copyright infringement

The Cathach of St. Columba, a seventh century book of psalms. Tradition cited it as the book whose illicit transcription by Saint Columba in 560 AD led to the overturn of an Irish copyright ruling by force of arms.^{[citation needed]}

"Copyvio" redirects here. For the Wikipedia term, see .

Copyright infringement (or copyright violation) is the unauthorized use of material which is covered by copyright law, in a manner that violates one of the original copyright owner's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works.

For electronic and audio-visual media, unauthorized reproduction and distribution is occasionally referred to as piracy or theft (an early reference was made by Alfred Tennyson in the preface to his poem "The Lover's Tale" in 1879 where he mentions that sections of this work "have of late been mercilessly pirated"). The legal basis for this usage dates from the same era, and has been consistently applied until the present time.^[1] Critics of the use of the term "piracy" to describe such practices contend that it unfairly equates copyright infringement with more sinister activity, though courts often hold that under law the two terms are interchangeable.^[2]

Methods of copyright infringement

The unlawful downloading of pornography and sharing of recorded music in the form of MP3 and other audio files is more prominent than ever, even after the demise of Napster and a series of infringement suits brought by the American recording industry. Promotional screener DVDs distributed by movie studios (often for consideration for awards) are a common source of unauthorized copying when movies are still in theatrical release, and the MPAA has attempted to restrict their use. Movies are also still copied by someone sneaking a camcorder into a movie theater and secretly taping the projection (also known as "CAM"), although such copies are often of lesser quality than copied versions of the officially released film. Sharing copied music is legal in many countries, such as Canada, and parts of Europe, provided that this information is neither advertised, nor that the songs be sold.

Bootleg recordings are musical recordings that have not been officially released by the artist or their associated management or production companies. They may consist of demos, outtakes or other studio material, or of illicit recordings of live performances. Music enthusiasts may use the term "bootleg" to differentiate these otherwise unavailable recordings from "pirated" copies of commercially released material, but these recordings are still covered by copyright despite their lack of formal release, and their distribution is still against the law.

People illegally selling copyrighted material are known to peddle VCDs, CDs, and DVDs by the roadside, market, night market, Pasar malam, etc. in some countries.^{[citation needed]}

The illegal use of text content is a form of copyright infringement. It is common on the world wide web for text to be copied from one site to another without consent of the author. Roberta Beach Jacobson criticizes the misappropriation of writers' work by websites in her article Copyrights and Wrongs. This article was added to articlestree.com^[3] on November 27, 2001; ironically, it has since been copied to hundreds of websites,^[4] many of them claiming copyright over the work or charging money to access it.

Penalties

Though many jurisdictions impose penalties for certain blatant acts of copyright infringement and may try to stop certain infringing imports at the border, copyright infringement is still mainly prosecuted through private lawsuits by the copyright holder or their exclusive licensees. When successful, these lawsuits will typically impose monetary damages against the infringer as well as injunctions against future infringing uses.

Many infringement claims involve simple cases of copyright infringement where the copying is obvious. Others, however, are more difficult to resolve because the scope of copyright is not limited to exact copying. It is inevitable that creative works will take inspiration from the culture at large, and it is often challenging to determine when this "inspiration" has crossed the line into infringement, especially in the case of musical works. There also may be a question of whether the allegedly infringed work is even covered by copyright. Works which aren't covered may include, for example, compilations of facts that lack the requisite creativity to be covered by copyright, or those works that are in the public domain because the copyright term expired.

Copyright notices—often just a simple statement on the work itself of the year protection was acquired and by whom—are not always a good indication of whether a work is covered by copyright because most countries do not require such formalities, and so lack of notice does not mean it is not copyrighted. Courts may also subsequently decide in the context of an infringement suit that the work did not meet the minimum criteria for being covered by copyright, even if the work had been previously registered by a government or private copyright agency. However, copyright notices give at least some indication of whom to contact if permission is needed, and when a copyright will expire, though the copyright terms of pre-existing works are sometimes legislatively extended (as with the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act) or even restored after expiration (as with the Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection in the European Union).

To avoid infringement claims, the right to make use of a copyrighted work can be acquired through an explicit contract or license with the author or publisher, through purchasing a lawful copy (which may provide a number of rights to the purchaser, as under the first-sale doctrine), and for certain types of media, statutory licenses (such as for reproducing and recording musical works under U.S. copyright law). Even without going through such channels to get prior authorization for use of the copyrighted material, doctrines such as fair use or fair dealing may provide potentially broad defenses to infringement claims. The failure of a copyright holder to bring a timely lawsuit against known infringers may later block such a claim by establishing an implied license, as may other acts or omissions that could informally signal consent to use the work.

Copyright misuse, the exploitive or restrictive use of a copyright by its legal holder, is sometimes informally called reverse piracy.

Justification

It has been suggested that this section be split into a new article entitled Justification of copyright infringement. (Discuss)

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

Copyright holders and pro-copyright organizations commonly release statistics showing their estimated lost revenue due to copyright infringement in an attempt to deter the activity. For example, the MPAA estimated the global cost of the unauthorized copying of films in 2002 was $3.5 billion.^[5] More recently the MPAA estimated that the global cost of unauthorized copying of films in 2005 was $18.2 billion. Many have been critical of these figures, as it is unreasonable to assume that every download of a film represents one fewer movie ticket or DVD being purchased: a person who downloads a film may not necessarily have gone to the theater or have purchased a DVD had the download not been available. Furthermore, there are instances of films benefiting from the exposure, particularly independent and cult films.

In general, there are a number of rationales used by people making "unauthorized" copies of works to philosophically, constitutionally, or morally justify their actions, though not all engaged in the activity do so. Copyright advocates generally dismiss the validity of these claims.

• Many people object to the application of copyright to not for profit (or at a loss) distribution or redistribution of copyrighted works. When copyright was created, it was to prevent book publishers from taking an author's work, publishing it, and making profits from the sales of that work without giving a cent back to the author. However, when financial gain isn't involved, as in peer-to-peer file sharing, many feel that copyright is absurd, as no one is truly gaining from the distribution, because ideas, which copyright "protects", are naturally free, just as speech is naturally free—unless the creator of the ideas chooses to keep them secret and outside of public knowledge and distribution. In a similar vein, some argue that since sharing a copy of their data costs nothing, it would be unethical to not share when someone else asks for a copy.
• Copyright infringement is sometimes claimed as a form of boycott. For example, selective copying of music published by major record labels can be used to protest the low percentage of total record sales that is paid back to artists.
• With the try before you buy mentality, if a downloaded album, film or piece of software is deemed useful the person will then buy it, otherwise it is deleted.
• Conversely, some choose to download only those products which they would otherwise be unable to afford, reasoning that in so doing they do not damage any company's profits.
• Many legal products are unavailable in parts of the world, as they are often too expensive for most of the local population to afford. In much of the third world, even people who could normally afford to buy legitimate products can't do so, as unauthorised versions are the only versions available.
• The free spread of media stimulates the industry both by creating new artists and exposing new people to current artists.
• Musicians tend to make the bulk of their profits from concerts, rather than the low percentage of sales given to them by their recording companies. Increased exposure is likely to lead to more people going to see live music and therefore, indirectly, copyright infringement might lead to greater profits for the actual artists.

Copyright advocates point to an economic argument called the free rider problem to explain the moral downside to copyright infringement. This argument is usually used by economists to describe the disadvantage of collective action because even when use of a product has no cost to the companies associated with its production as theft does, it is claimed that the lack of financial contribution from the person infringing the copyright reduces the company's incentive to continue development. ^{[citation needed]}

Sample Troll

Recently, certain companies have been purchasing portfolios of old music copyrights for the express purpose of enforcing those rights when a musician samples said old music for a new composition. These companies have been referred to by the pejorative term "Sample Troll." Their role in copyrights is seen to be analogous to the role of so called patent trolls in the patent arena.^[6]

Worldwide collaboration to fight copyright infringement

Servers enabling internet-based copyright infringement are often based in countries with less strict copyright laws or enforcement history.^[7][8][9] BPI spokesman Matt Phillips has said the lax copyright laws in Eastern Europe and the post-Soviet countries made it hard to crack down on copyright infringement there.^[10] Copyright holders are collaborating to fight this activity, through lobbying governments and other means.

• Russia agrees with US request to shut down allofmp3.com.^[11]
• China signs Memorandum of Understanding to help fight online copyright infringement with US Media Association.^[12]

Legality

An information film included on many DVDs equates piracy with theft of cars.

In most jurisdictions, copyright infringement may be established by reproduction of the copyrighted work. This reproduction can often be shown by the presence of an authorized electronic copy of the work on a server. Most common defenses to copyright infringement, such as the First-sale doctrine and Fair use, do not fare well in courts.

The first sale doctrine is a defense to infringement of the distribution right. It permits a lawful purchaser of a copyrighted work to resell or otherwise dispose of it. This, however, is not a defense to the reproduction right.

In addition, fair use is an equitable defense, but its application will vary greatly depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. Most courts apply some form of balancing test examining the scope of infringement, the effect on the copyright owner's rights (e.g. his or her ability to sell the work), the amount of the work copied, and the purpose of the infringement. Courts have been somewhat hostile to defendants asserting non-commercial use. In small-scale cases, courts are more receptive to arguments regarding the effect on the copyright owner's market.

With the passage of the so-called No Electronic Theft Act (NET Act), US copyright law was changed to allow for the civil and criminal prosecution of persons allegedly engaged in copying of copyrighted works without permission that did not result in personal financial gain; historically, the criminal copyright law required infringement to be for financial gain. Among other things, the NET Act altered the definition of financial gain to include bartering and trading. In addition, under this US law, members of warez groups could also be prosecuted for participation in a criminal enterprise.

British law

In British Law, any modification of data stored on a computer so that unauthorised access is gained to software packages, games, movies, and music would be a criminal offence under §3 Computer Misuse Act 1990. So, if a read-only music CD is placed in a PC drive and the contents loaded into the computer's memory for playing, any crack that allows the music to be copied and stored on the machine or an MP3 player would commit the offence in theory but, so far, there have been no prosecutions on this set of facts. More generally, §16 and 20 Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988 (as amended by the Copyright, However this does grant the right to create backup copies of software, so that the original can be kept safe from damage, technically meaning companies must provide either additional discs or the means to overcome any copy protection. and Trade Marks (Offences and Enforcement) Act 2002) cover copyrighted materials, and people who distribute and download copyrighted recordings without permission are liable to face civil actions for damages and penalties (the largest to date is £6,500, or $12,120.55). As in the United States, the enforcement agencies were able to identify the IP addresses and the ISPs were obliged to disclose the name and address of the owner of each such internet account but legislation was passed recently so that it isn't compulsory to hand over the information.^{[citation needed]}

Criminal offences

For the most part, the criminal law is only used for commercial copyright infringement with one exception, and an offence is committed when, knowing or reasonably suspecting that the files are illegal copies, and without the permission of the copyright owner, a person:

• makes unauthorised copies e.g. burning music files or films on to CD-Rs or DVD-Rs;
• distributes, sells or hires out unauthorised copies of CDs, VCDs and DVDs;
• on a larger scale, distributes unauthorised copies as a commercial enterprise on the internet;
• possesses unauthorised copies with a view to distributing, selling or hiring these to other people;
• while not dealing commercially, distributes unauthorised copies of software packages, books, music, games, and films on such a scale as to have a measurable impact on the copyright owner's business.
• publishing someone else's original copy work and claiming you have made it. (This is known as plagiarism and is completely different to copyright infringement, but laws concerning it come under the section of copyright law in some countries)
• Certain copyrights allow Archival copies of software to be made however these are not to be distributed.

The penalties for these "copyright infringement" offences depend on the seriousness of the offences:

• before a magistrates' Court, the penalties for distributing unauthorised files are a maximum fine of £5,000 and/or six months imprisonment;
• in the Crown Court, the penalties for distributing unauthorised files are an unlimited fine and/or up to 10 years imprisonment.

Also note §24 Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 which creates a range of offences relating to the distribution of any device, product or component which is primarily designed, produced, or adapted for the purpose of enabling or facilitating the circumvention of effective technological measures. When this is for non-commercial purposes, it requires there to be a measurable effect on the rights holder's business.

See also

For a substantial discussion of copyright infringement in the domain of computer programs, see copyright infringement of software.

• Anti-copyright
• Copyright
• United States copyright law
• United States civil copyright enforcement procedure
• United States Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act
• Intellectual Property
• Copyleft
• Bootleg recording
• P2P legal controversy
• IFPI (International Federation of Phonogram and Videogram Producers}
• Home taping is killing music
• Warez
• FTA Receiver
• Plagiarism
• Counterfeit
• DADVSI (French law on copyright, voted by the National Assembly in March 2006; implementation of the 2001 EU Copyright directive, with some modifications)
• You can click, but you can't hide
• Copyright commandeering
• Ripping music from Radio broadcasts
• Intellectual property violation in the People's Republic of China

References

External links

• Movie and Record Industry Piracy Figures Incendiary, But Not Fact. - June 2006 MP3 Newswire article challenges inflated copyright infringement claims by media companies
• A 2000 Salon.com article by Courtney Love addressing copyright infringement of music
• A 2003 article on CD Piracy in China from the music webzine www.CLUAS.com
• A 2001 reprint of two speeches given by Thomas Macaulay in Parliament in 1841, when the issue of copyright was being hammered out.
• An example of a MPAA lawsuit letter
• An article for students explaining the difference between plagiarism and copyright infringement
• Automated Copyright Infringement Detection
• Willful Infringement: Mickey and Me The story of Jed Horovitz and his legal dispute with the Disney Corporation
• http://www.penetrationtest.com/whistle.php - Whistleblower - Scan your NNTP news provider for the presence of unauthorised copies of music, movies or software
• US Copyright Office
• How to protect your copyright on digital files
• The Death of Piracy
• 6 Step System To Stop People From Stealing Your Website Content

Donate to Wikimedia