There are three main categories of copyright violation, each best handled in its own way.
Large-scale commercial infringement, such as sites allowing download of current movies, is too big of a money-maker to convince people to voluntarily stop. In this case, civil and criminal prosecution may be the only way to prevent it.
Individuals participating in P2P sharing networks are often doing so because it's easier, cheaper, and more convenient than getting the same materials legally. The best prevention here would be to work to create legal channels with the same flexibility. Note that illegal sharing of music dropped off significantly when iTunes became prevalent.
Individuals unaware that their activities are infringingmay simply need to be educated about how copyright affects them. Both the economic impact and moral issues can be used to explain how infringement hurts artists.
At the moment, rightsholders tend to try to lump all three groups into one pile and treat them the same way, even though this has been proven not to work (DRM is an example of this). They need to acknowledge the differences between mass infringement and a kid with a flash drive.
It would be very difficult to do this due to copyright violations. You should try to think of a unique concept for yourself.
The only person who can legally do anything about copyright infringement is the rights holder or his/her designated agent. That is who you should inform.
I think that we all should the positive thing of this is that there will not be water pollution
I think every country has its human rights violations, they are just dealt with differently according to the way the laws are interpreted.
Copyright is an expensive thing I dont think that they can afford F1 copyright so they gave up
they cannot, people will be people, they never change.
For criminal copyright violations prosecutions are controlled by the respective district US Attorney General.In civil cases prosecution is conducted by the attorney employed by the Plaintiff in the case.
yes, i think its possible. you should research it.
Yes, that what i think. It is to prevent disasters from happening so why not!
I think is quite a big problem!
I think it has something in it that aspirin has...that could prevent clotting for surgery
Personally? I think the creator of a work should receive certain exclusive rights to that work, for a certain amount of time. I happen to think that amount of time should be rolled back appreciably, perhaps to 50 years after the work is made available. I think there should be exceptions for orphan works, standardized agreements, statutory fees, and a centralized database, but that's even less likely.