DRM: Protecting US Intellectual Rights: The Internet, The Need for International Laws-Yay: Russia, I Agree.
Digital
Rights Management: Our US Constitution Protects More: Intellectual Property
Rights
Capella University, MS Computer Science,
Qualified NSA Training, IAS5002
Miss. Bayo Elizabeth Cary, AA, BA, MLIS
Research Paper Unit 4, Assignment 1 Due:
11-5-2017
Professor: Dr. Susan Ferebee
Miss.
Bayo Elizabeth Cary, AA, BA, MLIS
400 NW
1st Avenue, Apartment: 410
Gainesville,
FL 32601
11-5-2017
Response
By: Miss. Bayo Elizabeth Cary, AA, BA, MLIS
Unit 4
Assignment 1 Final DRM
Directions:
You
are a Principal Information Assurance and Security Analyst for a well-known
music producing company in California. Due to the increase in illegal
production of music and videos, the Chief Security Officer (CSO) has tasked you
with developing a security policy on digital rights management (DRM). Part of
the task, is to research and report back to them on the current laws, statutes,
and regulations that focus on DRM. You are asked to identify specific laws,
regulations, and statutes and develop a new policy to be distributed
corporate-wide.
Use
the study materials and engage in any additional research needed to fill in
knowledge gaps. Write a 3–4 page paper that covers the following:
·
Describe
five applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, or statutes that
relate to DRM.
·
Analyze
the objectives and challenges of enforcing federal state and local DRM laws,
regulations, or statutes.
·
Identify
the current practices among federal, state, and local law enforcement related
to DRM.
·
Develop
an e-mail-type communication announcing the new policy including:
·
Reason
for the new policy.
·
Specific
details of what constitutes legal and illegal copyrights.
·
Potential
ramifications for violations.
Researched Response By:
Miss. Bayo Elizabeth Cary, AA, BA,
MLIS
1.
Describe five applicable federal, state, and local
laws, regulations, or statutes that relate to DRM.
US Federal Laws: US Copyright Law:
I) The Contemporary US Copyright Law of 1976 (LOC, Copyright.gov Appendix A, 1976):
"The Copyright Act of 1976, which provides the basic framework for the current copyright law, was enacted on October 19, 1976, as Pub. L. No. 94-553, 90 Stat. 2541" (LOC, Copyright.gov title 17, 1976). The US Copyright laws, are a permanent asset, for the American people. As an American, I have a fundamental right, to own what I create. At no given time, is it legal, for other persons-even from other countries, to steal what I have originally designed. My copyright protections, have been endowed upon me, as an American citizen, through the US Constitution, and are not alterable, and are protected, as such.
II) The Digital Millennium Act of 1998 (LOC, Appendix B, 1998):
The growth of the Internet, and the increased use, by: music, film, and other industries-such, as authors, made it necessary, in 1998, for the US Congress, to amend the US copyright statutes, pertaining to US copyright laws. The laws became stricter, and not more relaxed, in-regards-to the rights of the original owner, and the legal obligations, of any persons: purchasing, borrowing, listening, watching, or reading-what is posted online, to provide, full, and legally required attributions, to the original producer. Additionally, the US government, decided to support, a strict reinforcement, of financial compensation, that is legally due, to: artists, film makers, writers, etc., who post entertainment, and news online-when, re-compensation is due, and when, copyrights had been infringed upon.
III) The Copy Right and Royalty Distribution Reform Act of 2004 (LOC, Appendix C, 2004):
Although the US, has a long history, of well-defined copyright laws, to protect the original creator, and artist, of any given work produced-in 2004, issues revolving around copyright infringement, became a pressing matter, for the US legal system. Music, was the primary bone of contention. Individual, who purchased music online, from providers, like, the Steve Jobs iTunes, were illegally, copying, and reproducing the songs-although, they had only paid, for 1 download. There was such an onslaught, of pressure, on business mogul: Steve Jobs, and his iTunes online web services, that in: 2007, Jobs opted, to try removing the DRM rights, to music, bought and shared online (Smith& Wingfield, 2007, p. 1).
In theory, what Mr. Jobs, wanted to do, for music listeners, and song traders, was kind and generous. In reality, removing all DRM, from music sold, or traded online, is not legal, and even Mr. Jobs-cannot be above, US: laws, rule, statutes, and regulations. It would have been a complete disaster, for musicians, or for anyone else, who works hard-at even a research paper, for US law, to agree-with Mr. Jobs. In legal studies, the situation, that Mr. Jobs, worked hard to arrange, would have initiated, what is called, a: "slippery slope." Antagonists, against the re-enforcement, of US copyright laws, would have then begun to argue, that-no copyright laws, should exist in the US at all, and, that anything posted online, is free-with no attribution due.
IV) Appendix E: The Intellectual Property Protection and Courts Amendments Act of 2004 (LOC, Appendix E, 2004):
Stealing someone else's intellectual property, is a criminal matter. However, the: "Intellectual Property Protection and Courts Amendment Act of 2004," reasserts, the rights, of a copyright owner, to take issues pertaining to copyright infringement, to the civil courts systems (LOC, Appendix E, 2004). Oft times, when there is a criminal matter, and the procedures, are restricted, to the criminal court systems, then, it is too difficult, to prosecute, when US laws, pertaining to: copyright infringement, have occurred. "Substantive," the issue of the complaints, must state, the entire reason, for the legal complaint, and if, the matter, could not be clearly defined, as strictly a criminal problem-then, the defendant, could not prosecute-without legal access, to the civil courts.
V) Appendix F: The Prioritizing Code and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008: Title--18 Crimes and Criminal Procedure US Code:
The United States, has a great deal of trouble, reinforcing US laws, outside of the US. The Internet, is not confined to the boundaries, and limitations, of the contiguous United States, or even to our presently, annexed states abroad. The Internet, containing a multitude, of valuable intellectual: products, and properties, is available Internationally. This act, can to be revised, and re-introduced by the US Congress, in: 2008, because, US companies, and individuals, began to lose, monstrous amounts of: time, money, property, information, and data-because, of the increased access, of US websites, by International patrons (LOC, Appendix F, 2008). The United States, is supposed to work hard, to defend financial property, that is produced by Americans, or-within the United States, it is how, the US economy survives.
US Federal Laws: US Copyright Law:
I) The Contemporary US Copyright Law of 1976 (LOC, Copyright.gov Appendix A, 1976):
"The Copyright Act of 1976, which provides the basic framework for the current copyright law, was enacted on October 19, 1976, as Pub. L. No. 94-553, 90 Stat. 2541" (LOC, Copyright.gov title 17, 1976). The US Copyright laws, are a permanent asset, for the American people. As an American, I have a fundamental right, to own what I create. At no given time, is it legal, for other persons-even from other countries, to steal what I have originally designed. My copyright protections, have been endowed upon me, as an American citizen, through the US Constitution, and are not alterable, and are protected, as such.
II) The Digital Millennium Act of 1998 (LOC, Appendix B, 1998):
The growth of the Internet, and the increased use, by: music, film, and other industries-such, as authors, made it necessary, in 1998, for the US Congress, to amend the US copyright statutes, pertaining to US copyright laws. The laws became stricter, and not more relaxed, in-regards-to the rights of the original owner, and the legal obligations, of any persons: purchasing, borrowing, listening, watching, or reading-what is posted online, to provide, full, and legally required attributions, to the original producer. Additionally, the US government, decided to support, a strict reinforcement, of financial compensation, that is legally due, to: artists, film makers, writers, etc., who post entertainment, and news online-when, re-compensation is due, and when, copyrights had been infringed upon.
III) The Copy Right and Royalty Distribution Reform Act of 2004 (LOC, Appendix C, 2004):
Although the US, has a long history, of well-defined copyright laws, to protect the original creator, and artist, of any given work produced-in 2004, issues revolving around copyright infringement, became a pressing matter, for the US legal system. Music, was the primary bone of contention. Individual, who purchased music online, from providers, like, the Steve Jobs iTunes, were illegally, copying, and reproducing the songs-although, they had only paid, for 1 download. There was such an onslaught, of pressure, on business mogul: Steve Jobs, and his iTunes online web services, that in: 2007, Jobs opted, to try removing the DRM rights, to music, bought and shared online (Smith& Wingfield, 2007, p. 1).
In theory, what Mr. Jobs, wanted to do, for music listeners, and song traders, was kind and generous. In reality, removing all DRM, from music sold, or traded online, is not legal, and even Mr. Jobs-cannot be above, US: laws, rule, statutes, and regulations. It would have been a complete disaster, for musicians, or for anyone else, who works hard-at even a research paper, for US law, to agree-with Mr. Jobs. In legal studies, the situation, that Mr. Jobs, worked hard to arrange, would have initiated, what is called, a: "slippery slope." Antagonists, against the re-enforcement, of US copyright laws, would have then begun to argue, that-no copyright laws, should exist in the US at all, and, that anything posted online, is free-with no attribution due.
IV) Appendix E: The Intellectual Property Protection and Courts Amendments Act of 2004 (LOC, Appendix E, 2004):
Stealing someone else's intellectual property, is a criminal matter. However, the: "Intellectual Property Protection and Courts Amendment Act of 2004," reasserts, the rights, of a copyright owner, to take issues pertaining to copyright infringement, to the civil courts systems (LOC, Appendix E, 2004). Oft times, when there is a criminal matter, and the procedures, are restricted, to the criminal court systems, then, it is too difficult, to prosecute, when US laws, pertaining to: copyright infringement, have occurred. "Substantive," the issue of the complaints, must state, the entire reason, for the legal complaint, and if, the matter, could not be clearly defined, as strictly a criminal problem-then, the defendant, could not prosecute-without legal access, to the civil courts.
V) Appendix F: The Prioritizing Code and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008: Title--18 Crimes and Criminal Procedure US Code:
The United States, has a great deal of trouble, reinforcing US laws, outside of the US. The Internet, is not confined to the boundaries, and limitations, of the contiguous United States, or even to our presently, annexed states abroad. The Internet, containing a multitude, of valuable intellectual: products, and properties, is available Internationally. This act, can to be revised, and re-introduced by the US Congress, in: 2008, because, US companies, and individuals, began to lose, monstrous amounts of: time, money, property, information, and data-because, of the increased access, of US websites, by International patrons (LOC, Appendix F, 2008). The United States, is supposed to work hard, to defend financial property, that is produced by Americans, or-within the United States, it is how, the US economy survives.
2.
Analyze the objectives and challenges of enforcing
federal state and local DRM laws, regulations, or statutes:
The United States government, established, and supports copyright: laws, rules, statutes, regulations, and reinforcements (LOC, Copyright.gov Office, n.d.). Copyright laws, protect the original author, of any given digital production effort. Without copyright laws, the original producer, would not be granted, any attribution, for the works. In the United States, plagiarism is illegal-because, it is stealing works, from the original creator. Time, and effort, are money, and skill-and, because, it is illegal to steal from someone-full attribution, must be granted, on every instance, that copyrights, are established-regardless.
There are large groups of individuals, who have established non-profit, and charity organizations in the US, to: lobby politically, and to argue against: copyrights. For instance, The American Association of Law Librarians (AALL)-a professional organization, that formally belonged to, argues that, DRM is restrictive, and prevents consumers from copying, music, video, or any other digitally formatted products, that they have purchased (AALL, 2017).
Organizations, like AALL, who support de-criminalizing violations, of US copyright laws, always argue as defendants: "Fair Use," in court. Proponents of: "Fair Use," defense, for copyright infringement law suits, are insulting the integrity, of the original creator, and producer, of any original work of art, and at the very same time-systematically, ruining the US economy (Boudreau, et. al., 2003, p.19). Stealing, is stealing. Because something is available online, does not mean that it is free, and, it had to come from somewhere-US copyright laws, are legally enforceable, and require full attribution to be given, to the original creator.
In addition, to various organizations-usually immigrants, who are anti-American, and who oppose the US Constitution, who speak out-openly, on the Internet, and in public gatherings, against US copyright laws, Americans have to worry, about people who log-on line, to the Internet, in other countries. In America, we should all understand, that stealing is prohibited, whether that be, your neighbors couch, or microwave, or-the homework that was just completed last night. The same rules apply, for any information, and data posted online-regardless, or whether-or-not, what is uploaded to share, is a: song, video, or your latest research paper.
Other countries, have different rules, values, and laws. Here in the US, theoretically, US: rules, laws, statutes, and regulations, can be reinforced, through the US courts systems, as either, a: civil or criminal matter. When someone, in another country, steals intellectual property, from an American, offline, the reinforcement, of US property and copyrights, can be much more impossible, to reinforce. The Internet is ubiquitous now-with very few exceptions. The Internet reaches, all ends of the globe, and one must make choices, and take risks. As a creator, and producer, one must weigh, the risks of needing to: sell, and share information online, with an International audience, and-worry some, about what may be illegally stolen, when full attribution, is not given.
The United States government, established, and supports copyright: laws, rules, statutes, regulations, and reinforcements (LOC, Copyright.gov Office, n.d.). Copyright laws, protect the original author, of any given digital production effort. Without copyright laws, the original producer, would not be granted, any attribution, for the works. In the United States, plagiarism is illegal-because, it is stealing works, from the original creator. Time, and effort, are money, and skill-and, because, it is illegal to steal from someone-full attribution, must be granted, on every instance, that copyrights, are established-regardless.
There are large groups of individuals, who have established non-profit, and charity organizations in the US, to: lobby politically, and to argue against: copyrights. For instance, The American Association of Law Librarians (AALL)-a professional organization, that formally belonged to, argues that, DRM is restrictive, and prevents consumers from copying, music, video, or any other digitally formatted products, that they have purchased (AALL, 2017).
Organizations, like AALL, who support de-criminalizing violations, of US copyright laws, always argue as defendants: "Fair Use," in court. Proponents of: "Fair Use," defense, for copyright infringement law suits, are insulting the integrity, of the original creator, and producer, of any original work of art, and at the very same time-systematically, ruining the US economy (Boudreau, et. al., 2003, p.19). Stealing, is stealing. Because something is available online, does not mean that it is free, and, it had to come from somewhere-US copyright laws, are legally enforceable, and require full attribution to be given, to the original creator.
In addition, to various organizations-usually immigrants, who are anti-American, and who oppose the US Constitution, who speak out-openly, on the Internet, and in public gatherings, against US copyright laws, Americans have to worry, about people who log-on line, to the Internet, in other countries. In America, we should all understand, that stealing is prohibited, whether that be, your neighbors couch, or microwave, or-the homework that was just completed last night. The same rules apply, for any information, and data posted online-regardless, or whether-or-not, what is uploaded to share, is a: song, video, or your latest research paper.
Other countries, have different rules, values, and laws. Here in the US, theoretically, US: rules, laws, statutes, and regulations, can be reinforced, through the US courts systems, as either, a: civil or criminal matter. When someone, in another country, steals intellectual property, from an American, offline, the reinforcement, of US property and copyrights, can be much more impossible, to reinforce. The Internet is ubiquitous now-with very few exceptions. The Internet reaches, all ends of the globe, and one must make choices, and take risks. As a creator, and producer, one must weigh, the risks of needing to: sell, and share information online, with an International audience, and-worry some, about what may be illegally stolen, when full attribution, is not given.
3.
Identify the current practices among federal, state,
and local law enforcement related to DRM:
The
future of privacy is increasingly linked to the future of copyright
enforcement. In their push to control the proliferation of unauthorized copies,
and to maximize profit from information goods distributed over the Internet,
copyright owners and their technology partners are designing digital rights
management (DRM) technologies that will allow more perfect control over access
to and use of digital files. The same capabilities that enable more perfect
control also implicate the privacy interests of users of information goods.
(Cohen, 2003, Introduction)
Individuals,
who produce original works of art, and post them online, have available to
them, several ways, to attempt to protect, what they have decided, to
generously share:
1.
License Agreement;
2.
US Legal Protections;
3.
The Exact Rights, and Rights Retained by the
Licensor-Creative Commons. (Boudreau, et. al., 2003, p.16)
Specifically,
in-regards-to music rights, and distribution, there are available online, 3
major DRM license holders, that can be contacted, if an individual, is
interested, in purchasing the rights, to: play, or in any other way alter, the
original musical creations, of an American musician (Boudreau, et. al., 2003,
p. 16):
1.
American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers
(ASCAP);
2.
Broadcast Music Incorporated (BMI);
3.
SESAC. (Boudreau, et., al., 2003, p. 16)
The
biggest challenge, purportedly, is to protect American music artists, from the
threat posed, by the International markets-whereby, other countries, are not
legally obligated, to respect, or to respond, to US laws. To combat music theft
online, BMI, joined, with 5 other, International music license groups, in:
2000, to sign an International agreement, on how online sales, and copyright
laws, are to be handled (Boudreau, et. al., 2003, p. 16):
1.
BMI-United States;
2.
BUMA-Holland;
3.
GEMA-Germany;
4.
PRS-UK;
5.
SACEM-France. (Boudreau, et. al., 2003, p. 16)
The
US: rules, laws, statutes, and regulations, specifically protecting music, and
online sound recordings, are complicated, and the music, is never free. There
are charges, which are applicable, dependent upon, where the music is played,
how much of a song is used, how famous the original musician was, and, how long
the music will be made available, etc. More information, regarding the
regulation, of: music, sounds, and MP3 recordings in general, can gained, by
contacting, various organizations, and businesses, that are employed, to
control the American music industry:
1.
The Harry Fox Agency;
2.
Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA);
3.
ASCAP;
4.
US Copyright Office. (Boudreau, et. al., 2003, p. 17)
When
in doubt, about the copyrights, of any particular items, located on the
Internet, the first, and most appropriate step to take, if you would like to
copy, and to use the materials, is to contact the original creator, to request
permission (Boudreau, et., al., 2003, p. 17).
Under circumstances, where, you are
unable to locate, the original creator, of any given work, posted online, then:
The United States copyright office, is supposed to assist you, in establishing
attribution, for what you have located online (Boudreau, et. al., 2003, p. 17).
There are steps, that you are legally required to follow, and that, are
available through the US copyright office, if you have located, some original
work, online, and, you are unable to locate the author, to request permission,
to use-or, if you are unable to locate the original creator, to give the
legally required full attribution (Boudreau, et. al., 2003, p. 17).
There are currently, 3 main copyright laws,
in the US, that are intended to protect, the rights, of musicians, what they
create, and what they chose to share online:
1.
US Copyright Act;
2.
Audio Home Recording Act (1992);
3.
Digital Millennium Act (1998). (Boudreau, et.
al., 2003, p. 17)
Presently,
violations of US copyright: rules, laws, statutes, and regulations, can be
dealt with, through the US courts systems. Violations, of US copyright laws,
can be dealt with, as a civil, or criminal matter-or both. Procedures, for
filing a suit, against an individual, organization, or foreign entity, who have
infringed upon your personal copyrights, also known as DRM, can be gained, by
contacting a US attorney, who is a member of a US Bar Association, or, by
contacting a US court.
4. Develop an e-mail-type communication
announcing the new policy including:
A.
Reason
for the new policy;
B.
Specific
details of what constitutes legal and illegal copyrights;
C.
Potential
ramifications for violations.
Email:
To: General Office
Staff-Listserv
From: Office Management
Date: November 5, 2017
Subject:
DRM: Current US Law: Increasing Digital Security: Protect and Serve Our
Clients
To Whom It May Concern:
Introduction and Reasons for New
DRM Company Policy:
Good morning.
I am sending out a listserv announcement today, via our company email
service-to prep staff, for our scheduled meeting, at the end of the week, to
discuss: DRM, current US laws, and how we as a company, can increase security
measures, to protect our clientele, and our bottom line. It has been recently brought
to my attention, our music producing clientele, are loosing earnings online
line, due to an increase, of illegal copyright infringements-whereby, music,
and sound recordings, are being downloaded, and then re-produced-oft time, without
payment, or required attributions.
Background Research
DRM and US Law-Details of What Constitutes, Legal and Illegal US of
Intellectual Property:
US law, supports the rights, of our
clients, to own, and to sell, and to regulate the reproduction, of their own
original productions-whether, they be posted online, and available for purchase
there, or not. US laws, support prosecution, in any cases, whereby,
information, has been stolen, from an original owner-whether the information,
is posted online, in the form of digital data, or not. The challenge, I think,
is deciding as a company, how to move forward, with a litigious matter. We will
have to gather the legal evidence, in the correct forms, to support legal
cases, to defend our clientele, and their ownership rights.
Potential
Consequences and Legal Ramifications, of Copyright (DRM) Violations:
The legal consequences, in the US, of
stealing intellectual property, can be through either, a: civil, or criminal-or
both, court proceeding. Stealing intellectual property, is a major crime, and
must be dealt with accordingly. Although generally, the punishment, for
stealing the original works of another producer, are usually financial, in
extreme cases-jail time, even imprisonment, is possible. As a company, we
have-to-take, the lives, and the artistical, and other original works, of our
clientele seriously.
The original work, of any given
individual, whether it be: music, video/film, research or writing, inventions,
etc.-take time, energy, creatively, and a thought process, that belongs solely
to the creator. In defense, of an American's rights to private ownership, our
legal department, has been informed, that we will be moving forward, with court
proceedings-we will be prosecuting. Our industry, and company, that was
established, to protect the intellectual property rights, of our clientele,
have to keep a wary eye, for organizations, like: AALL, and academics, like:
Lessig, who argue for: "open politics"-on the far-Left, to
deregulate, and all DRM, that would control, protect, secure and manage,
digital information-that is shared online (Chang, 2005, p. 236).
Conclusion: Please
Appraise Yourself, with The Current Legal Statutes, and Organizations in the
US, Who Are in Full Support, of US (DRM) Copyright Laws:
A List of the Current
Legal Statutes:
1.
US Copyright Act;
2.
Audio Home Recording Act;
3.
Digital Millennium Act. (Boudreau, et.
al., 2003, p. 17)
US Copy Right Act:
The US Copy Right Act protects the
original artist, before a license agreement is signed, by giving him or her:
". . .Exclusive rights, to: public performance, reproduction,
distribution, and all derivative works" (Boudreau, et., al., 2003, p. 18).
Audio Home Recording
Act (1992):
The Audio Home Recording Act, protects
only sound recordings, and, the sound, and music recordings, of individuals,
who purchase, and use their own, at home recording devices-by, supporting, and
reinforcing, the sound recording copyright laws, for music made-privately, at
home, and outside, of a formal and private sound recording studio (Boudreau,
et., al., 2003, p. 19-20).
Digital Millennium
Copy Right Act (1998):
The Digital Millennium Copy Right Act,
encouraged Americans to share, and to post: information, music, videos/film,
research papers, etc., online, by promising provisions, that increase legal
protections, against those who would abuse the US Constitutional rights of
others, by stealing, and illegally reproducing, what is shared online
(Boudreau, et. al., 2003, p. 20).
A List of the Current
Organizations Supporting the US Music Industry and DRM:
1.
American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers
(ASCAP);
2. Broadcast Music
Incorporated (BMI);
3.
SESAC;
4.
The Harry Fox Agency;
5.
Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA);
6.
ASCAP;
7. US Copyright
Office. (Boudreau,
et., al., 2003, p. 16-17)
Additional Online
Resources:
Closing Statements:
Thank you, for your time, and
your attention, regarding the serious, and pressing matter, that has been
briefly discussed above. I look forward to gaining your personal and
professional, insight, into the situation, at our next, and scheduled meeting.
Please take the time, to engage in additional research, regarding the issues
of: DRM, and increasing the protections available, for our clients. I greatly
appreciate, your continued enthusiasm, and contributions.
Sincerely,
Miss. Bayo Elizabeth Cary, AA,
BA, MLIS
CEO, President, Acting Director
References
American
Association of Law Librarians. (AALL). (2017). DRM (Digital Rights Management).
American Association of Law Librarians: Your Knowledge Network. Retrieved from https://www.aallnet.org/Documents/Government-Relations/Copyright-2/DRM.html
Boudreau,
David, K., Coats, William, Sloan, and, Feeman, Vickie, L. (2003). Hot Issues in
Copyright and Trademark Licensing. Computer and Internet Lawyer. Vol. 20, 2. p.
16-32. ABI/INFORM Collection.
CCMixter.org.
(n.d.). Music Connects US. CCMixter.org: Music: How It Works. Retrieved from www.http://ccmixter.org/
Chang,
Yu-Lin. (2005). Does Lessig's Criticism of Digital Rights Management Target One
Technology That the Information Industries Desire More Than They Can Actually
Provide? International Review of Law Computers and Technology. Vol. 19, No. 3.
p. 235-252. Retrieved from DOI: 10.1080/13600860500348028
Cohen,
Julie E. (2003). DRM and Privacy. Berkeley Technological Law Journal, Vol. 18,
p. 575-617, Georgetown Public Law Research Paper No. 372741. Retrieved from SSRN:
https://ssrn.com/abstract=372741 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.372741
Creative
Commons. (2016). State of the Commons 2016. Creative Commons: State of the
Commons 2016. Retrieved from https://creativecommons.org/
Library
of Congress. (1976). US Copyright Laws: Appendix A: The Copyright Act of 1976.
Copyright.gov: US Copyright Office: Appendix A: Title 17. Retrieved from https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92appa.html
Library
of Congress. (1998). US Copyright Laws: Appendix B: The Digital Millennium Act
of 1998. Copyright.gov: US Copyright Office: Appendix B. Retrieved from https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92appb.html
Library
of Congress. (2004). US Copyright Laws: Appendix C: The Royalty and Distrbution
Reform Act of 2004. Copyright.gov: US Copyright Office: Appendix C. Retrieved
from https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92appc.html
Library
of Congress. (2004). US Copyright Laws: Appendix E: The Intellectual Property
and Protection and Court Amendments Acts of 2004. Copyright.gov: US Copyright
Office: Appendix E. Retrieved from https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92appe.html
Library
of Congress. (2008). US Copyright Laws: Appendix F: The Prioritizing Resources
and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008: Title 18--Crimes and
Criminal Procedure, US Code. Copyright.gov: US Copyright Office: Appendix F.
Retrieved from https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92appf.html
Library
of Congress. (n.d.) US Copyright Laws: Title 17. Copyright.gov: US Copyright
Office. Retrieved from https://www.copyright.gov/title17/
Smith, Ethan, Wingfield, Nick.
(2007). Jobs' New Tune Raises Pressure on Music
Firms; Apple Chief Now Favors
Making Downloads of Songs Freely Tradable. Wall Street Journal: Eastern
Edition. p. 1-6. Retrieved from www.proquest.com
Comments
Post a Comment