Any use that violates the owner's exclusive rights to copy, alter, distribute, or perform/display the work, and which is not exempted in the law, would be infringing. Thus:
A copyright protects original material (text, images, audio) recorded in a fixed format. There are two types of copyright, national and international. National copyright only protects original material produced within the country's borders. If your music was produced in the United States, then it is protected under US copyright laws, but not laws of other countries. International copyright, on the other hand, protects your music no matter where it was produced. A European artist can be protected by international copyright laws in the USA, for example.
Copyright infringement in general is copying, altering, or distributing protected material without the permission of the copyright holder. If you have a software license to put a program on one computer and you put it on two, you have infringed the copyright. More details can be found in the End User Licensing Agreement (EULA) of the program.
You will breach copyright laws if you imitate another business. It's impossible for two websites to have the same IP address.
Me? I've photocopied a few things, made a mix CD or two, and watched a television program not available in my country via a clearly illegal stream. Copyright infringement is like speeding: it happens so much, you hardly even notice it...but that doesn't make it right.
There's really only one "cause" of copyright: the desire to encourage creativity by rewarding it.
There are a great many "urban myths" surrounding copyright law but the two most popular are probably... 1) You have to put a copyright notice on a work to protect it (not since 1989) 2) If I don't charge money for it it's not an infringement. (yes it is)
Two options are copycat and copyright.
The date on a copyright notice will indicate one of two things. Either the when copyright became effective (when the work ewas initially finished) or first date of publication.
Originally, No. Now, YesWhether a movie has been released on DVD yet or on the Internet is irrelevant. If it is being distributed in a way notauthorized by the copyright holder, then it's illegal.Project Free TV's original activities were not illegal. Originally, they simply linked to other sites that hosted intellectual property that may have been illegally uploaded. Their activities became illegal for two reasons:They encoded their pages to include the material so that the materials were playing from their pages. By encoding the illegal content, even if it was hosted elsewhere, into their pages, their site became a secondary participant in copyright infringement.They used banner ads and collected money from advertisers. They were therefore profiting from the unlawful posting of intellectual property. Technically, that makes them co-conspirators in the copyright infringement itself. They probably still could have gotten away with this by not actually encoding the banner ads into the pages from which the videos directly played, but they got greedy and screwed themselves.It is also NOT SAFE:I installed players from this website on a fresh windows machine and immediately checked with a virus scanner. I found out:Adware.HotBar.H, comes from VLCSetup.exe and eMuleSetup.exeSrcInject.B.Gen
One of the general uses of proteins in organisms is to work on other molecules. Proteins are also used as a building material for organisms such as skin, nails, and hair.
LCD
absolutely. it's plagiarism. The student is the author and thus legally the owner of the copyright of anything he or she has created-- automatically. If the professor is being paid to infringe copyright of students, that is a federal crime in the USA. It depends on institutional policies. At some universities, anything submitted as a class assignment becomes the copyright of the university; the primary use of this is to have recourse when a student turns in the same paper in two classes, but it would also allow the use you describe. It's not illegal, but it is rude. They have permission to help you have a better concept of the work, yet they should at least ask before they write on your work