker magazine wrote an article on George Hot: the 1 7-year-old kid that hacked the Phone. Hot wanted to use his purchased Phone via T-Mobile, but it was released exclusively on AT&T.
So Hot circumvented the DRY software and made it work with any cellophane carrier. Then he posted a You Tube video of himself using the hacked Phone with T-Mobile service. This awarded Hot with a lot of congratulatory fame and some money (Sunshine, 2012). After doing this for some time, Hot turned his sights on the corporation, Sony Computer Entertainment of America. His hack of the ASS allowed him to install other operating systems, play pirated games, or even use previously incompatible software. Sony responded by filing a lawsuit against him.
Their concern was that beneficiaries of hacked Ass could cheat during games or deprive creators of royalties. Sony was awarded a positive outcome, which allowed them to successfully obtain any information-”via Hot IP address-”relating to his hacking or pirating activities (Sunshine, 2012). Sony inflamed digital rights activists by collecting IP addresses Of people ho downloaded hacking instructions from Hoot’s website. His antics as a rebellious free rights hastiest earned him the support of a hacker group named Anonymous. Sony has been getting harassed ever since. Anonymous shut down their websites: Sony. Mom and Pollination. Com. The group is also suspected of infiltrating their “online-entertainment hub” and compromising the personal information of over 77 million subscribers (Sunshine, 2012). Pending Copyright Legislation The government might argue that the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CHIPS) is a response to technology becoming a threat to cantonal security. Writer Jason Cobbler of U. S. News Reports explains that the U. S. Government is trying to pass this bill to prevent cyber crime, but there are also components in the bill that will compromise civil rights.
Hackers pose a huge threat to society because they steal, ransom off, spy on or sell the intellectual property. The main goal of CHIPS is to allow American corporations to use the subjectivity resources of the U. S. Government in exchange for corporations releasing private information on consumers (Koehler, 2012). According to Amassable. Com, there has been vehement opposition to CHIPS. Writer Alex Fitzpatrick reported on the petition signatures collected by the activist group, Demand Progress and Fight for the Future.
So far, they have collected 300,000 online signatures, which have been emailed to Congressional House Intelligence Committee reviewing the bill (Fitzpatrick, China is the most popular threat to the national security of the U. S. A recent article by Peter Navaho stresses the need for American businesses to operate elsewhere. China refuses to honor American copyright laws. Google left their operations in Beijing because China stole their blueprints for running a successful search engine. The Chinese rip-off of Google’s intellectual property is Baud, which now holds 75% of the market Google once dominated there (Navaho, 2013).