波叔一波中特图片
代寫 會員中心 TAG標簽
網站地圖 RSS
澳洲代寫assignment代寫英國assignment 新西蘭代寫assignment Assignment格式 如何寫assignment
返回首頁

代寫英國版權和形象權法assignment:UK copyright and image rights law

時間:2019-03-25 12:11來源:未知 作者:anne 點擊:
問題:非法從互聯網下載版權資料的行為非常廣泛,任何試圖實施有效法律限制的做法都是徒勞的。 Question: The illegal downloading of copyright material from the internet is so extensive that any attempt to impose e
問題:非法從互聯網下載版權資料的行為非常廣泛,任何試圖實施有效法律限制的做法都是徒勞的。
Question: The illegal downloading of copyright material from the internet is so extensive that any attempt to impose effective legal restriction is futile” Discuss
從數字時代開始,互聯網上盜版和非法下載諸如音樂、電影、視頻游戲等版權資料的現象越來越普遍。一方面,這種做法支持那些不太幸運的消費者(他們無法購買昂貴的材料)獲取更廣泛的在線資源,并將其用于教育或娛樂目的。另一方面,它挑戰了法律機構和創意產業在平衡版權所有者合法利益和公共利益方面的不懈努力。由于從互聯網上非法下載是本質錯誤的,不應被鼓勵,因此建議適當設計和不斷修改法律和法律補救措施,以跟上技術進步,使盜版得以繼續。然而,有人批評說,英國目前的法律框架不能滿足這些要求,而且在解決網絡版權侵權問題上仍然發揮著非常脆弱的作用。
Piracy and illegal file downloading of copyright materials such as: music, film, video games… over theinternet have become increasingly popular since the digital age began. On the one hand, this practicesupports less fortunate consumers – who cannot be able to purchase expensive materials – to accessa wider range of online resources and use them for educational or entertainment purposes. On theother hand, it challenges the relentless effort of the legal bodies and the creative industries inbalancing the legitimate benefits of copyright owners and the public interest. As illegal downloadsfrom the internet are intrinsically wrong and should not be encouraged, it’s suggested that the lawand legal remedies should be designed appropriately and amended constantly to keep up with thetechnological advances that enable piracy to continue. However, it has been criticized that thecurrent legal frameworks in the UK could not satisfy those requirements and still play a very weakrole in tackling online copyright infringement.
本文旨在討論一種觀點,即對非法下載的法律限制在實踐中并不有效——無論任何嘗試——因為網絡盜版如此廣泛。雖然在當前的背景下,這一聲明似乎是正確的,但評估問題的不同方面,特別是法律機構和政策的作用,對于提供更客觀和全面的觀點至關重要。因此,本文將分為兩個部分。第一個是評估英國網絡版權侵權的程度。第二個重點是政府和相關利益相關者在處理網絡盜版問題上的投入。
This paper aims to discuss an idea which claim that legal restrictions on illegal downloads are noteffective in practice – regardless any attempts - because online piracy is so extensive. While thisstatement seems to be true under the current context, evaluating different aspects of the issue,especially the role of legal bodies and policies, are crucial to provide a more objective andcomprehensive perspective. Hence, this paper will be divided into two sections. The first oneevaluates the extent of online copyright infringement in the UK. The second one focuses on theefforts of both the government and related stakeholders in dealing with online piracy issue.
To begin with, it’s reported that online piracy has made huge losses in revenue for the creativeindustries. According to an analysis prepared by LEK for the Motion Picture Association in 2005, theworldwide motion picture industry, including foreign and domestic producers, distributors, theaters,video stores and pay-per-view operators, lost $18.2 billion in 2005 as a result of piracy (MPA, 2006,p.4). In the UK, the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) indicated that online copyright infringementcosted the music industry over £200 million in lost revenue in 2009, and the cumulative total lossesbetween 2001 and 2012 were estimated to be £1.2 billion (Mene, 2010). In addition, a recentresearch of Kantar Media into the extent of online copyright infringement in the UK has revealedmany useful information. It’s estimated that amongst those internet users who consumed contentonline over the three-month period (March – May 2015), 31% consumed at least one item illegally.Besides, levels of infringement varied significantly by content type; for example: 25% of those whoconsumed film, and 26% of those who consumed music, did so illegally, while the lowest incidenceof illegal consumption was among online book consumers (10%). As the result, 96 million music trackswere accessed illegally online in this period - the highest volumes of infringement across thecategories studied. Meanwhile, the TV programme category infringement levels have raised from12million in the previous wave to 16million this wave (Kantar Media, 2015, p.4). All those figuresdemonstrate a fact that online copyright infringement is a serious problem and more attempts needto be made in order to eliminate this activity. While there are no easy solutions, many lawyers believethat the most effective way to tackle online piracy is to adopt a three-pronged approach across thefollowing key areas: (1) Using legal remedies, (2) Creating lawful commercial alternatives and (3)Increasing education and awareness. (Mene, 2010)
The following section will examine how effectively government and related stakeholders have adopted the approaches suggested above to cope with online piracy issue.
Currently, in the UK, there are two primary legal frameworks could be used to settle disputes related to online piracy, as well as facilitating industry cooperation to reduce online infringement, namely: Copyright, Design and Patent Act 1988 (CDPA) and Digital Economy Act 2010 (DEA)
CDPA is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that received Royal Assent on 15 November1988. It reformulates almost completely the statutory basis of copyright law in the United Kingdom,which had, until then, been governed by the Copyright Act 1956 (legislation.gov.uk, 1988). It servestwo main purposes: (1) To ensure people are rewarded for their endeavors and (2) To give protectionto the copyright holder if someone tries to copy or steal their work. Under the Act, online copyrightinfringement is currently punishable by a maximum of two years imprisonment (see sections 107(4A)and 198(5A)). By comparison, the maximum custodial sentence for infringement in respect ofphysical goods is ten years (The Intellectual Property Office, 2015). This apparent inconsistency inpenalties was highlighted by the Gowers Review 2006 (Recommendation 36 stated that there shouldbe matched penalties for online and physical copyright infringement) and in fact, was criticized as amain reason why CDPA 1988 could not deal effectively with online infringement. (The IntellectualProperty Office, 2006). Mike Weatherley MP, currently IP advisor to the Prime Minister, also sharedthis view with many industry practitioners and stakeholders when he remarked in a recent discussion
There is currently a disparity in sentencing between online and offline crime that needs to be harmonized. This sends out all the wrong messages. Until this is changed, online crime will be seen as less significant than traditional theft (MP, 2014)
Furthermore, the term “affect prejudicially” used in CDPA was too vague when determining theextent to which a copyright owner needs to be affected before an offence is committed. It was arguedthat a single infringing file could fulfil this requirement in some circumstances (if widely sharedsubsequent to the infringement) therefore setting an unreasonable low threshold for committing theoffence. Though the Government agreed the term ‘affect prejudicially’ “could give rise to an elementof ambiguity”, they insisted that it not likely for a very minor infringement might result in a criminalprosecution since there was no such cases existed. (The Intellectual Property Office, 2015). Given thecurrent illegal downloading and sharing issue, in which a majority of consumer involved use thosematerials for their personal purposes, it turns out to be extremely hard for the creative industries touse CDPA as their main protective tool since it is basically not strong enough to prevent intentions todownload illegally.
The second legal framework designed to tackle copyright infringement is The Digital Economy Act2010 (c. 24) (DEA). Passed in 2010, it took two years since then for the Government to implementthe DEA due to the legal challenges brought by BT and TalkTalk, two of Britain's largest ISPs. Eventhough the initial obligations code for the DEA was drafted by Ofcom by the end of 2013, theimplementation once again was stalled by the Treasury which said that the cost distribution is notfeasible and needs to be rethought (Open Rights Group, n.d.)
The DEA specifies implementation of its copyright enforcement measures in two stages. In the first,known as "three strikes" or "graduated response", ISPs will be required to match their customer dataagainst data gathered by rightsholders about those believed to be sharing unauthorized copies ofmusic, TV shows, and movies. Next they will send warning letters to the subscribers who are soidentified. After a set number of letters – generally expected to be three – subscribers will be takento court for copyright infringement. Implementation moves on to the second stage if the Secretaryof State believes, after a year or more, that the amount of online copyright infringement is notdecreasing as intended. In the second stage, subscribers will be subject to technical measures rangingfrom slowed-down internet access to complete disconnection. While the Act moves the law closer inline with technological developments and provides additional solutions to online copyrightinfringement, it has had its critics and was deemed to be a failure to date. (Practical Law, 2010)


推薦內容
  • 英國作業
  • 新西蘭作業
  • 愛爾蘭作業
  • 美國作業
  • 加拿大作業
  • 代寫英國essay
  • 代寫澳洲essay
  • 代寫美國essay
  • 代寫加拿大essay
  • MBA Essay
  • Essay格式范文
  • 澳洲代寫assignment
  • 代寫英國assignment
  • 新西蘭代寫assignment
  • Assignment格式
  • 如何寫assignment
  • 代寫英國termpaper
  • 代寫澳洲termpaper
  • 英國coursework代寫
  • PEST分析法
  • literature review
  • Research Proposal
  • 參考文獻格式
  • case study
  • presentation
  • report格式
  • Summary范文
  • common application
  • Personal Statement
  • Motivation Letter
  • Application Letter
  • recommendation letter
  • 波叔一波中特图片 河北快三技巧规律 幸运飞艇6码倍投方案 预测pc大小单双稳赚软件 彩票站点申请 不犯法网赚每天稳赚五百块 内蒙古时时快三 财神爷时时彩手机版 北京pk苹果下载安装 原创36码特围 极速赛车冠亚稳赚玩法