Software Copyright Laws

Since computer programs are relatively new, software copyright laws are still often being changed and reformed. Today there are millions of different types of computer programs and software that have many different functions. Software can help users obtain music, protect them from viruses, access the internet and many other beneficial services. With the constant advances of computer programs, many people feel that the software copyright laws are either not strict enough or that they are just not being enforced.

In the mid seventies an organization was created, called The Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works. Their main focus is to enforce all copyright laws especially software copyright laws. The commission was formed because at the time, it was obvious that computer programs had no real regulations or protections. The President and congress knew that there was a need for software copyright laws. Computer software was new at the time. So not only was there a need to protect names of software, but software copyright laws were needed to protect characteristics of individual software as well as specific unique functions. In the early eighties, The House of Representatives and The Senate worked together to add “computer program” to already existing copyright law. 1985 was a crucial year for software copyright law. Congress started a very long process that examined the software copyright law word for word and sought out ways to improve and enforce it. The commission that was formed, software copyright law itself and steps to update legislation that were taken gave owners of computer software the same rights as an author of any copyrighted work. Software copyright law gave the creator of a computer program the same legal rights as a someone who has a patented idea or invention.

If it was not for software copyright law, people could steal programs or mimic them in order to create the same or similar program with just a different name. Although software copyright law suggests that creators of computer software are protected by the law, infringement of these laws occur often. The reason why violations of the these laws happen so often is because it is very difficult to supervise and safeguard what software is being created and whether certain software is original or not. There are also many programs that provide its users with the same or similar services. That is when software copyright law becomes more important, yet harder to apply. Owning the rights to characteristics of a program or the way in which a program works is not as clear of an issue as other aspects of the law are. Regardless of it’s short comings, software copyright law is extremely important because it protects owners of software. In 2010, with new software being created constantly, it is imperative that these laws are enforced to the fullest extent.

Music Copyright Laws

In the United States, music copyright laws are in place to protect the author of the music. Music copyright laws are intended to prevent people or companies from stealing and using music that is not theirs. However, the author of a piece of music defined by music copyright law may not be the real author. This happens when record companies abuse the music copyright laws and manipulate musicians. History tells us that music copyright laws protect the record companies more than they protect musicians themselves.

Popular established record companies such as Virgin Records, Sony, Elektra and Legacy are known to abide by music copyright law. However, there are many smaller record companies that use music copyright law to their advantage in order to manipulate musicians. There are thousands of unsigned bands in the United States that have been together for a long time and continue to work hard even though they have never received a record contract. It is these bands that the smaller record companies look for; frustrated musicians who are just looking for a break. The record company will pick a band that they feel can produce successful songs. They will then offer the band a record contract that any lawyer who know music copyright law will laugh at. Unfortunately for bands in this position, they are usually too excited about receiving their first record contract, that they won’t bother to read it or will not ask any questions about the several pages of fine print. In the next step of this popular scam, they will have the band record their own original music in a studio that the company owns. As far as the record company is concerned, this is the end of the process. The band did not read or concern themselves with the part of the contract that states that the record company owns all music recorded in their studios. Music copyright law is now on the side of the manipulative record company. The company now has a few options. They can take the music recorded in their studio and sell it to anybody including television and radio stations around the world. They can take the songs and give them to a studio created band that might have a more attractive image or be more talented in the studio’s opinion. There is also the option of releasing the music as it is, but keep all of the profit. What the record company plans on using the recorded music for may or may not be included in the original contract in some alternative suggestive language that might not be alarming to an average musician. However, a lawyer that knows music copyright law would point it out instantly.

It is in the best interest of all musicians to take any contract they receive, whether issued by an established or virtually unknown record company. Record companies can be very powerful and once they have your signature, they can take advantage of you and the music you created. Although receiving a record contract can be very exciting, it can blur one’s judgment and the consequences can be far worse than being an unsigned musician

President and Copyright

Ever since February of 2007 when he made the announcement that he was running for President of The United States, Barack Obama’s name and face have been put on almost every product imaginable. Originally it was Barack Obama’s own campaign that would sell typical items, such as pins and posters in order to raise money. However, towards the end of the democratic primaries in mid 2008, the battle to win the party’s nomination made Barack Obama a household name. Pins and posters quickly turned into more unusual products such as Chia Pets, his own cereal, pajamas and even a new Ben and Jerry’s ice cream flavor. The amount of Obama products that companies were selling was unprecedented compared to any other item they have sold. When Barack Obama was elected President of The United States, sales went even further through the roof. It was around this time that lawyers and other staff members on The President’s team started raising concerns and questions about the US copyright laws. This raises questions about copyright laws.

• If a celebrity’s face is used on products that are sold to the public, they will demand and in most cases receive royalties. Royalties are benefits received by who ever is the author or rightful owner of the original work that is being sold. Typical examples of celebrities who’s face are often used on products range from Marilyn Monroe to Michael Jackson, Elvis and Michael Jordan. Due to copyright laws, these celebrities receive money from any product with their face or trademark image on it that is sold. The copyright laws protect people from profiting from other people’s work, face, or trademark image. Without copyright laws, you could put a popular celebrity’s face on a coffee mug, sell it and not owe any of your profit to anybody.

• Copyright law is not applied the same way to The President of The United States as it is with other celebrities. The same could be said about other world leaders. When dealing with copyright law and world leaders or popular political figures, the first amendment come into play. The first amendment gives Americans the right to freedom of speech. Because Barack Obama is The President of The United States, using his face on products can be debated over people’s right to express their support or opposition for Barack Obama. However, White House lawyers have recently been looking at the situation in regards to copyright law. Although copyright law does give people rights to their own images, this situation is not as black and white as it is with other celebrities. White House lawyers are now looking for ways to protect The President’s rights. However, they are being careful as to not downplay the excitement that the general public has for the leader of the free world. Many people suggest that President Barack Obama is currently the most famous person in the world. So if White House lawyers attempt to put a complete stop to the selling of The President’s image, that could result in negative feelings and feedback from the American people.

There have been cases of American citizens being criminally prosecuted for using Barack Obama’s image for profit. One person used The President’s image on a poster that became extremely popular and faced criminal charges for not only selling the poster, but lied about where the exact image came from. Many people feel that since he is The President of The United States, he should be held to a different standard in terms of copyright law. However, White House lawyers and Barack Obama supporters feel that this freedom can allow The President’s image in a negative way. The situation has not yet been resolved.

Internet Copyright

The internet has gone through many major advancements in recent years. In the age of Myspace, Facebook, Twitter, Flickr and blogs the internet is a source for endless information and constant instant communication. Websites quickly went from being owned only by established businesses to virtually anyone who wanted one. With all this personal work, many have been asking questions about internet copyright laws. Do internet copyright laws exist? The answer to that question is yes, internet copyright laws do exist and they are very clear and simple. However, it is a very difficult task to keep an eye on the millions, possibly billions of websites that exist on the internet.

Since most people are not aware of the internet copyright laws, there is one huge misconception about internet copyright law. Many people believe that if a certain piece of work or image does not have a copyright mark or is not listed as being copyrighted, it is not copyrighted. This is not true. Internet copyright law suggests that everything on an original website is copyrighted and is protected by internet copyright law. It is possible and rather likely that people are breaking internet copyright law on a daily basis. Especially with the popularity of blogs constantly growing, people could very easily copy and paste information, opinions, images, audio, links and anything else found on websites on their own site. Breaking internet copyright law can result in punishments, however, it is near impossible to keep track of who does what on the internet. Also, many in the general public are not sure as to who is responsible for maintaining law and order on the internet.

With further internet advancements will come more responsibilities. Even though it seems as if websites go on forever like numbers, there are people who believe there should be a system in place to enforce internet copyright law. Both businesses and independent websites include information and images that belong to the owner or owners of the website. Just like someone can not legally produce and sell merchandise with an official sports logo on it, the same theory should apply to someone who wants to copy and paste another website’s developed research, opinions or images onto their website. The internet is arguably one of the best advancements in technology in recent history. However, just because it is new does not mean it can not be regulated.

Copyright Laws

During the last couple years of the 1990s, a new computer program became available for download for free. This new program was called Napster. It was one of a kind and quickly became popular. The purpose of the program was to provide users with free music. The concept was that users would upload music onto the program and then share their music. Other users could then download your music and vise versa. Eventually, millions of users were able to all share their music collection with each other. The music was in mp3 format which is simple to download and play from almost any media players. It was not long until professional musicians became aware of this program and started asking questions regarding federal copyright law. According to federal copyright laws, one cannot make copies of a band’s CD and sell it without the band’s permission. Napster was promoting free music trading which in any other format, would break federal copyright law. However, trading music on the internet was a new concept in 2000 when the first legal challenge came about, so not everyone was sure whether or not Napster broke any federal copyright laws.

• In 2000, heavy metal band Metallica became aware that one of their unreleased demos was available for free download on the Napster program. Soon after, rapper Dr. Dre also realized that some of his material was on Napster as well. Both Metallica and Dr. Dre used the same law firm and sent official requests to remove the material from the program, but Napster refused and legal actions were taken.

• In the same year, pop singer Madonna was involved in talks with Napster representatives in order to produce some sort of partnership between the two parties. However, she later realized that her unreleased single had been leaked on Napster. Her record company also took legal action as they felt that Napster had broken federal copyright laws.

Several record companies took legal actions against Napster in 2000. These companies felt that federal copyright law was not being forced and the matter needed to be dealt with. At this point there were few other examples of issues involving federal copyright law and the internet. Furthermore, there were no other examples of federal copyright law and music on the internet. After months of legal hearings, Napster was required by the courts to supervise what all users were doing and make sure that no federal copyright laws were broken. Napster could not honor that demand and was forced to terminate the program during the summer of 2001. The next year they were forced to declare bankruptcy. Today there are many programs that provide the same exact or similar service. If Napster was breaking federal copyright laws, then it could be assumed that programs like Limewire are breaking federal copyright laws as well