Copyright infringement

Copyright infringement (or copyright violation) is the use of material which is covered by copyright law, in a way 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 that build upon it. The slang term bootleg (from the use of boots to smuggle items) is often used to describe illegally copied material.

Some people call illegally copying movies and music, "piracy" or "theft". Richard Stallman says people should not call copying and distribution "piracy", because piracy is robbery with attacking ships, killing and stealing people, and owners of copyright use the word to say that such copying is as evil as piracy.^[1] Some courts say that the word "piracy" may be used, but the word "theft" may not be used.^[2] When people use the word "piracy" for copyright infringement, it usually means "selling of many copies without permission", but sometimes any "big copyright infringement".

There are a few reasons why people violate copyrights. Copyright infringed goods are usually cheaper than legal ones, because the people distributing them don't need to pay for the copyright. That can make them easier to sell. Normal goods might also not be as useful as copyright infringed ones because of legal limitations.

Copyright laws have tried to keep up with the development of technology, such as radio, television, and the internet. Now many people upload some articles to websites that allow people to read free articles on it without the permission of the author. In this way, people can read many articles easily, but it is illegal. As a result, many authors prosecute the website.

Here are the normal behaviors of copy infringement.

• Copy or photocopying.
• Let other people browse for free in public.
• Distribute or sold after reforming.

Piracy goods are usually at low price because they don't need to pay for copyright and carry out research. So it is popular with the people who don't have awareness of copyright. On the surface, it will limit the monopoly of big company. But in fact, it is a means of unfair competition and damages the fair competition pattern. What's more, it will have a bad consequence on the competitiveness of middle or small sized companies.^[3]

There are some benefits to society of limiting copyright. One is to expand readership of newspapers and books to a wider section of the public. Newspapers were once relatively expensive, but copies were freely available in coffee houses throughout Europe. The invention of public libraries had the same effect for books. Many great people in the 18th and 19th century came from poor backgrounds. Such people as Michael Faraday (the son of a blacksmith) and Alfred Russel Wallace had no university education, but used libraries to get their knowledge up-to-date. The aim of copyright law is to have a balance between these two sides: the needs of authors and publishers, and the broader needs of society.

1.Well-known writers vs. Baidu On March 15, 2011, HanHan and many other well-known writers prosecuted Baidu Library because it allowed people to read and download their articles for free. They asked Baidu to pay for it but Baidu rejected the compensation.
2.Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services (1996) Michigan Document Services was involved in creating packages of study material for the students of the university. A professor supplied the course material and Michigan Document services, a photocopying organization, took photocopies of the material and converted it into a booklet for sale to students at the university. Here was a clause of "Fair use" in this case. The photocopying company could have paid a nominal fee to the university and then used the material. This was available to anyone who wished to use the material. However, the photocopying company paid for only the original and then started making photocopies of the study material. The court considered that it was not "fair use" and penalized the photocopying company.
3.A & M Records vs. Napster (2001) This is one of the most famous cases of copyright infringement related to the music industry. As peer to peer file sharing increased, Napster started a website. This website offered downloads of songs of all genres – new and old. You may know someone who used it. A & M Records brought in a joint copyright infringement case which accused Napster of stealing music and making it available to people worldwide. Before closing the site in 2002, Napster had to settle US$26 million to different recording companies and songwriters. It could have been even more if Napster had not apologized and folded the site.Several websites still thrive on offering free music to people who can download it at no cost. As mentioned in our article on "Internet Ethics and Copyright Laws", the music industry faces most copyright infringement cases. The Napster case, though an example of the consequences, still does not act as a deterrent for other music websites that offer free music downloads. ^[4]

As opposed to the writers, many people think it's convenient and cheap to read books and other articles on the internet. They think free articles are good for them. On the other hand, some people think it is illegal to provide free articles download without authors permission. They think the best way to avoid this problem is to pay for reading on the Internet.

In 2014 selfies taken by a crested black macaque seemed to establish a legal precedent, after the Wikimedia Foundation rejected a copyright claim.^[5] On 22 August 2014, a spokesperson for the UK Intellectual Property Office states that even if creatures that aren't human create a work, the copyright of a photograph depends if the photographer made a "creative contribution" to the work, and the judges must decide who is the real owner of the photograph.^[6]

The photos had been sold widely by David Slater, a professional nature photographer, whose camera was temporarily carried away by a group of macaques. After the photos were uploaded to Wikipedia, the organisation refused to delete them, claiming "This file is in the public domain, because as the work of a non-human animal, it has no human author in whom copyright is vested.^[7][8] In December 2014, the United States Copyright Office stated that works created by a creature that isn't a human, such as a photograph taken by a monkey, are not able to be copyrighted.^[9] Several legal experts in the US and UK suggest that Slater's role in the photographic process would be enough of a valid claim for copyright, although the court would need to decide if that claim is still valid.^[10][11][12]

1. ↑ "Words to Avoid (or Use with Care) Because They Are Loaded or Confusing - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)". Archived from the original on 2012-02-03. Retrieved 2011-05-03.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
2. ↑ For example, see Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985), et al.
3. ↑ "盗版_互动百科". Archived from the original on 2012-08-22. Retrieved 2012-06-09.
4. ↑ Kumar, Arun (13 June 2010). "Famous Copyright Infringement Cases".
5. ↑ "Photographer 'lost £10,000' in Wikipedia monkey 'selfie' row". BBC News. 7 August 2014. Retrieved 4 November 2017.
6. ↑ Samuel Gibbs (22 August 2014). "Monkey business: macaque selfie can't be copyrighted, say US and UK". The Guardian. Retrieved 16 July 2017.
7. ↑ "Wikimedia refuses to remove animal selfie because monkey 'owns' the photo". Fox8 News. Fox8 News. 2014-08-06. Archived from the original on 2014-08-06. Retrieved 2014-08-06.
8. ↑ Sparkes, Matthew (2014-08-06). "Wikipedia refuses to delete photo as 'monkey owns it'". The Daily Telegraph. London. Retrieved 2014-08-06.
9. ↑ U.S. Copyright Office, Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices § 306 (3d ed. 2021). [1]
10. ↑ Guadamuz, Andres (2016). "The monkey selfie: copyright lessons for originality in photographs and internet jurisdiction". Internet Policy Review. 5 (1). doi:10.14763/2016.1.398.
11. ↑ Orlowski, Andrew (24 August 2014). "Cracking copyright law: How a simian selfie stunt could make a monkey out of Wikipedia". The Register.
12. ↑ Nicholas O'Donnell (28 July 2017). "Is the 'monkey selfie' case making a monkey out of the law?". Apollo Magazine. Retrieved 29 July 2017.