Napster’s only alleged liability is for contributory or vicarious infringement. So when Napster’s users engage in noncommercial sharing of music, is that activity copyright infringement? No.
Congress created a safe harbor for defamation in 1996 and for copyright in 1998. Both safe harbors were designed to ensure that the Internet would remain a participatory medium of speech.
Judges decide upon copyright law. They decide upon trademark law. They decide upon scientific issues. They decide upon very complex technical issues on a daily basis. So you must have confidence in the Supreme Court, that they will apply their mind and they will come out with a decision consistent with the Constitution.
I have no problem selling books to media franchises and we do it all the time. The author must understand that he/she is a writer for hire and has no control over copyright or over editorial changes made to the text.
But here’s the thing: what you do as a screenwriter is you sell your copyright. As a novelist, as a poet, as a playwright, you maintain your copyright.
I got the copyright for love!
If we’re talking about someone creating something new, those rights are fairly well defined (in the United States, at least) under existing copyright law. But then there’s often discussion about the rights of people who produce works under work-for-hire arrangements, which can be far more subtle and nuanced.
I am outraged that the Gorillaz have infringed the copyright of my song ‘Time Warp,’ claiming their song ‘Stylo’ to be an original composition.
It is impossible to effectively monitor the huge volume of videos that are out there. It is often difficult to find out who owns the copyright on individual videos. Differing copyright laws in different countries also make the whole process harder.
Only one thing is impossible for God: To find any sense in any copyright law on the planet.
In making policy designed with copyright in mind, you end up making decisions about whether other important technologies, such as privacy-enhancing or file-search technologies, should be encouraged or discouraged. A collision is happening between creativity and protecting IP.
I am outraged that the Gorillaz have infringed the copyright of my song ‘Time Warp,’ claiming their song ‘Stylo’ to be an original composition.
The most important thing about intellectual property vs. creative expression is that copyright law was created not to stifle creativity but to encourage creativity.
If you create something, you don’t want someone else to go and profit from it; you have your right to make a living and everything. So I respect copyright. What I don’t respect is copyright extremism. And I what I don’t respect is a business model that encourages piracy.
I think copyright has its right to exist, absolutely, and I think that it’s up to copyright creators to come up with new solutions that deal with the reality of the world we’re living in today.
No one under international copyright law has the right to depict me or my husband without our consent. I have been surprised by the many people, particularly Americans, who are either writing books or going to produce films about the Mandela family without even bothering to consult us.
In making policy designed with copyright in mind, you end up making decisions about whether other important technologies, such as privacy-enhancing or file-search technologies, should be encouraged or discouraged. A collision is happening between creativity and protecting IP.
Like a film, dance steps or sequences are creative works. If a script can have a copyright, and so can songs, why can’t dance sequences as well?
I think art is the only thing that’s spiritual in the world. And I refuse to forced to believe in other people’s interpretations of God. I don’t think anybody should be. No one person can own the copyright to what God means.
No one has a copyright on working-class struggles.
When you have a group of engineers and designers, they are not exactly the best to deal with copyright law.
We’re on the path of creating monopoly business practices out of copyright law.
In our day the conventional element in literature is elaborately disguised by a law of copyright pretending that every work of art is an invention distinctive enough to be patented.
Vigorous enforcement of copyrights themselves is an important part of the picture. But I don’t think that expanding the legal definition of copyright outside of actual copyright infringement is the right move.
Podcasting is not really that different from streaming music, which we’ve done for quite a long time. Having a traditional podcast that people subscribe to – the hype is ahead of the quality. Podcasting is essentially a download, and you run into copyright issues. What you’re left with currently is podcast talk radio.
You need to recognize that the copyright date on a book reflects when it came out, not when it was written – assume that the information in the book is at least a year older than the copyright date, and possibly two.
Providing free access to research papers on websites like Sci-Hub breaks so-called copyright law that was made to taboo free distribution of information on the Internet. That includes music, movies, documentaries, books, and research articles. Not everyone agrees that copyright law should exist in the first place.
The rights of copyright holders need to be protected, but some draconian remedies that have been suggested would create more problems than they would solve.
Evan Bourne is a ship that has sailed but if he wound up back at WWE, I’m imagine I’d run back to that name because of copyright ownership stuff.
YouTube is the hippest network, and they abuse copyright right and left.
T-Series has invested heavily in monitoring technologies and is very aggressive in protecting its copyright.
We protect monopolies with copyright.
I have always found it interesting… that there are people who regard copyright infringement as a form of flattery.
Up until the final decade of the nineteenth century, the United States and the United Kingdom did not recognize copyright in each other’s creative works.
YouTube is committed to balancing the needs of the fan community with those of copyright holders.
I have always found it interesting… that there are people who regard copyright infringement as a form of flattery.
We’re on the path of creating monopoly business practices out of copyright law.
The absolute transformation of everything that we ever thought about music will take place within 10 years, and nothing is going to be able to stop it. I see absolutely no point in pretending that it’s not going to happen. I’m fully confident that copyright, for instance, will no longer exist in 10 years.
Only one thing is impossible for God: To find any sense in any copyright law on the planet.
YouTube is committed to balancing the needs of the fan community with those of copyright holders.
When in Rome, I must do as the Romans do. When in America, make Bikram copyright and trademark.
In our day the conventional element in literature is elaborately disguised by a law of copyright pretending that every work of art is an invention distinctive enough to be patented.
Congress created a safe harbor for defamation in 1996 and for copyright in 1998. Both safe harbors were designed to ensure that the Internet would remain a participatory medium of speech.
No one has a copyright on working-class struggles.
Providing free access to research papers on websites like Sci-Hub breaks so-called copyright law that was made to taboo free distribution of information on the Internet. That includes music, movies, documentaries, books, and research articles. Not everyone agrees that copyright law should exist in the first place.
The danger in media concentration comes not from the concentration, but instead from the feudalism that this concentration, tied to the change in copyright, produces.
I got the copyright for love!
The absolute transformation of everything that we ever thought about music will take place within 10 years, and nothing is going to be able to stop it. I see absolutely no point in pretending that it’s not going to happen. I’m fully confident that copyright, for instance, will no longer exist in 10 years.
Judges decide upon copyright law. They decide upon trademark law. They decide upon scientific issues. They decide upon very complex technical issues on a daily basis. So you must have confidence in the Supreme Court, that they will apply their mind and they will come out with a decision consistent with the Constitution.
We protect monopolies with copyright.
Copyright is not the thing that makes artists money, it’s only for their brokers and distributors.
When it comes to music, movies, literature, paintings, and even Bikram yoga, it’s pretty easy to have an opinion about whether something has been copied. Software, on the other hand, was an awkward late addition to the original Copyright Act of 1976, shoehorned into section 102(a) as a ‘literary work.’
I am explicitly not opening the giant can of worms that is the ongoing current discussion of patent, copyright, and trademark reform.
In practice, the copyright system does a bad job of supporting authors, aside from the most popular ones. Other authors’ principal interest is to be better known, so sharing their work benefits them as well as readers.
