Notice: Undefined index: HTTP_ACCEPT_LANGUAGE in /var/www/sites/default/classes/languagesClass.php5 on line 52 Notice: Undefined index: HTTP_ACCEPT_LANGUAGE in /var/www/sites/default/classes/languagesClass.php5 on line 54 Notice: Undefined index: HTTP_ACCEPT_LANGUAGE in /var/www/sites/default/classes/languagesClass.php5 on line 56 Notice: Undefined index: HTTP_ACCEPT_LANGUAGE in /var/www/sites/default/classes/languagesClass.php5 on line 58 Notice: Undefined index: HTTP_ACCEPT_LANGUAGE in /var/www/sites/default/classes/languagesClass.php5 on line 60 Copyright infringement


... And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free ... John 8.32
The number of registered new users today: 811
The number of registered files today: 491
Copyright infringement
Copyright infringement

Copyright infringement
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.[1]

An advertisement for copyright and patent preparation services from 1906, when copyright registration formalities were still required in the US.
Copyright infringement (or copyright violation) is the unauthorized or prohibited use of works covered by copyright law, in a way that violates one of the 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 also commonly referred to as piracy. An early reference to piracy in the context of copyright infringement was made by Daniel Defoe in 1703 when he said of his novel The True-Born Englishman that "Its being Printed again and again, by Pyrates".[2] The practice of labeling the act of infringement as "piracy" predates statutory copyright law. Prior to the Statute of Anne 1709, the Stationers' Company of London in 1557 received a Royal Charter giving the company a monopoly on publication and tasking it with enforcing the charter. Those who violated the charter were labeled pirates as early as 1603.[3]
The legal basis for this usage dates from the same era, and has been consistently applied until the present time.[4][5] Critics of the use of the term "piracy" to describe such practices contend that it is pejorative and unfairly equates copyright infringement with more sinister activity.[6]
Contents [hide]
1 Common examples
1.1 Musical works
1.2 TV and film
1.3 Text
2 Worldwide collaboration to fight copyright infringement
3 Legality
3.1 Infringement suit in U.S. law
3.1.1 Defenses to infringement
3.1.2 Remedies
3.1.3 Amendments to the 1976 Copyright Act
3.2 British law
3.2.1 Criminal offences
3.3 Canadian law
4 Comparison to theft
5 See also
6 References
7 Further reading
8 External links
[edit]Common examples

[edit]Musical works
Duplication of a CD or other recorded media containing copyright material without permission of the copyright holder may be a form of copyright infringement, dependent on local laws.
Unauthorized downloading of copyrighted material and sharing of recorded music over the Internet, often in the form of MP3 files, is another form of infringement, even after the demise of Napster and a series of infringement suits brought by the RIAA.
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.[citation needed]
Sampling of copyrighted music for use in other works without permission is also a form of copyright infringement.
[edit]TV and film
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 "camming"), although such copies are often of lesser quality than DVD. Some copyright owners have responded to infringement by displaying warning notices on commercially sold DVDs; these warnings do not always give a fair picture of the purchaser's legal rights, which in the US generally include the rights to sell, exchange, rent or lend a purchased DVD.
The unauthorized use of text content can be 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[7] on November 27, 2001; ironically, it has since been copied to hundreds of websites,[8] many of them claiming copyright over the work or charging money to access it.
[edit]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.[9][10][11] 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.[12] Copyright holders are collaborating to fight this activity, through lobbying governments and other means.
In November 2006, the USTR announces that Russia has agreed to shut down[13]
In December 2006, AllofMP3 announces that they to continue to operate legally and comply with all Russian laws.[14]
In August 2007, Denis Kvasov, head of the company which owned, is acquitted of all charges of copyright infringement.[15]
China signs Memorandum of Understanding to help fight online copyright infringement with US Media Association.[16] See Music copyright infringement in the People's Republic of China.

An unskippable anti-piracy film included on movie DVDs equates copyright infringement with theft.

Two "strikingly similar" plush toys; infringement established. Appendix page 1 Ty, Inc. v. GMA Accessories, Inc. 132 F.3d 1167, 1174 (7th Cir. 1997).
The most important international treaty concerning copyright infringement is the Berne Convention of 1886 as amended. The United States became the 80th signatory of the treaty with the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, over 100 years after the passage of the original treaty in Paris. The reason for the delay was the unwillingness of the U.S. to accept the recognition of moral rights in article 6bis of the Berne Convention. Moral rights enable a copyright holder to "object to any distortion, mutilation, or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation."[17] The U.S. expressly stated in the Implementation Act that no other right (i.e. the 1st Amendment) shall be impacted by acceptance of the Convention. Literary criticism and parody are important parts of the US infringement defense of fair use. Consequently, the US provides less protection from infringement of moral rights than other Berne signatories.
[edit]Infringement suit in U.S. law
U.S. law requires a copyright holder to establish ownership of a valid copyright and the copying of constituent elements of the work that are original.[18] Assuming the plaintiff proves ownership of a valid copyright, the holder must then establish both actual copying and improper appropriation of the work. The burden lies with the plaintiff to establish these three elements in what is known as the prima facie case for infringement.
Element Description
Ownership of a valid copyright A plaintiff establishes ownership by authorship (by the plaintiff itself or by one who assigned rights to the plaintiff) of (1) an original work of authorship that is (2) fixed in a tangible medium (e.g. a book or musical recording). Registration is not required for copyright itself, but in most cases is a jurisdictional requirement to bring the suit. Registration is also useful because it gives rise to the presumption of a valid copyright, and eliminates the innocent infringement defense, and (if timely made) it allows the plaintiff to elect statutory damages, and to be eligible for a possible award of attorney fees.
Works that are not sufficiently original, or which constitute facts, a method or process cannot enjoy copy protection.[19] U.S. Courts do not recognize the "sweat of the brow" doctrine, which originally allowed protection for those who labored to collect and organize facts. To combat this, business which assemble databases of information have relied on contract law where copyright law offers no protection.[20] For a work to be original, it must possess a "modicum of creativity", which is a "low threshold" although some creativity must exist.[21]
Copyright protects the fixed expression of ideas, but not the ideas themselves.[22] (Ideas are protected by patents). Nevertheless, an expression must exist in a fixed tangible medium.[23] A movie script writer who discusses a plot idea which has not yet been written would not be protected if another heard his idea and wrote a screenplay himself. Whether RAM constitutes a "fixed medium" is a contentious issue in copyright litigation because of the transitory nature of RAM.[24]
Actual copying A plaintiff establishes actual copying with direct or indirect evidence. Direct evidence is satisfied either by a defendant's admission to copying or the testimony of witnesses who observed the defendant in the act. More commonly, a plaintiff relies on circumstantial or indirect evidence. A court will infer copying by a showing of a "striking similarity" between the copyrighted work and the alleged copy, along with a showing of both access and use of that access.[25] A plaintiff may establish access by proof of distribution over a large geographical area, or by eyewitness testimony that the defendant owned a copy of the protected work. Access alone is not sufficient to establish infringement. The plaintiff must show a similarity between the two works, and the degree of similarity will affect the probability that illicit copying in fact occurred in the court's eyes.[26] Even then, the plaintiff must show that the copying amounted to improper appropriation. Indeed, the US Supreme Court has held that not all copying constitutes infringement and a showing of misappropriation is necessary.[27]
Misappropriation A copyrighted work may contain elements which are not copyrightable, such as facts, ideas, themes, or content in the public domain. A plaintiff alleging misappropriation must first demonstrate that what the defendant appropriated from the copyrighted work was protectible. Second, a plaintiff must show that the intended audience will recognize substantial similarities between the two works. The intended audience may be the general public, or a specialized field. The degree of similarity necessary for a court to find misappropriation is not easily defined. Indeed, "the test for infringement of a copyright is of necessity vague."[28] Two methods are used to determine if unlawful appropriation has occurred: the subtractive method and the totality method.
The subtractive method, also known as the "abstraction/subtraction approach" seeks to analyze what parts of a copyrighted work are protectible and which are not.[29] The unprotected elements are subtracted and the fact finder then determines whether substantial similarities exist in the protectible expression which remains. For instance, if the copyright holder for West Side Story alleged infringement, the elements of that musical borrowed from Romeo and Juliet would be subtracted before comparing it to the allegedly infringing work because Romeo and Juliet exists in the public domain.
The totality method, also known as the "total concept and feel" approach takes the work as a whole with all elements included when determining if a substantial similarity exists.[30] The individual elements of the alleged infringing work may by themselves be substantially different from their corresponding part in the copyrighted work, but nevertheless taken together be a clear misappropriation of copyrightable material.[31]
Modern courts may sometimes use both methods in its analysis of misappropriation.[32] In other instances, one method may find misappropriation while the other would not, making misappropriation a contentious topic in infringement litigation.[33]
[edit]Defenses to infringement
A defendant in an infringement action may rebut the presumption of copying by a showing of independent creation. It is possible for an author to create a work independently while bearing similarities to another. If access is not established, there is no copying, even if there is a striking similarity between the two works.[34] For this reason, corporations will destroy or return unsolicited mailings from authors as a policy.[35]
The legal doctrine of de minimis non curat lex, "the law does not care about trivial things", provides a de minimis copying defense against infringement. When the plaintiff establishes only a trivial use of the copyrighted work by the defendant, there is no infringement. For example, an out-of-focus copyrighted picture appearing only momentarily in the background of a commercial is not infringement.[36] The Beastie Boys successfully used this defense in a lawsuit over the use of three musical notes in the song "Pass the Mic."[37] The Beastie Boys had obtained a license to use the recording, but the rights to the song itself were retained by the original composer. The court held that use of three notes was not a sufficient use and amounted to de minimis copying. However, the Sixth Circuit has held that the de minimis defense is not available for the sampling of sound recordings because of their intrinsic value in saving the sampler time and costs in hiring musicians to perform the music however short.[38]
The two most important defenses to copyright infringement are the first sale doctrine and fair use.
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.
Fair use is an affirmative defense, but its application will vary greatly depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. Courts apply a four part 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 held that a non-commercial use is not fair use when it has a substantial market effect. In cases with a small-scale impact, courts are more receptive to arguments regarding the effect on the copyright owner's market or potential market. Fair use is used mainly in the United States. Other common law jurisdictions have the more rigidly defined defence of fair dealing, while civil law jurisdictions also have similar defences.
Once copyright infringement has been proven, United States law permits both equitable (injunction) and monetary damages.
If the copyright was registered in a timely manner, an infringer can be liable for "statutory damages". The amount of these are set by the Court within a range given by statute, and it is not necessary to prove specific economic harm. This can greatly reduce the cost and uncertainty of the damage phase of a trial. Absent eligibility for statutory damages, the copyright holder must prove that specific amount of economic damage caused by the infringement, so that the Court can award it.[citation needed] This can be difficult in e.g. open source software cases and cases involving works by individual authors that were not widely published.[who?]
[edit]Amendments to the 1976 Copyright Act
With the passage of the 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 software piracy groups could also be prosecuted for participation in a criminal enterprise.
[edit]British law
The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, as amended by the Copyright and Trade Marks (Offences and Enforcement) Act 2002,[39] currently protects copyrighted materials. People who distribute and download copyrighted recordings without permission are liable to face civil actions for damages and penalties. As in the United States, it is possible to identify the IP addresses and the ISPs were obliged to disclose the name and address of the owner of each such internet account.
The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 amended the CDPA to provide an additional right of performers to require consent before making copies of their performances available to the public by electronic transmission.[40]
A survey carried out in 2006 for the National Consumer Council indicated that over half of British adults infringe copyright law by copying and ripping music CDs, with 59% stating a belief that copying for personal use is legal.[41] However, ripping music from CDs to another format, such as MP3, is currently illegal. In 2006 The Institute for Public Policy Research called for a "public right to copy".[42] In January 2008 the government proposed changes to copyright law that would legalise copying for personal use.[43]
British Copyright law has been criticised as needlessly strict and out of date by consumer advocacy groups. In a 2009 study Consumers International found it the least consumer-friendly from all 16 countries whose laws they examined, due to the aforementioned illegality of copying purely for personal benefit.[44]
[edit]Criminal offences
Acts that may be criminal offences in the UK include:
Making copies for the purpose of selling or hiring them to others[45]
Importing infringing copies (except for personal use)[46]
Offering for sale or hire, publicly displaying or otherwise distributing infringing copies in the course of a business[47]
Distributing a large enough number of copies to have a noticeable effect on the business of the copyright owner[48]
Making or possessing equipment for the purposes of making infringing copies in the course of a business[49]
Publicly performing a work in knowledge that the performance is unauthorised[50]
Communicating copies or infringing the right to "make available" copies to the public (either in the course of a business, or to an extent that has a noticeable effect on the business of the copyright owner)[51]
Manufacturing commercially, importing for non-personal use, possessing in the course of a business, or distributing to an extent that has a noticeable effect on the business of the copyright holder, a device primarily designed for circumventing a technological copyright protection measure.[52]
The penalties for these copyright infringement offences depend on the seriousness of the offences, and may include:
Before a magistrates' Court, the penalties for distributing unauthorised files are a maximum fine of £5,000 and/or six months imprisonment;
On indictment (in the Crown Court) some offences may attract an unlimited fine and up to 10 years imprisonment.[53]
[edit]Canadian law
Sharing copied music is legal in some countries, such as Canada and The Netherlands (downloading only),[54][55] provided that the songs are not sold.
[edit]Comparison to theft

Further information: Dowling v. United States (1985)
Copyright infringement is often equated with theft, for instance in the title of the No Electronic Theft Act of 1997, in Vice President Joe Biden's 2010 statement in an official speech showcasing the Obama-administration IP policy that "file-sharing is theft", and in the Digital Britain report which calls it "effectively a civil form of theft"[56]; but in fact it has major legal differences.
Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft, holding, for instance, in the United States Supreme Court case Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not (for the purpose of the case) constitute stolen property, and writing:
interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: ... 'an infringer of the copyright.' ...
The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over the copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use. While one may colloquially link infringement with some general notion of wrongful appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.
—Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207, pp. 217–218
The key distinction generally drawn, as indicated above, is that while copyright infringement may (or may not) cause economic loss to the copyright holder, as theft does, it does not appropriate a physical object, nor deprive the copyright holder of the use of the copyright. That information can be replicated without destroying an original is an old observation,[57] and a cornerstone of intellectual property law. In economic terms, information is not a rival good; this has led some to argue that it is very different in character, and that laws for physical property and intellectual property should be very different.[58]
[edit]See also

For a substantial discussion of copyright infringement in the domain of computer programs, see copyright infringement of software.
Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement
Bootleg recording
Chan Nai-ming
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
Copyright Directive, EU law on copyright
DADVSI, French implementation
Copyrighted content on file sharing networks
Counterfeit money
Digital Millennium Copyright Act
Digital rights management
Don't Copy That Floppy
Entertainment Law
Fair use
Federation Against Copyright Theft
Field v. Google
FTA receiver
Home Taping is Killing Music
IFPI (International Federation of Phonogram and Videogram Producers)
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
Intellectual property
Intellectual property infringement in the People's Republic of China
List of copyright case law
Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act in the United States
Copyright Infringement - Selling term papers
Radio music ripping
Triad (underground societies)
United States copyright law
United States Secret Service
World Anti-Piracy Observatory
You can click, but you can't hide

^ "The Cathach / The Psalter of St. Columba". Royal Irish Academy. 2008-01-30. Retrieved 2010-03-19.
^ Oxford English Dictionary
^ T. Dekker Wonderfull Yeare 1603 University of Oregon
^ See Berne Copyright Convention, 1886: "Pirated works may be seized on importation into those countries of the Union where the original work enjoys legal protection." (Art. 12).
^ See also Massachusetts Circuit Court Folsom v. Marsh, 1841: "If so much is taken, that the value of the original is sensibly diminished, or the labors of the original author are substantially to an injurious extent appropriated by another, that is sufficient, in point of law, to constitute a piracy pro tanto."
^ Some Confusing or Loaded Words and Phrases that are Worth Avoiding, Free Software Foundation
^ Jacobson, Roberta Beach (2001-11-27). "Copyrights and Wrongs". Retrieved 2007-04-07.
^ "Results 1 - 10 of about 371 for "Roberta Beach Jacobson" "Copyrights and Wrongs"". Retrieved 2007-04-07.
^ Isenberg, Doug (2002-09-04). "Is this the way to fight copyright infringement?". Retrieved 2007-02-05.
^ "'Korean Wave' piracy hits music industry". BBC. 2001-11-09. Retrieved 2007-02-05.
^ "Pakistan - copyright piracy hub". BBC. 2005-05-03. Retrieved 2007-02-05.
^ "Music piracy in UK soars". BBC. 2002-12-18. Retrieved 2007-02-05.
^ Natali Del Conte (2006-11-28). "Russia Agrees To US Request To Shut Down". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2007-02-05.
^ Thomas Mennecke, Slyck News (2006-12-27). " Responds to RIAA Lawsuit". Slyck News. Retrieved 2010-03-19.
^ James Kilner (2007-08-15). "Russian court acquits music site owner". Reuters. Retrieved 2010-03-19.
^ IPTV Guy. "Chinese Government promises to help fight online piracy". Web TV Wire. Retrieved 2007-02-05.
^ see Berne Convention Article 6, bis
^ see Feist v. Rural Telephone 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991)
^ see Feist v. Rural Telephone 499 U.S. 340 (1991) (holding that an arrangement of telephone numbers in alphabetical order was not sufficiently original to garner copyright protection)
^ see e.g., ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996) (holding that a software license agreement was not preempted by copyright law and could legally restrain the purchaser of a database from copying under contract law).
^ Feist at 346.
^ see Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1880)
^ see Midway Manufacturing Co. v. Artic International, Inc. 574 F.Supp. 999, aff'd, 704 F.2d 1009 (7th Cir 1982) (holding the computer ROM of Pac Man to be a sufficient fixation even though the game changes each time played.)
^ see Mai Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer Inc., 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993) (program in RAM memory a fixation).
^ see Ty, Inc. v. GMA Accessories, Inc. 132 F.3d 1167 (7th Cir. 1997).
^ Id. 132 F.3d 1167
^ see Feist at 361
^ Judge Learned Hand, Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Martin Weiner Corp., 274 F.2d 487, 489 (2nd Cir. 1960).
^ see Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F.2d 119 (2nd Cir. 1930)
^ see Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co., 429 F.2d 1106 (9th Cir. 1970).
^ see Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 562 F.2d 1157 (9th Cir. 1977) (holding that a series of McDonald's commercials portraying "McDonaldland" had used as its basis the "H.R. Pufnstuf" television show. Corresponding characters to each, while displaying marked differences, taken altogether demonstrated that McDonald's had captured the total concept and feel of the show and had thus infringed).
^ see Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group, 150 F.3d 132, 140 (2nd Cir. 1998).
^ see Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693, (2nd Cir. 1992) (where court chose the subtraction method for two computer programs whose total concept were the same. Individual copied elements of the program were non-protectible material because they constituted a process or idea in the program, their utilitarian aspects barring copyright protection; no infringement found).
^ see Selle v. Gibb 741 F.2d 896 (7th Cir. 1984) (court held no infringement in The Bee Gees' song, "How Deep is Your Love" despite similarity to the melody of an unreleased song from an unknown composer).
^ see Takeall v. Pepsico, Inc., 14 F.3d 596 (4th Cir. 1993)(unpublished opinion; brief of appellee page 9) (Ventriloquist performer who coined phrase "You got the right one, uh-huh" sued PepsiCo over similar phrase in Ray Charles commercials. Performer had sent an unsolicited promotional package to Pepsi, which was not forwarded to marketing executives).
^ Gordon v. Nextel Communications 345 F.3d 922 (6th Cir.).
^ Newton v. Diamond 388 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 2004)
^ Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films 410 F.3d 792, 802 (6th Cir. 2005)
^ Office of Public Sector Information
^ Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003, §7
^ "Shake-up 'absurd' copyright laws, says NCC". National Consumer Council. May 11, 2006.
^ "Copying own CDs 'should be legal'". BBC News. October 29, 2006.
^ "Copying CDs could be made legal". BBC News. January 8, 2008.
^ "UK 'has the worst copyright laws'". BBC News Online. 15 April 2009.
^ Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, §107 (1) (a)
^ Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, §107 (1) (b)
^ Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, §107 (1) (c) and (d)
^ Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, §107 (1) (e)
^ Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, §107 (2)
^ Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, §107 (3)
^ The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003, §26 (1) and (3)
^ The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003, §24
^ "Guide to offences". UK Intellectual Property Office.
^ "Your Interview: Michael Geist". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. 2008-04-07.
^ "In depth: Downloading music". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. 2006-05-01.
^ Carter, Stephen. Digital Britain Final Report, Department for Culture, Media and Sport & Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, June 2009.
^ See for instance Thomas Jefferson: "He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."
^ Joseph Stiglitz, in Towards a Pro-Development and Balanced Intellectual Property Regime, argues that information is a global public good.
[edit]Further reading

Johns, Adrian: Piracy. The Intellectual Property Wars from Gutenberg to Gates. The University of Chicago Press, 2009, ISBN 978-0-226-40118-8
[edit]External links

A 2000 article by Courtney Love addressing copyright infringement of music
A 2001 reprint of two speeches given by Thomas Macaulay in Parliament in 1841, when the issue of copyright was being hammered out.
A 2003 article on CD Piracy in China from the music webzine
An article for students explaining the difference between plagiarism and copyright infringement
How Corporate Law Inhibits Social Responsibility
Movie and Record Industry Piracy Figures Incendiary, But Not Fact. - June 2006 MP3 Newswire article challenges inflated copyright infringement claims by media companies

Register your author's rights and get the full juridical protection.

Copyright Registration will cost - $ 20

Public offer - read carefully before registration!

F.A.Q SciReg

Copyright Registration

Recent Publications
reg № 217671521
Песня для детей в оригинальном исполнении
More >>
reg № 57310851
Презентация проекта "Мега ПАРИ"
More >>
reg № 271361378
Презентация проекта "Мега ПАРИ"
More >>
reg № 3344688
После Твоих Зим
More >>
Terms of use
Article 1. Contracting parties.
1. The Parties of this Public Offer (paid service agreement), hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement” or “Offer”, are, as follows:
a) Executor is a person, who makes this Offer and who executes this Agreement in accordance with its terms and conditions: Solcity World Investment and Development; and
b) Customer is a person, who accepts this Offer and who is the author of any publication.

Article 2. Acceptance.
1. The Customer shall accept this Offer in case of and after the following activities:
a) fill in and send to the Executor an application in electronic format in the form established by this Agreement and posted on the Executor’s official website; and
b) provide the author’s abstract specifying what material was created by the author; and
c) provide a list of all key words (tags) that enable finding the location of the author’s abstract of the Customer on the Executor’s website; and
d) post (“upload”) the material itself on the Executor’s official website; and
e) pay for the Executor’s services in the amount and following the procedure set forth by this Agreement.
2. The Executor shall verify the Customer’s data and post the information about the Customer and his/her work of authorship on in Internet. From this moment on, the Customer shall be considered as an acceptor of this Offer and a Party to this Agreement.
3. The Executor shall be entitled, without giving any reasons, to refuse the Customer to accept this Offer and the Customer unconditionally, entirely and irrevocably agrees with this provision.

Article 3. Scope of the Agreement.
1. The Executor hereof shall render services on establishing, formation and maintenance of the Copyright register in electronic format on the Executor’s official website in Internet.
2. The Executor hereof shall render to the Customer paid services on posting (publishing) of information about the applicant as the author of the material under the terms and in accordance with this Agreement.
3. The work of authorship shall be understood by the Parties as a subject matter of copyright established by the Civil Code or other laws of the Author’s Country of domicile. 
4. The Executor shall publish information (data), hereinafter referred to as the “summary”, about the applicant as the author of the material in the Register posted on the Executor’s official website in Internet under the terms set forth by this Agreement.
5. The Executor shall be entitled, at his own discretion and without coordination with the Customer, to assign his obligations for execution of this Agreement to any third party, and the Customer unconditionally agrees with this provision.

Article 4. Register.
1. The Register shall be an ordered and standardized register containing a summary of the Customer: Author’s information, including co-authors, name of the work of authorship, publication date, author’s abstract revealing the content of the work of authorship and its unique character, as well as a unique number of posting in the Register assigned to the author and his/her material automatically by the Executor, key words (tags) that enable any person to find information about the author and his/her publication posted in the Register on the Executor’s official website in Internet.
2. The author’s abstract shall be a brief description of the author’s publication designating its unique character and showing that the Customer is its author.
3. The Register shall be maintained in electronic form on the Executor’s official website in Internet.
4. Information about the author, work of authorship and other information required by the rules for information posting in the Register, set forth by the Executor, except for the unique number, shall be posted by the Customer individually on the Executor’s official website in Internet.
5. Both the Register and the official website shall be the Executor’s property.
6. Any and all information posted by the Customer in the Register in accordance with the terms set forth by this Agreement shall be the Executor’s property. Hereby, the Customer shall not transfer copyright for his/her work of authorship to the Executor.
7. The rules for maintenance of the Register, its execution, posting of any details (information) in it shall constitute Appendix 1 to this Agreement forming an integral part hereof. The rules shall be issued exclusively by the Executor. The Executor, without coordination with the Customer and the Customer’s consent, shall have the right to make any changes in and/or amendment to the Register maintenance rules and the Customer unconditionally agrees with this provision. The Register maintenance rules shall be unconditionally mandatory for the Customer.

Article 5. Obligations of the Parties.
1. The Parties hereto shall (hereby shall be obliged to) unconditionally, voluntarily, conscientiously, and accurately follow all provisions of this Agreement, as well as any and all supplements, amendments and/or alterations hereto made under the terms set forth by this Agreement.
2. The Customer shall pay for the Executor’s services following the procedure and in the amount established by this Agreement.
3. The Customer, in contemplation of his/her death, shall be obliged to bind defendants to the terms of this Agreement.
4. If the Customer’s copyright is assigned to a third party, he/she shall be obliged to bind such third party to his/her obligations hereunder.
5. The Customer shall have an exclusive right to refer, in any form, to his/her summary (synopsis, author’s abstract) posted in the Register on the Executor’s official website in Internet in case of complete and fair execution of his/her obligations under this Agreement.

Article 6. Payment for the Executor’s services. Agreement price.
1. The Customer shall pay for the Executor’s services following the procedure and in the amount established by the provisions of this Article.
2. The price for one posting by the applicant of one his/her summary in the Register shall be 20 (twenty) US Dollars – price of this Agreement.
3. The procedure for paying the amount set forth by this Article of the Agreement shall be determined in Appendix 1 to this Agreement.
4. The applicant shall pay the amount stated in para 2 of this Article (pay for the Executor’s service) to the Executor at the time of registration.
5. The amounts paid hereunder by the Customer to the Executor shall be nonreturnable.
6. Each Party shall individually pay any and all own taxes, duties and/or fees established by the legislation of the Party in connection with execution of the terms hereof by the Party. Neither party shall be a fiscal agent of the other Party.

Article 7. Withdrawal from the Agreement.
1. The Customer shall be entitled to withdraw from execution of this Agreement in the form of non-payment of a next settlement set forth by this Agreement.
2. The Executor shall have the right, including in his sole discretion, to withdraw from execution of this Agreement without reimbursement to the Customer of any expenses and/or losses (damages), as well as without payment of any penalty and/or penalty fee and/or any other forfeit, and the Customer unconditionally and entirely agrees with this provision, in the following case (cases):
a) failure to pay by the Customer for the services to the Executor in the amount and under the terms set forth by this Agreement; and/or
b) provision of false information by the Customer; and/or
c) any other technical reasons.

Article 8. Information sharing. 
1. Unless otherwise provided for in this Agreement, the Parties hereto may share information, and this information for the Parties shall be regarded as official, by phone, fax, sms, Skype, via e-mail and/or in writing (in hard copy). 
2. The Parties hereto may share documents and these documents shall be legally effective for the Parties and considered properly received by the Parties by fax, Skype, via e-mail, in writing in hard copy, unless otherwise provided for in this Agreement. A signature affixed to the document forwarded by any Party via e-mail shall be accepted by the Parties. A signature affixed to the document forwarded by any Party by fax shall be accepted by the Parties. A signature affixed to the document forwarded by any Party via Skype shall be accepted by the Parties.
3. Along with the afore-mentioned, the Parties may have electronic documentary interchange and affix their electronic digital signatures (EDS) on any and all documents.

Article 9. Arbitration.
1. All disputes arising between the Parties in relation to interpretation of this Agreement and/or execution of this Agreement shall be settled by the Parties in the form of bilateral negotiations. 
2. If the Parties fail to reach a compromise during negotiations, they shall settle their dispute in the arbitration court (arbitration) of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of British Virgin Islands.
3. As the rules of procedural law based on which the Parties shall settle their dispute, the Parties shall accept the rules of arbitration court (arbitration) of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of British Virgin Islands.
4. As the rules of substantive law based on which the Parties settle their dispute, the Parties shall accept this Agreement and rules of international agreements (conventions) regulating copyright legal relationship.

Article 10. Other terms and conditions.
1. This Agreement is made in written and electronic form, in one counterpart, which: 
a) Agreement in writing is kept in the Executor’s office, and 
b) posted in electronic form on the Executor’s official website in Internet.
2. Alteration, amendments and/or supplements to this Agreement shall be made in written and electronic form by the Executor individually, in a single hard counterpart and a single electronic counterpart posted on the official website in Internet and the Customer unconditionally agrees with this provision. 
3. Changes in this Agreement shall be made by the Executor as a new version of the Agreement.
4. If the Customer disagrees with new terms and conditions, he/she shall have a right to withdraw from the Agreement following the procedure and terms set forth by this Agreement.

NEWS: most visited

Константин Ромасько, registered "Elphitamin"
reg № 732532576, 2017-02-20 13:44:50


read: >>>

Вячеслав Ухов, registered "Концепция мотивационной работы"
reg № 59816742, 2010-12-30 00:04:22

Новым в работе является создание единой функциональной модели мотивации на основе обобщения и систематизации разрозненных взглядов на её компоненты. Дана структура, сформулированы определения и приведены принципы мотивационной работы, как основы системы управления персоналом (HR). Обоснованы элементы оптимальной мотивации. Уточнены цели, направленность, методы и особенности материального стимулирования работников в коллективах компаний. Основной упор сделан на применение, недостаточно изученных, методов нематериального стимулирования. Классификация нематериальных стимулов произведена по признаку целевых информационных блоков. Каждый из них имеет название, определяющее целеполагание, описание и инструментарий решения прикладных задач. Работа представлена в виде концепции, построенной на достоверных и апробированных данных. (Публикация на сайте: 27.07.2009г. Найти: Ухов Вячеслав Алексеевич.)

read: >>>

Герман Измалков, registered "Переключатель скоростей"
reg № 6679276, 2011-03-20 21:45:46

Предложенное устройство очень упрощает процедуру переключения скоростей при езде на автомобиле, так эти переключения последовательно происходят при продольном перемещении одного из валов коробки скоростей, устройство сокращает общие габариты двигателей, технологично и имеет малую себестоимость

read: >>>

NEWS: news copyright

Sunbeam Ruling Strengthens Rights of IP Licensees in Bankruptcy JULY 27, 2012 BANKRUPTCY, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTYSunbeam Ruling Strengthens Rights of
read: >>>

trademark registration us trademark intellectual property patent office search google patent patent and registration copyright and registration registration of patent google patent search search us patent patent and trademark copyright office copyright trademark registration patent search online copyright registration search copyright and registration trademark name search us copyright trademark registration uspto copyright office registration registration of copyright google patent search wipo us copyright trademark copyright search how to copyright trademark search us how to copyright free copyright search

Global Info  |  Service Info  |  About SciReg  |  Investor Relations  |  Careers  |  Privacy Policy
This site is protected by copyright and trademark laws under US and International law. All rights reserved. © 1995-2012 SciReg
Printable version

Стратегические партнеры:
SolCity WID SRL - земельные участки, недвижимость в Доминикане, иммиграция, бизнес-сервисы, юридические сервисы.
LED iluminacion: VILED Dominicana LED lamparas y focos, supermercado LED luz Santo Domingo
SolCity NAV SRL - Mapas Solcity NAV SRL: Mejor Garmin mapas Dominicana y Haití, navegacion Android completo y sistema de referencia de República Dominicana y Haití. 
VECTOR MAPS - Vector maps cities and countries, Adobe Illustrator, Corel Draw, AutoCAD and other formats for design, print, projects, architects
Patent Hatchery LLC US - US patent service: Patents on inventions in USA and others countries. US trademarks registration 
Патентный эксперт США - Регистрация патентов и торговых марок в США и Европе. Патентный сервис, регистрация и защита авторских прав 

Электронный научно-художественный журнал авторских публикаций / Скайрег.нет
18+ Роскомнадзор, 22.03.2013 года, Эл № ФС77-53271 Издатель Константин Романов
Главный редактор Кирилл Шрайбер, /
Адрес редакции: Санкт-Петербург, 198096, ул. Краснопутиловская, 18.
Телефоны: +7.921.090.76.02 / +7.953.150.15.66 / Цена: Бесплатно. Размер: 5 гб.