![]() |
|
| *Home>>>Intellectual Property |
How does downloading music infringe on intellectual property law? |
pleas give examples it does not.. I can argue against it, but they say you are downloading music which someone else created, without purchasing it. Downloading music in and of itself is not wrong. If you paid to download the music, then you're fine. But if you're downloading songs and the artists/record companies are not getting any royalties from it, what you're doing is illegal. It's really no different than if you walked into a store and stole the CD. You're taking music without paying for it. Hence it becomes piracy, and infringes on intellectual property law. Simple. Copyright laws grant sole rights over a creative work (including a musical work) to the owner/creator of the work. Included in those rights is the authority to determine who is allowed to make copies of the work, and who can distribute those copies. Someone worked to make that music/video/software. Play without pay. Intellectual property, such as an individual song, is a product, in the same way that a compact disc is a product. Although you can physically hold a compact disc in you hand and digital music is just ones and zeros in your computer, a digital track on the computer and one on an actual compact disc theoretically have the same value. When music is downloaded through file sharing, or other free methods acquirement, no artist, studio, composer, etc. is rewarded or compensated for their product. When someone buys music, they are paying for the idea, or ideas, that together create songs and albums. When a song or album is created, the ideas are copyrighted under intellectual property protection, similar to books, artwork, computer programs, etc鈥?The list goes on. When people download, through illegal channels, no person in ownership of the idea is 鈥渞ewarded,鈥?and therefore their property protection has been infringed upon. OK - do you think the people who wrote, produced, and recorded the music deserve to be paid for their time and effort? If not, do you think you should be paid for your time and effort at work? If you think you should be paid, and they shouldn't, define the difference. |
| Tags |
| Legal Malpractice Legal Ethics Landlord and Tenants Labor Law Juvenile Law Investment Law Intellectual Property Insurance Law Immigration Law Health Care Law General Civil Litigation Family Law |
| Related information |
No matter what field you are in, basically the paralegal does all the work, and the atty. gets all the money. The paralegal does the research, paperwork, filing, scheduling, etc. All the lawyer... "Imitation" or copying of products, names or even appearance is a complicated area of law. There are whole legal encyclopedias and periodicals devoted to it. You need to see an intellec... Because they arose in different historical periods. First, all western property law starts with feudalism. Under strict feudalism real property ownership did not exist; it was a grant from the lo... The United States had strictly applied the protection of intellectual property rights by punishing the violators. It is a different scenario in China, Malaysia and Philippines where piracy had bee... They COULD bring an acton for violation of their intellectual property if (1) their trademarked items are being "diluted" but unauthorized use; or (2) if the violator is using the item fo... I work in patents and I'm inclined to agree with you, particularly as far as copyright is concerned. A great deal of effort and investment goes into some inventions but the IP protection offe... sometimes it is very hard to defend yourself in intellectual property cases because sometimes there are no tanglible proofs. intellectual property includes the protection of various kinds of inform... If by "defend" you mean that my client would be being sued, I would say intellectual property provides far more opportunities for combatting allegations. FOr example, if, in a real prope... |
Categories--Copyright/IP Policy--Contact Webmaster |