Creative Work: Ownership, Protection and the Current Issues

Intellectual Property

Assignment #2

By: Samir Suri

CCT 260

Due: November 16^th, 2006

Introduction

Intellectual property, in the form of creative works, is used to communicate and educated others within a society. A creative work can be literature, artwork, music, broadcast, or even a design. It plays an important role in today’s society and is evident everywhere; therefore, it is important to protect creative work. What are the current issues that set back creative works and have placed many artists and industries on a threshold? One answer to this is the escalating issue of piracy. As creative work continues to shape society, it is imperative to understand how one can sustain ownership of creative work and how piracy negatively affects it, the various solutions to protect one’s creative works, and explore whether the concept of intellectual property exists and illustrate why one should benefit from their creative work.

Ownership and Piracy

With the globalization of the World Wide Web and the rapid growth of people connecting to the internet, there has been an increasing issue regarding protection of intellectual property. Due to piracy and other similar issues, it is vital to understand copyright and how it plays a key role in supporting and protecting intellectual property.

Copyright can be defined as an “original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression”(Copyright Law of the United States of America). When one copyrights a work, they are given several rights. These include the right to reproduce work, the right to sell, to rent, to lease, to distribute copies to the public, to perform and display the works publicly and to prepare derivative works base on the copyrighted work (Copyright Law of the United States of America). In Canada, copyright work is protected over an author’s lifetime, plus 50 years after death. When one violates these rights they are “infringing” on copyrighted works. The law states that copyright infringement occurs when one uses a work, without permission from the creator, and uses it with the same rights as the creator (Updates to Justice Laws Web Site). The concept of copyright has been altered with the increase of digitization. Digitization is “the process of translating data into digital form (binary coded files for use in computers) including scanning images, sampling sound, and converting text on paper into text in computer files” (What is Digitization). Moving forward, it is critical to analyze whether the impact of digitization has negatively affected ownership and increased piracy.

Firstly, the impact of digitization has increased awareness of new works. For instance, some musicians use the internet to promote new music by offering samples at no charge from their websites. However, other musicians are having their rights “infringed” or “pirated” by having their works are being offered at no charge without their consent. Piracy is a growing issue in today’s technologically advancing society. Music, video, and games are being illegally copied and sold at reduced prices all over the world. There has been an increase in disputes dealing with copyright infringement brought to court by many established musicians and music companies. How are their works being infringed? With the use of the internet, creative works are now more accessible. Many online subscribers obtain written, music, video and other works at no charge, and share these works with other people. Digitization has allowed for copies of works to be reproduced at low costs, while still holding the quality level. For this reason, piracy has dramatically increased.

Added to this, there are several software programs that incorporate “port-to-port” sharing which ultimately is an open door for piracy. For example, a company by the name of “Grokster,” provided a port-to-port “file sharing” software program called Morpheus. Using this software, one was able to download music at no cost – which infringed on copyright works (U.S. Supreme Court Center). Similarly, one can not forget the notorious Napster – where they too had a method of illegally distributing works, violating copyright. As the impact of digitization increases, several industries and artists are suffering. Creating stronger laws to govern infringement and piracy helps to hinder the process, however, does not eliminate it.

What is being done to Protect Intellectual Property?

It is important to examine what has and is being done in North America, in order to compensate the industries and artists. The governments, in both Canada and the USA, have modified their copyright acts and have added several new ones.

There have been several copyright laws enacted that have begun, “closing the loophole.” One of these includes the “No Electronic Theft Act” in the USA, which has been in effective since 1997. Prior to this act, criminal piracy cases could only be brought to the courts if the infringer made profits. Now however, piracy can be prevented because it allows cases to be brought in even if no profits have yet been made (The No Electronic Theft ("NET") Act). Another act that has been implemented is “The Audio Home Recording Act,” which was created in 1992. The increase in music piracy had led to royalties being charged on digital recording devices (Hall). Specifically, a royalty tax, of up to $8 per recording device and 3% of blank CDs, is charged. Similarly, in Canada, the Copyright Act of 1997 had been modified to permit copying of a sound recording for private use (Government Statement on Proposals for Copyright Reform). Finally, the “Digital Millennium Copyright Act,” created in 1998, was designed to make online service providers less liable for copyright infringement made by their users and as a result, heighten the penalty of copyright infringement on the internet (The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998).

It is imperative that government’s continuously update the law to compensate for the changes that occur in society due to new technology. It is also important to understand where these laws and acts apply, because copyright protection may not transfer into other countries. “Copyright protection across several nations can be provided [because of] many international copyright conventions” (Weir, 515.). Given that it has been difficult to protect industries and artists because of the different laws across the globe, organizations, such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), have brought countries together in order to follow a universal belief of protecting the creators and promoting more creative works. Examples of these conventions include, the Berne Convention and the Uruguay Round – where the WTO created the TRIPS Agreement in order to help close the gaps by creating international rules (Intellectual Property: Protection and Enforcement).

Copyright laws and acts are systematically being changed in order to protect creative works and prevent infringement before it occurs, on a global level. The North American governments are learning from yesterday’s mistakes, in order to correct them tomorrow.

Does the concept of Intellectual Property still exist? And should one benefit from their creation?

Intellectual property is something that is produced through mental activity. In order to motivate people to create new inventions and different works, they must have a sense of security that their work will be protected and that they too can benefit from it. This can be accomplished through laws and conventions.

Some people believe Intellectual Property no longer exists because of open source. This is not true. In order for one to conclude that this is true, open source must have yielded product development and decreased the growth of intellectual property. In contrast, open source provides freedom; a freedom to innovate, and encourages growth of products that may have never be developed (Silverberg). Focus upon the following quote by Brad Silverburg, co-founder of Ignition Partners, “open source optimizes the creation of Intellectual Property to focus on the problems that pain customers the most” (Silverberg). Sometimes, there are not large enough markets for specific software. Open source allows for the coding of that software to be publicly available. By doing so, this encourages further developments and improves the software based on the most current needs. Intellectual property is developing everyday and is definitely not near its ending stages. Since open source allows for individuals to freely modify and develop creative work derived from the past, it is now important to examine whether one should benefit from a creation.

One should financially and mentally benefit from their creation. In today’s society creative works allow for competitiveness and can be used as a tool to educate others, which in turn, can enhance society as a whole. When one implements or produces creative work through “mental activity” (Eder) they should take credit for it. There are several reasons why one should take credit; firstly, one spends time and effort into creating a work. Secondly, there is an economic incentive – when one’s time is used to create a work, they may financially benefit in the future. Lastly, one should morally benefit from a creation – one should have the right to control the use of their creation and as a result, should be paid for it. For these reasons, it is vital for one to protect ideas and copyright creative work in order to be paid for it.

Conclusion

The economy is fueled by entrepreneurs, who have the creative mind to produce new innovations. These innovations can help to benefit that individual economically, socially, and/or emotionally. We live in an era where the World Wide Web is accessible by anybody, anywhere, at anytime, and therefore it is important to regulate the passing of information. By creating laws to help govern and protect intellectual property, people will be encouraged to bring their creative ideas to life. When one creates new work, they are contributing to society; a society that is information driven, a society where creative works has the ability to enhance ones life. Why would one continue to create works if there were no benefit? What would society be like without new creative works?

Works Cited

"Copyright Law of the United States of America." Library of Congress. 11 Nov. 2006 <http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html>.

Eder, E. "Intellectual Property." E.Eder & Co. 2004. 11 Nov. 2006 <http://www.intellectual-property.co.uk/ipgen-02.htm>.

"Government Statement on Proposals for Copyright Reform." Canadian Heritage. 24 Mar. 2005. 12 Nov. 2006 <http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/progs/pda-cpb/reform/statement_e.cfm>.

Hall, Tia. "Music Piracy and the Audio Home Recording Act." Duke Law & Technology Review 20 Nov. 2002. 30 Jan. 2006 <http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2002dltr0023.html>.

"Intellectual Property: Protection and Enforcement." World Trade Organization. 11 Nov. 2006 <http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/agrm7_e.htm>.

Silverberg, Brad. "Intellectual Property in the Era of Open Source." CNet. 19 July 2006. 12 Nov. 2006 <http://news.com.com/Intellectual+property+in+the+era+of+open+source/2010-7344_3-6095419.html>.

"The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998." United States Copyright Office. Dec. 1998. Library of Congress. 11 Nov. 2006 <http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf>.

"The No Electronic Theft ("NET") Act." CCIPS. 18 Feb. 1998. 11 Nov. 2006 <http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/17-18red.htm>.

"Updates to Justice Laws Web Site." Department of Justice Canada. 28 Mar. 2006. 12 Nov. 2006 <http://laws.justice.gc.ca/cgi-bin/notice.pl?redirect=/en/C-42/126289.html.>.

“U.S. Supreme Court Center.” Justia. 27 June 2005. 31 Jan. 2006 <http://www.justia.us/us/545/04-480/case.html>.

Weir, Jan D. et al. Critical Concepts of Canadian Business. 3^rd Ed. Toronto: Pearson, 2004.

"What is Digitization? a Glossary." CLRCNet. 11 Nov. 2006 <http://www.midyork.org/Home/Search/digitization_glossary.html>.