Recent Heated Confrontation Over Internet Copyright Laws example essay topic

Kevin Kearney May 4, 2003 MGT 251 / Extra Credit Internet Copyright Laws student comes home to his dorm at the University of Scranton after a rough day of classes. With the quick internet connection provided on the school's network, the student makes a few clicks and logs into Morpheus, a program that enables music fans to download free music. Within a few minutes he is on his way to owning an unlimited amount of songs at no cost. Everything this student is doing is legal, right? Wrong. The downloaded music from the internet is copyrighted material.

Today's internet is considered an "information superhighway", a device where anything from music, books, programs and information can be shared worldwide. Since billions of people have the ability to access the internet, the content of the internet can be difficult to regulate. One controversy which has risen because people can transmit and share information broadly via the internet is that of copyright infringement. Arguments over the rights to property on the internet have been heated.

For example, Napster (similar to Morpheus) was sued for providing software that enabled internet users to download music at no cost. Since the internet is a device that is used worldwide, copyright laws should exist to protect people who own copyrights so their civil liberties are not infringed upon. Because the internet is sometimes considered unregulated, users often assume that the law does not apply to its use. Widespread misuse of people's intellectual property via the internet occurs because of this belief, though anyone can access the internet. Since the Kearney 2 number of people who have the ability to access the internet is so high, laws that are made to protect people's publications in other media should also apply to protect them on the internet. Copyrights that protect products can sometimes be confusing to understand.

The simplest way to identify copyright infringement is to question if the copyright is handed over with the product. For example, if a person owns a compact disc and lets a friend borrow it, the compact disc is being passed along to the friend with the copyright. If the person duplicates the compact disc for the friend, the compact disc is handed over without the copyright of the original compact disc. The same is true for books, logos, and anything else that can carry a copyright. An excerpt from Ann Okerson's article, "Who Owns Digital Works" (published in the magazine, "Scientific American"), clearly explains what types of property are protected under the United States copyright law: "The most recent revision of the U.S. copyright law, made in 1978, is far more thorough than its predecessors. It protects creative works in general, including literature, music, drama, pantomime, choreography, pictorial, graphical and sculptural works, motion pictures and other audiovisual creations, sound recordings and architecture.

(Patents and trademarks are governed by their own laws, as are trade secrets.) Copyright explicitly grants the owners of the expression of an idea the right to prevent anyone from making co copies of it, preparing derivative works, distributing the work, performing it or displaying it without permission" (Okerson paragraph 14). The key is what type of works are protected by copyrights and the word Kearney 3 distribution. Many types of works that are protected by copyright can easily be found and downloaded on the internet. For example, music can be downloaded from Morpheus, or literary works can be found with the click of the search button on any search engine available on the internet. How is downloading from the internet any different than other types of access, such as borrowing from a library? Many might consider borrowing from a library as infringing on copyright laws as well, since libraries purchase books and loan them out to the public.

Why not let a person purchase a book and place the text on the internet? Indeed, a difference does exist. First, if the library purchases several copies of a book, when a person, checks out the book numerous times, the library still owns only two copies. When the book is handed over to the person, the copyright follows as well. On the other hand, when a book is bought, either by a company or individual, and is displayed on the internet, numerous people have the ability to access the book. People have the ability to copy or download the book onto their computer, thus creating numerous copies of the book from the original source.

Once the book is copied or downloaded, the owner of the computer basically owns a copy of the item without ever having to pay a single dime to the author. Another situation where copyright infringement exists which may be confusing is where a person copies a compact disc onto a tape. When the tape is used for personal use, this copying is okay; The original copyright is still with the original purchaser. When the tape is passed on or given to another person, then copyright infringement has occurred. Kearney 4 Because this copying is rather small and a seemingly inconspicuous crime, it will likely go unpunished. But if the person mass produces tapes and distributes them, then some sort of legal confrontation is almost guaranteed.

A recent heated confrontation over internet copyright laws involved the Church of Scientology and its former members. The situation is as follows: "The Net is playing a major role in the legal unraveling of the Church on Scientology, which has turned to the legal system -- sometimes in a drastic way -- to stop the spread of its "sacred text" onto the Internet. Lawrence Wollersheim and Bob Penny, long-time critics and the ex-members of the Church of Scientology recently had all their computers, equipment, and software confiscated, along with the dozens of boxes of paper files by CofS in Boulder County, CO" (Fearer 350). The CofS requires that members pay a fee to attain the information that it provides. Certain standards are also required to attain such information.

Scientologists say their upper-level material and information are valued as trade secrets and are in fact copyrighted, although unpublished. This exists because premature exposure to the knowledge without training could cause 'irreversible spiritual harm,' according to Religious Technology Center (RTC) " (Fearer 351). Wollershiem and Penny used the internet to expose secrets of the CofS. They wanted to warn others of the false identity of the CofS in an attempt to make sure others weren't fooled. Although their intent may be in good faith for the public, the information that they are exposing is under copyright. Therefore the CofS is able to use the law to their advantage.

Although the information and the beliefs on the Church of Scientology may be Kearney 5 outrageous and ridiculous, their information is under copyright laws. The Church should have the ability to supervise the usage of their material. Since the laws were unclear, the case was taken to court. The U.S. copyright law does not specify content, but rather the ownership of the material. No matter how ludicrous the material may be, the Church of Scientology should have the law on its side if their material is under copyright laws.

However, while in court, it was thought the publications could be of public domain. The courts decided that the information was not an infringement and returned the confiscated property to Wollershiem and Penny. Copyright laws exist to protect the ownership of material. Where the material is located should not void the copyright. If copying property is for personal use, than a problem should not exist. If a person starts to make money or distribute the copied material, then a problem with copyright laws will arise.

In this case, the provider of the material will be at fault. With the arrival of the electronic age, the internet will be another place where copyright laws are needed, and must be enforced; The internet cannot be free and unregulated. Whether it is a tape in a stereo, or a religious hoax on the internet, copyright laws must exist and be upheld to protect individuals from infringement of their property rights.

Bibliography

Knowledge and Identity in the Electronic Age. Richard Fearer; McGraw-Hill, 1998.
124 131. Who owns digital works. Scientific American Publication. Ann Okerson; October 13, 2002.