Copyright infringement

This study was commissioned by the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) to provide an evidence-based view on whether the criminal sanctions for copyright infringement available under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988) are proportionate and utilised.

The study focus is on the difference in the sanctions available for copyright infringement that apply to online criminal activity – often referred to as ‘piracy’ - compared with those relating to physical goods.

The research gathers quantitative data from 2006-13, qualitative views and evidence from stakeholders.

The study of this paper will describe the perspective view of legal issues and propose the alternative approaches to protecting software. Some legal issues like copyright, patent and trademark are used for providing the security to the data and computer software. The main motive of this paper is to aware all the authors about the protection of data and their programs.

Each country has its own copyright policy. Indian copy right act after independence was first came into existence in the year 1957, since than the act was amended from time to time to accommodate with the changing conditions. Recently a fresh amendment called “copyright amendment Act 2012” has been enacted by the Government of India bringing changes to the copyright Act 1957. The present study traces the historical development of the Indian copyright act in a chronological order, and elaborates the major changes made in the new act. The study also traces the areas of library services, which are directly concerned with copyright issues. Finally the study highlighted the provisions of newly amended copyright act that has some impact on libraries.

W polskiej doktrynie prawa autorskiego przez wiele lat dość powszechnie (choć niejednomyślnie) przyjmowano, iż dla legalności korzystania z rozpowszechnionego utworu w ramach dozwolonego użytku prywatnego nie ma znaczenia legalność kopii źródłowej. Przekonanie to zweryfikowane zostało w ubiegłym roku przez Trybunał Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej w wyroku w sprawie C-435/12 ACI Adam BV i in. p-ko Stichting de Thuiskopie i in. Zgodnie z tym orzeczeniem prawo Unii Europejskiej stoi (…) na przeszkodzie obowiązywaniu uregulowania krajowego (…), które nie rozróżnia sytuacji, w której źródło służące za podstawę sporządzenia kopii na użytek prywatny jest legalne, od sytuacji, w której źródło to jest nielegalne.
W związku z obowiązującą państwa członkowskie Unii Europejskiej dyrektywą prounijnej wykładni prawa krajowego wydaje się, że obecne w dyskursie prawnoautorskim przekonanie o „legalności ściągania” uznać należy za zdezaktualizowane. Co więcej, wątpliwości można mieć również co do skutków korzystania z utworów za pomocą dotychczas uznawanych za całkowicie „bezpieczne” metod jak np. streaming.
Orzeczenie to stanowi wyzwanie dla ustawodawcy w kontekście dwóch kontrowersyjnych regulacji polskiego prawa autorskiego, tj. art. 79 ust. 1 pkt 3) lit. b) przewidującego zryczałtowane odszkodowanie stanowiące dwukrotność stosownego wynagrodzenia w przypadku niezawinionego naruszenia autorskich praw majątkowych oraz uznanego w ostatnich dniach przez TK za zgodny z Konstytucją art. 115 ust. 3 pr. aut. przewidującego odpowiedzialność karną za „naruszenie praw autorskich w inny sposób, w celu osiągnięcia korzyści majątkowej”. Te dwie regulacje w powiązaniu z nowym, węższym rozumieniem art. 23 pr. aut. mogą całkowicie zburzyć spokój użytkowników Internetu.
Paradoksalnie, wyrok wydaje się jednak niekorzystny nie tylko dla użytkowników, ale również dla uprawnionych, którzy zostali pozbawieni prawa do „godziwej rekompensaty” za korzystanie w ramach dozwolonego użytku z nielegalnych kopii źródłowych ich utworów.
W referacie postaram się ocenić uzasadnienie wyroku w sprawie ACI Adam, przedstawić jego skutki dla sytuacji prawnej dwóch kategorii podmiotów: uprawnionych i użytkowników oraz sformułować postulaty de lege ferenda dotyczące niekomercyjnego korzystania z utworów w sferze prywatnej.

The study of this paper will describe the perspective view of legal issues and propose the alternative approaches to protecting software. Some legal issues like copyright, patent and trademark are used for providing the security to the data and computer software. The main motive of this paper is to aware all the authors about the protection of data and their programs.

This article highlights the importance of copyright industries for the developed economies and argues that criminal copyright infringement is a widespread offense, producing major economic losses for stakeholders, negatively impacting creativity, and raising significant cybersecurity and rule of law concerns. The article explains why there is a need for criminal protection of copyright protection and outlines the U.S. framework. In a comprehensive approach, based on a large corpus of data, consisting of cases brought to federal courts, in violation of Section 506 of Title 17 of the U.S. Code, and press releases and reports by law enforcement and industry groups, Section 3 describes the forms and extent of the phenomenon. Section 4 discusses essential aspects involved in the prosecution of these cases. Based on the number of cases brought to courts versus the criminal copyright infringing reports and estimates, the article concludes that this criminal phenomenon is significantly under-prosecuted and proposes a number of measures that could improve the criminal protection of copyrighted works.

Sri Lanka as a country can hardly be pleased and satisfied of the level of protection and enforcement of copyright in the country, despite that it is believed to be having a robust copyright regime which complies with the accepted international norms and standards. This, indeed, raises a pertinent question: why have the so called stringent protection and enforcement measures relating to copyright failed in Sri Lanka? The primary aim of this article is to investigate into this question and provide an answer to it. While there can be many causes and reasons which may have contributed towards rendering the copyright regime in Sri Lanka impotent or ineffectual in curbing the high level of copyright infringement in the country (particularly piracy of software), such as lack of institutional capacity, resources, will and awareness, the cause that would be explored in this article takes a different theme. In particular, this article submits that quite apart from the said important reasons, which have been widely discussed and examined by many scholars, one of the key reasons or causes that has made the copyright regime of Sri Lanka ineffectual in restraining the high copyright piracy rates is the public perception of the conceptual basis of copyright protection in Sri Lanka. That is, as will be argued in this article, the conceptual basis of copyright protection in Sri Lanka is totally alien to the country. The way in which copyright laws and regimes have been introduced and enacted in the country has also made copyright an extraterrestrial notion in Sri Lanka. In short, the article will point out that the copyright law in Sri Lanka remains not only an alien system, but also a system that has been merely copied from the West, as a result of which, the implementation and enforcement of copyright has become a perennial problem in the country.

Copyright infringement is a growing concern, it usually affects the copyright owner’s economy. This study assessed undergraduate student’s knowledge of copyright infringement and indulgence in movie piracy, with the objectives of knowledge of copyright law and illegal file sharing and downloading; investigating the factors responsible for piracy and copyright infringement; and the ways for reducing piracy and copyright infringement. The survey research design was adopted for the study. Convenience sampling technique was used to select a sample size of 170 students of Awaaz Institute of Media and Management Sciences. The questionnaire was the instrument used for collection of data. The data gathered, including percentages and frequencies, were analyzed by using descriptive stats. Findings showed that the knowledge of copyright law in students is above 70% but they have strong perception that copyright infringement is a form of intellectual dishonesty. In addition, the results indicate that ignorance of copyright law and the lack of understanding of copyright law is the major reason for the copyright infringement and illegal file sharing and downloading over the internet. The findings also reveal that the over pricing of DVD/Blu-ray, online subscription and high prices of movie tickets is a contributing factor that lead students to infringe on copyright law and on piracy. The increasing awareness and knowledge of copyright law and punishment for violating the law was answered as the most essential way of eliminating copyright infringement and piracy followed by copyright warning and reduction in prices of online subscription, DVD/Blu-ray and movie tickets. It was recommended that basic courses and seminars should be designed and offered by all the students in a bid to creating an enlightenment as this will increase student’s knowledge of copyright law and stakeholders should reduce the prices of legal channels of movie to reduce movie piracy.

Keywords: Copyright law, Copyright Infringement, Movie Piracy, Perception, Knowledge, University students.

Bangladesh is one of the next eleven countries in the world with approximately 160 million people is experiencing a great boom in the growth of online news portals in the recent past due to the development of wireless communication technologies. The seemingly ease of online content production has been an integral perspective leading to the
mushrooming of online news portals all over the country burgeoning a culture of substandard journalism. Lack of enforcement regarding the protection of intellectual properties is fueling this trend. Extremely weak to almost no copyrights protection system of Bangladesh has been victimizing every sector. It has been a stemming factor hindering innovation and creativity in the path to economic development of the nation. Without proper regulatory policies, newer technologies are adding to the wound. In this perspective, as an explanatory article, this paper analyzed the present situation of the online media portals of Bangladesh that sought out to literature focusing on copyright issues on other industries. This article stands its ground by the observations of the various cases of infringements and their implications on the entire industry.

History of Publishing Contract  explores and analyzes the history and the development of copyright law and publishing contracts through dozens of archival sources and the jurisprudence in Hungary.
The book deals with the history of commissioned works,  music publishing contracts, promis of reward and the history of copyright codification achievemenet as well.
In addition to legal history, the book also provides facts and information on cultural history.

The development of the so-called Web 2.0 caused a shift from a passive use of the Internet to an active role of the user that implied the transformation of the simple user in creator so that each and every user can easily be a creator. This is the reality at the origin of the diffusion of User-Generated-Content (UGC). In fact, UGC implies a massive creation of new material constantly published on the net and generally based on pre-existing material, being an adaptation or modification of the same. This paper is intended to understand why the European Union approach to the regulation of this new kind of content production is still uncertain. Firstly the background of the consultation launched by the European Union Commission will be analyzed together with the phenomenon. Then, in the second and third paragraph the rights involved and the three possible alternative solutions will be examined. Finally, the aspects that remained unheeded will be quickly reviewed. This analysis is aimed to understand such approach and the reasons why it lead to a substantial failure of the attempt to regulate an incredibly complex and massive instrument of creation (and infringement) of copyrighted material.

Intellectual development among humans finds expression in works of print, visual, audio, and audio-visual streams among others. The creators of these works and their heirs enjoy certain natural rights that not only secure their official ownership of the work, but also empower them to use their works to earn monetary benefits as well. In the Confucius tradition, copying of someone’s work marks the highest bestowal of respect and honor to the creator of the work. In the present scenario as well, there are exemptions to the scope of copyright regime in favor of the larger cultural and sometimes economic development of the society at large. The Indian Copyright Act today is compliant with most international conventions and treaties in the field of copyrights.  With rise of internet connectivity, and sharing of literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works, movies and sound recordings, there has been a debate on ‘global empowerment with information’ in the backdrop of digital piracy and security of the former.

In this paper we discuss about Plagiarism. What is Plagiarism? Their types, which
citation it will be avoid, this papers main features are how to detect Plagiarism and
how to prevent it and also difference between Plagiarism and Copyright infringement,
Plagiarism and Ghostwriting. This article saying about effective Plagiarism detecting
software's and this basis identify that how much work is real and other is fraud.

For Citation:
Salem, H.S. 2015. Plagiarism (Theft of Intellectual Property) Is A Crime Representing Violation of Law, of Intellectual Property Rights, and of Human Rights and, Accordingly, It Must Be Punished. Published online at:
https://www.academia.edu/11255978/_A_Must_Read_Plagiarism_Theft_of_Intellectual_Property_Is_A_Crime_Representing_Violation_of_Law_of_Intellectual_Property_Rights_and_of_Human_Rights_and_Accordingly_It_Must_Be_Punished

Summary:
A few months ago (in July 2014), George et al. (Nyakno J. George, Joseph B. Emah, and Ekong U. Nathaniel) stole
two of my (Hilmi S. Salem) best published papers which have been widely viewed, downloaded and cited by thousands of research scientists around the world, as they are posted at "Academia.Edu. The plagiarizers (George et al.) (re)published
the plagiarized work in the "Journal of the Association of Arab Universities for Basic and Applied Sciences", which is
published  by the University of Bahrain (UoB), Kingdom of Bahrain, and hosted and produced by Elsevier, the Netherlands. The George et al.’s acts of Plagiarism and Infringement, with respect to the George et al.’s theft of my hard-work research, are a typical example of theft of “Intellectual Property”. This is with reference to the international laws and regulations of the Intellectual Property Rights, as they are the legally recognized as exclusive rights to creations of the mind. According to “Wikipedia.Org”: Under the Intellectual Property Law, owners are granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs. Common types of Intellectual Property Rights include copyright, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights, trade dress, and in some jurisdictions trade secrets. According to the Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, "Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author". Although the relationship between intellectual property and human rights is a complex one, there are moral arguments for intellectual property. This is with consideration of the arguments that justify intellectual property, which fall into three major categories, which are: 1) Intellectual property is an extension of an individual; 2) Intellectual property stimulates social progress and pushes people to further innovation; and 3) Intellectual property is justified based on deservedness and hard work (Wikipedia.Org).

For your interest and the interest of researchers, academicians, scientists, attorneys, academic institutions, publishing industry, editors, etc., please see the attached document. 

1) Nyakno J. George, Joseph B. Emah, and Ekong U. Nathaniel.
2014. Estimation of Porosity, Formation Resistivity Factor, Archie Cementation Factor, Pore Geometry Factor and Tortuosity for a Coastal Aquifer. Received 16 December 2013; Revised 14 May 2014; Accepted 23 June 2014. Journal of the Association of Arab Universities for Basic and Applied Sciences (JAAUBAS) (2014) xxx, xxx–xxx (Published Online). Publisher: University of Bahrain, Kingdom of Bahrain; Hosted by Elsevier, the Netherlands. To link to this article: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S181538521400039X

2) Hilmi S. Salem (2001). Determination of Porosity, Formation Resistivity Factor, Archie Cementation Factor, and Pore Geometry Factor for a Glacial Aquifer. Energy Sources: Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, 23:6, PP: 589-596.  DOI: 10.1080/00908310152125238. To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00908310152125238

3) Hilmi S. Salem and George V. Chilingarian (2000). Influence of Porosity and Direction of Flow on Tortuosity in Unconsolidated Porous Media. Energy Sources: Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, 22:3, PP: 207-213.  DOI: 10.1080/00908310050013992. To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00908310050013992

This study was commissioned by the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) to provide an evidence-based view on whether the criminal sanctions for copyright infringement available under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988) are proportionate and utilised. The study focus is on the difference in the sanctions available for copyright infringement that apply to online criminal activity – often referred to as ‘piracy’ - compared with those relating to physical goods. The research gathers quantitative data from 2006-13, qualitative views and evidence from stakeholders.

Harvard’s Perma.cc offers the solution to linkrot—the phenomenon that citations in academic journals to web materials disappears with the passage of time, resulting in “broken links” and disappearance of material from the Web.

This article will describe Perma.cc and outline the kinds of copyright issues that may arise, including heavy use of copyright statutes and caselaw.  It will examine the kind of preservation use of copyrighted materials, with reference to fair use, and the library prerogatives as exceptions to the exclusive rights of authors of materials found on the Web.  This analysis includes detailed analysis of “transformative use” and the four factors of 17 U.S.C. § 107.  It will consider the liability of Perma.cc and participating libraries and institutions under theories of contributory infringement and vicarious liability, including as modified by 17 U.S.C. § 512(c) and (d), governing takedown notices. 

The article concludes that Perma.cc’s archival use is neither firmly grounded in existing fair use nor library exemptions, that Perma.cc, its “registrar” library and institutional affiliates, and its contributors have some (at least theoretical) exposure to risk, and that current copyright doctrines and law do not adequately address web archival storage for scholarly purposes.  In doing so, it will question what the role of the scholarly Perma.cc citation ought to play—confirmation of scholarly propositions or preservation of and access to web materials.  The material and conclusions in this article are important for legal authors, law review editors, and librarians (especially those who use, support, or are considering partnering with Perma.cc); so that they might better assess copyright compliance, especially when selecting materials for archiving, such as articles from news sites, blogs, and professional and scholarly papers, articles or books.

Since its rise to prominence among hip hop producers thirty years ago, digital music sampling has become a popular method of music production for musicians across multiple genres. Yet case law, copyright laws, and standard music industry practices have produced a legal environment that discourages the creation of sample-based music. Artists who sample must either confront myriad obstacles inherent in obtaining permission to use samples or release unlicensed sample-based works that risk engendering expensive copyright infringement lawsuits. This has brought forth a multidecadal body of scholarship replete with various solutions to the sampler’s dilemma. But after twenty-five years of work highlighting the problems inherent in the legal environment surrounding sampling and the development of comprehensive solutions to address them, the dilemma remains. This paper seeks to explain why such reform has not happened and imagine what would be required to achieve it.

This paper argues that the online regulation of intellectual property, specifically enforcement efforts against websites providing copyright-infringing material and counterfeit goods, constitutes a form of knowledge governance. Rights holders of intellectual property are forming partnerships with (sometimes-reluctant) Internet intermediaries like Google to expand their enforcement efforts to the online realm. By working with intermediaries, rights holders have significantly increased their capacity to monitor and control global flows of information and govern certain types of unwanted behaviour. This paper examines two unusual collaborations between rights holders and intermediaries. First, it examines a program – code-named Project Goliath – run by the Motion Picture Association of America to pressure Google to strengthen its enforcement measures against online infringement. Second, the paper explores a series of secretly negotiated private enforcement agreements struck amongst rights holders and Internet firms from multiple industry sectors to regulate online infringement at the behest of the U.S. government. The paper concludes that rights holders, intermediaries, and the U.S. government, a staunch supporter of ever-stronger protection for intellectual property, have over-lapping interests in extending their control over standard-setting processes on the Internet. These programs operate globally, but they are oriented toward further entrenching American (and, broadly western) preferences in relation to intellectual property, as well as cyber-security policies, that benefit stakeholders’ economic and security interests.

In today’s world fans ravenously consume any and all publications about their favorite genre.  Television, movies, books, games and real people are not immune to this phenomenon.  However, are the writers of these fandoms creating an issue with the copyright laws for the original authors or does society ignore the actions created by these fans as a minor nuisance?

Transparency is traditionally considered a principle that can be used to shine a light on the actions of states. With the rise of transnational corporate actors, it is an open question as to how and to what degree corporate actors can and should be transparent in relation to their regulatory activities. This article examines a transparency mechanism newly popular in the wake of Edward Snowden’s disclosure of state surveillance programs on the Internet – industry transparency reports published by Internet firms like Google, Microsoft, Twitter and Facebook. While the Snowden files continue to receive significant media and academic attention, these transparency reports have elicited little scholarly analysis. Internet firms’ efforts as global regulators on behalf of states, and, in a recent development, other powerful corporate actors, provide an ideal opportunity to examine how third parties to regulation use the voluntary disclosure of information as a transparency measure. The article examines transparency reports published by large U.S.-based companies like Google and Facebook in two areas. First, it explores the way Internet firms use transparency to disclose surveillance activities related to the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). Second, the article considers transparency in relation to Internet companies’ removal of copyright-infringing content from their platforms on behalf of rights holders of intellectual property. The article finds that transparency is a principle underscored by both pragmatism and ideology in which the disclosure of information may involve both symbolic gestures and meaningful attempts to reform problematic state surveillance practices.

© Crown Copyright 2014. You may re-use this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov. uk/doc/open-government-licence/ Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned

The traditional (Arnstein) test for copyright infringement is satisfied when the owner of a valid copyright establishes unauthorized copying by the defendant. To demonstrate unauthorized copying, one of the major tests is that the plaintiff must first show that her work was actually copied; second, she must establish substantial similarity and/or that the copying amounts to an improper or unlawful appropriation. The second prong is satisfied when (i) protected expression in the earlier work was copied and (ii) the amount of the copyrighted work that is copied must be more than de minimis. This Article examines, first, how impropriety has been applied in copyright infringement cases, and, second, whether the test could (doctrinally) and should (normatively) perform additional work as we move ever more into an era of massive creative reuse of existing works, whether as appropriation art, user-generated content or otherwise. The Article suggests that the notion of propriety should play an enhanced role, especially in cases of reuse of pre-existing copyrighted works.

Copyright law's grip on film, music and software barely touches the fashion industry ... and fashion benefits in both innovation and sales, says Johanna Blakley. At TEDxUSC 2010, she talks about what all creative industries can learn from fashion's free culture.

Copyright remains the cardinal bridge between creation and access to knowledge and knowledge-based materials. However, the issue of copyright awareness has now become a global concern. Since tertiary education revolves around the use of other people’s copyrighted works, this study seeks to investigate the level of copyright awareness at the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST) in the legitimate use of copyrighted materials based on the principle of “permitted use,” without infringing on the rights of the author. The study drew participants of 500 students, the Deputy Registrar (Academic and Students Affair) and the University Librarian to respond to questionnaire and interviews. The study revealed that copyright awareness at KNUST is not up to the level expected due to the fact that the university does not have copyright awareness policy to effectively regulate, monitor and protect its intellectual property, academic and institutional values as well as to defend its teaching, research and service mission.

Reprinted with permission from: Entertainment, Arts and Sports Law Journal, Summer 2014, Vol. 25, No. 2, published by the New York State Bar Association, One Elk Street, Albany, NY 12207.

In August of 2013, Pharrell Williams, Robin Thicke, and Clifford Harris, Jr. sought declaratory judgment against the Marvin Gaye estate amongst allegations of copyright infringement. The Thicke case represents one of many copyright infringement cases where the allegedly infringing song “sounds like” an original song. In “sound-alike” cases between 2010 and 2013, 81 percent of words in judicial opinions compared similarity of lyrics and thematic elements, generic conventions, and basic vocals, whereas only 18 percent described instrumentation and other musicological traits. In order to drive effective musical evaluation, judicial efficiency, objectivity, and reliability of expert results, the United States Copyright Office should offer a musicological expert witness accreditation exam and toolset to improve consistent outcomes through probative similarity analyses.

This article critically evaluates the manner in which the blocking injunction has been implemented in the United Kingdom (‘UK’), the legal basis for which is derived from the European Union (‘EU’) legal framework. Unlike the extrajudicial and privatised Notice and Takedown (‘N&T‘) process, the blocking injunction is a court-supervised mechanism, and hence, avoids the key criticism levelled against N&T. Yet, there are problems with the blocking injunction, in particular in the manner in which it is implemented. The article first demonstrates that, unlike in the context of copyright enforcement, the legal basis for the blocking injunction in the field of trademark protection is suspect. Secondly, the article posits that the procedure pertaining to the grant of a blocking injunction runs counter to the principles of natural justice – in that, neither the relevant EU directives, nor their domestic implementations, provide for the target website operators (i.e. the authors of online content), whose content is sought to be blocked, to be notified of, or joined in, the proceedings where injunctions are sought. As such, it is argued, that an important safeguard that has been incorporated into blocking orders, which allows affected parties to apply for a variation or vacation of a blocking order, is r rendered meaningless. Lastly, the article identifies four areas – i.e. circumvention, multiplicity of proceedings, barriers to legitimate trade and costs of implementation – where there might be problems in the future that may question the efficacy of this remedy.

This article examines the tailoring of remedies in cases involving charges of online infringement of copyrights or trademarks. When websites communicate copyrighted works to members of the public or use trademarks unlawfully, domestic requirements of equitable relief come into tension with global enforcement cultures. Courts sometimes enjoin entire websites or order the defendant and its cloud service providers to end any use of the copyrights or trademarks at issue, while other courts limit their injunctions to the adjudicated conduct and the parties before them. The question sometimes arises whether a site-killing or device-killing order should issue in light of the defendant’s infringement and third parties’ facilitation of it, or whether the defendant should simply be ordered to desist from the infringing acts (and related parties from facilitating those specific acts). An increasingly prominent alternative is to withhold an injunctive remedy in view of the potential recovery of monetary relief. This article explores why, despite statutory language, case law precedent, and political consensus that website blocking should not occur, the sweeping remedy of site blocking (enjoining any facilitation of site access) continues to be available. It argues that site-blocking and orders to third parties not to index or provide services to a website are in tension with the Supreme Court’s decision in eBay, the First Amendment case for narrowly targeted remedies when publishing and digital communication are at stake, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s limiting language, remedial proportionality doctrine, and the failure of the Stop Online Piracy Act of 2011 in Congress. Remedial inequities are also emerging as between patent and copyright or trademark holders, because the bare loss of control of intellectual property is justifying copyright and trademark injunctions despite patent law cases suggesting that impaired exclusivity and negotiating leverage are not necessarily “irreparable injury.”

A cursory look at the Nigerian economy reveals that it is in dire need of diversification from a mono-economy to one that generates revenue from multiple streams. The over-dependence on oil has plunged the economy into recession. The copyright industry has the potential to be a great revenue earner for the country. Statistics show that in 2014, the Motion Pictures, Sound Recording and Music Products sub-sector of the copyright industry contributed about N9 trillion to the economy. Out of that figure, Nollywood, the world's third largest film producer contributed about N1.72 trillion to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). These figures reveal that the copyright industry is a cash-cow that can be utilised effectively to boost the economy. However, piracy is a formidable obstacle inhibiting the growth of the sector. Research shows that piracy must be seriously tackled if the copyright industry is to make any meaningful contribution to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of Nigeria. Piracy has stunted the growth of the copyright industry. The consequential effects include loss of Foreign Investment in the entertainment sector, discouraging creativity, loss of revenue for authors and the government as well etc. This paper reviews the state of copyright protection in Nigeria, piracy and infringement of copyright works and its impact on the economy, and the various response mechanisms towards tackling piracy which the paper likens to the proverbial Gordian knot.

The concept of traditional knowledge is a well known concept simply because it originates from a particular group whereby such knowledge is found. For example, the people from Central of Tanzania, mostly from Gogo Tribe they have a certain knowledge on how their Kigoda  is made or how their traditional songs are sound different from other songs from other tribes. They also know on how their different medicines are made, which tree or leaves is suitable for creating a certain medicine. This is what we call traditional knowledge, knowledge from the origin.
One among the concepts which tries to protect traditional knowledge is copyright which protect the exclusive literary and artistic works of the original owner (s) as provided by a particular law of a particular country.
The problem came in the protection of this traditional knowledge, when the science and technology developed as these development speeds up the infringement of the rights obtain in traditional knowledge from the owner (s) of such knowledge. The bad thing, most of the laws in third world countries (particular in Tanzania) do not have sufficient mechanism in protecting this traditional knowledge.
This paper entails to discuss those challenges facing the protection of traditional knowledge (both traditional and online protection) and how does our law (particular copyright laws) respond to such challenges.

This article critically evaluates the current approach adopted in Australia in dealing with online content that either infringes, or facilitates the infringement of, copyright. It first considers the recent decision of the Australian Federal Court in Roadshow Films v Telstra, which resulted in an injunction being issued against some of the major Australian ISPs requiring them to block access to a number of online locations that infringed copyright. The discussion focuses on the issue of circumvention and compares the approach favoured by the High Court of England and Wales in tacking this problem. The article next considers the practice of notice and takedown (N & T). A consideration of this extrajudicial means of copyright enforcement is inevitable because the blocking injunction (the basis for which is derived from s.115A of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)) is limited to infringing online locations outside Australia. As such, the practice of N & T is crucial when the source of infringement is within the jurisdiction. The discussion on N & T suggests that an important safeguard protecting the interests of authors of legitimate online content—i.e. the counter-notice and restore mechanism—does not apply unless the content was hosted by a service provider that was also a "carriage service provider". Yet, most content online are hosted by service providers that are not carriage service providers.

This article considers the challenges to creating a licensing scheme for the use of orphan works in the Irish jurisdiction. In the European Union, use of such works is permitted under the 2012 Orphan Works Directive. But, such use is restricted to digitalisation for non-commercial purposes to protect cultural heritage, and is limited to certain institutions, e.g. museums and archives. This leaves open the policy question of whether or not Member States can pursue broader reform that expands use to the general public for commercial and non-commercial uses alike. Drawing on criticisms of the UK licensing scheme, this article weighs the prospects for any similar Irish scheme in view of Ireland’s European and international obligations when it comes to protecting author’s rights.

Copyright infringement is a widespread phenomenon that produces massive financial losses to stakeholders. Based on an extensive examination of damage awards in copyright infringement cases from the United States, Canada, Singapore, and Italy, this article proposes a comprehensive cross-jurisdictional analysis. The analysis regards types, factors, methodologies, and arguments. This article's findings can be used to adjust the provisions regarding damage awards, to improve the litigation of such cases, to elaborate educational materials, for professional programs or law school clinics, and to develop better prevention policies. The proposed improvements could lead to a more unified approach to damage awards, increase the litigation transparency and the outcome predictability, and better commensurate the award with the infringement. While this article considered only four jurisdictions, the findings can be of significant interest to a global context.

Abstract

The paper aims at explaining the current crisis of copyright law in the digital era. The primary hypothesis of the study is that the core of the problem can be found in the divergence between legal and social norms concerning the access to intellectual and artistic creations. The author discerns two main sources of the conflict between these two bodies of norms. The first is the result of the particular dynamics in the development of technology, copyright law and social norms that are perceived as a global phenomenon. The second is the outcome of specific local particularities that led in some societies to the evolution of social norms which differ considerably from the contemporary intellectual property regime. In both cases, however, the core of the problem lies in the fact that consumer held social norms (developed either on the global or local level) strongly oppose the absolute property rhetoric present in most of the international regulations in copyright law.