US Copyright Infringement by File “Sharing”: Statutory Damage(s)

2010 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Arthur Kuppers
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
File Sharing ◽  
Copyright Infringement ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Punitive Damages ◽  
Copyright Holder ◽  
Call To Action ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Comprehensive Examination ◽  
The Usa

AbstractFor the sake of argument, not that this is something that you would necessarily do, picture yourself living in the USA, finally getting hold that elusive song you have been wanting for so long - via an unlicensed file sharing service. Your initial feeling of euphoria would rather quickly give way to that of concern since you are now liable for at least 750 USD in ‘regular’ statutory damages for copyright infringement - were the plaintiff copyright holder to elect to recover this statutory minimum amount from you. It would most likely cross your mind that that level of recovery alone by the plaintiff is not entirely compensatory.This article will thus seek to examine problems associated with statutory damages in US copyright law for copyright infringement by file sharing, in particular their punitive character. In order to facilitate a close and comprehensive examination of the issues involved, relevant provisions in US copyright law will be briefly highlighted. This will provide the context for an analysis and application of US Supreme Court jurisprudence relating to punitive damages, which will summarily be followed by a call to action and recommendations in this regard.

scholarly journals CREATIVE COMMONS LICENSE SEBAGAI HAK CIPTA INTERNASIONAL DITINJAU BERDASARKAN ASPEK HUKUM INDONESIA

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 218
Author(s):  
Faisal Faisal ◽  
Dani Amran Hakim ◽  
Is Susanto
Keyword(s):  
Research Method ◽  
Electronic System ◽  
File Sharing ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Copyright Holder ◽  
Non Profit ◽  
Creative Commons ◽  
Article 9 ◽  
The Right ◽  
Breakthrough Innovation

 Perkembangan teknologi khususnya internet telah mempermudah masyarakat untuk mengakses dan mendistribusikan informasi. Namun, kegiatan seperti copy-cut-paste (menyalin-memotong-menempel), menyunting (editing) ataupun berbagi dokumen (file sharing) justru menimbulkan hal kontradiktif terhadap hukum hak cipta. Berdasarkan hal tersebut tahun 2002 sebuah organisasi nirlaba membuat inovasi dan terobosan yang memungkinkan berbagi dan menggunakan kreativitas dan pengetahuan melalui alat hukum gratis. Metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam tulisan ini adalah metode penelitian yuridis normatif dengan fokus pada pendekatan perundang-undangan dan analisis konten. Berdasarkan analisis pembahasan creative commons bukanlah alternatif dari hukum hak cipta, melainkan bekerja berdampingan dan mampu membuat pencipta/pemegang hak cipta memodifikasi haknya ke dalam keadaan yang paling sesuai dengan kebutuhan. Lisensi creative commons di Indonesia penggunaannya dimungkinkan menurut Pasal 9 ayat (1) Undang-Undang Nomor 28 Tahun 2014 tentang Hak Cipta. Lalu pemegang hak berdasarkan Pasal 81 UU Hak Cipta, dapat mengumumkan dan/atau berhak memberikan lisensi kepada pihak lain berdasarkan perjanjian lisensi untuk melaksanakan perbuatan sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 9 ayat (1), memperbanyak ciptaannya/produk hak terkaitnya dengan persyaratan tertentu. Selanjutnya berdasarkan Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2008 tentang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik Pasal 1 ayat (5), kegiatan yang dilaksanakan oleh creative commons adalah kegiatan penyelenggaran sistem elektronik.Kata Kunci: Creative Commons; Hak Cipta; Lisensi. The development of technology, especially the internet, has made it easier for people to access and distribute information.  However, activities such as copy-cut-paste, editing or file sharing may actually harm the copyright law.  Based on that, in 2002, a non-profit organization made a breakthrough innovation where it is possible to share and use creativity and knowledge through free legal tools. The research method used in this paper is a normative juridical research method with a focus on the statutory approach and content analysis. Based on the analysis of the discussion, creative commons is not an alternative to copyright law, but rather work side by side and is able to make the creator/copyright holder to modify their rights in the most appropriate circumstances.  The use of creative commons licenses in Indonesia is possible according to Article 9 paragraph (1) of Law Number 28 of 2014 concerning Copyright. Furthermore, the rights holder, based on Article 81 of the Copyright Law, able to announce and/or has the right to grant license to other parties based on the license agreement to carry out the action referred to in Article 9 paragraph (1), reproduce their rightful works/products with certain conditions. Furthermore, based on Law Number 11 of 2008 concerning Electronic Information and Transactions Article 1 paragraph (5), the activities carried out by the creative commons are the activities of organizing an electronic system. Keywords: Creative Commons; Copyright; License.

scholarly journals PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM HAK CIPTA TERHADAP COVER VERSION LAGU DI YOUTUBE

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 508
Author(s):  
Anak Agung Mirah Satria Dewi
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Copyright Protection ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Copyright Infringement ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Copyright Holder ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
The Creation ◽  
Cover Songs

Protection of copyright law against cover version of song on youtube. Copyright protection only extends to the “expression” of the creator, and not to the “idea” or information derived from a work. This is what happens in cover songs, others have the freedom to express the same idea or reuse the information gained from the creation or work that is protected into the work afterwards as long as the idea is expressed in a different way. The formulation of the problem in this research is 1. Does making cover versions of songs belonging to others and uploading to youtube social media is a form of copyright infringement? and 2. What is the legal protection of the copyright holder for copyright infringement in the field of music and song in the form of commercial cover version?. The type of research used in this study is the type of normative legal research. The conclusion of the results of this research is in making cover versions of songs and uploading to youtube social media in general do not violate the Copyright when the making and announcement is done by not violating the exclusive rights of copyright holder and legal protection against the copyright holder over copyright infringement in the field of music and songs in the form of commercialized version cover can be done through two ways, namely preventive efforts and repressive efforts. Abstrak Perlindungan hukum hak cipta terhadap cover version lagu di youtube. Perlindungan hak cipta hanya mencakup kepada “ekspresi” pencipta, dan bukan kepada “ide” atau informasi yang didapat dari suatu ciptaan. Hal inilah yang terjadi dalam kegiatan cover lagu, pihak lain memiliki kebebasan untuk mengekspresikan ide yang sama atau menggunakan kembali informasi yang diperoleh dari ciptaan atau karya yang dilindungi kedalam karya sesudahnya selama ide tersebut diekspresikan dengan cara yang berbeda. Rumusan masalah dalam penelitian ini adalah 1. Apakah membuat cover version lagu dan mengunggah ke media sosial youtube merupakan suatu bentuk pelanggaran hak cipta ? dan 2. Bagaimanakah perlindungan hukum terhadap pemegang hak cipta atas pelanggaran hak cipta di bidang musik dan lagu dalam bentuk cover version yang di komersilkan ?. Jenis penelitian yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah jenis penelitian hukum normatif. Kesimpulan dari hasil penelitian ini yaitu membuat cover version lagu dan mengunggah ke media sosial youtube secara umum tidak melanggar Hak Cipta apabila pembuatan dan pengumuman tersebut dilakukan dengan tidak melanggar hak-hak eksklusif pemegang hak cipta dan perlindungan hukum terhadap pemegang hak cipta atas pelanggaran hak cipta dibidang musik dan lagu dalam bentuk cover version yang dikomersilkan dapat dilakukan melalui dua cara yaitu upaya preventif dan upaya represif.

scholarly journals Urgensi Perubahan Delik Biasa Menjadi Delik Aduan dan Relevansinya terhadap Perlindungan dan Penegakan Hak Cipta

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 347-362 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hanafi Amrani
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Active Role ◽  
Copyright Infringement ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Copyright Holder ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Exclusive Right

This article discusses two main issues: first, what is the urgency of the change in nature of offences from ordinary offence to be complaint offence in the copyright law; second, how is the relevance of the change in the nature of the offense to protect and enforce copyright. The urgency of changes in offenses is usually an offense against complaints because copyright is an exclusive right that is personal and civil rights. This personal and civil right indicate the absolute right of the creator or the copyright holder to the results of their work, including the right to report or not to infringe their copyright. Therefore conceptually this personal and civilian nature emphasizes the alignment of mindset that the complaint offence is more appropriately applied to copyright infringement. Whereas the relevance of complaint offence for protection and enforcement of copyright can be seen from the significant role of the creator or copyright holder in the law enforcement process. The creator or copyright holder can play an active role in providing information and evidence of copyright infringement so that the law enforcement process becomes more effective and efficient. Abstrak Artikel ini membahas dua permasalahan pokok: pertama, apa urgensi perubahan delik biasa menjadi delik aduan dalam Undang-undang Hak Cipta; kedua, bagaimana relevansi perubahan sifat delik tersebut terhadap perlindungan dan penegakan hukum hak cipta. Urgensi perubahan delik biasa menjadi delik aduan adalah karena hak cipta merupakan hak eksklusif yang bersifat personal dan keperdataan. Sifat personal dan keperdataan ini mengindikasikan adanya hak mutlak dari pencipta atau pemegang hak cipta atas hasil karya ciptanya, termasuk hak untuk melaporkan atau tidak atas pelanggaran hak ciptanya. Oleh karena itu secara konseptual sifat personal dan keperdataan ini lebih mengedepankan keselarasan pola pikir bahwa delik aduan lebih tepat diterapkan terhadap pelanggaran hak cipta. Sedangkan relevansi delik aduan terhadap perlindungan dan penegakan hak cipta dapat dilihat dari peran yang signifikan dari pencipta atau pemegang hak cipta dalam proses penegakan hukum. Pencipta atau pemegang hak cipta dapat berperan aktif dalam memberikan keterangan dan bukti-bukti dari pelanggaran hak cipta tersebut sehingga proses penegakan hukum dapat berjalan lebih efektif dan efisien.

12. Copyright infringement in the digital environment

2019 ◽  
pp. 305-329
Author(s):  
Andrew Murray
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
File Sharing ◽  
Copyright Infringement ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Online Environment ◽  
Digital Environment ◽  
New Techniques ◽  
Blocking Orders ◽  
Pirate Bay

This chapter analyses cases of copyright infringement in the online environment. It begins by analysing some early cases regarding file-sharing technologies, including A&M Records, Inc. v Napster, Inc., MGM Studios, Inc. v Grokster, Ltd, and Sweden v Neij et al. (the Pirate Bay case). It assesses new techniques for fighting illegal file-sharing, such as blocking access to websites offering file-sharing technology or indexes with a focus on the operation of s. 97A website blocking orders. It examines the recent Supreme Court decision in Cartier International v British Sky Broadcasting which will have substantial implications for costs in these orders. Finally, it describes the slightly controversial process known as speculative invoicing.

從近期案例剖析美國著作權法合理使用原則新發展

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (22) ◽  
pp. 1-65
Author(s):  
胡心蘭 胡心蘭
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Fair Use ◽  
Secondary Use ◽  
Software Interface ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court

美國聯邦最高法院自1994年於Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music案將「轉化性（Transformativeness）」此一判斷要素帶入美國著作權法合理使用原則後，轉化性之認定幾乎與合理使用之成立畫上等號，扮演著左右判決結果的關鍵角色。惟轉化性要素原本就不在美國著作權法第107條所示之法定要件之列，而係第一項要件「利用行為之目的與性質」下的判斷方式之一，且其內涵混沌不明，如何判斷利用行為是否具有「進一步之目的或不同之特色而增添了新的東西」？美國各級法院之詮釋分歧，莫衷一是。惟在近兩年美國著作權侵權之相關案例中，似乎有將判斷重心回歸美國著作權法第107條合理使用原則之四項法定要件之趨勢，尤其是第四項「利用行為對被利用著作之潛在市場或價值之影響」似又重回「最重要之單一要件」之姿。而美國聯邦最高法院於近日受理Google LLC v. Oracle America案，亦將無可避免地的需再次梳理美國著作權法合理使用原則之脈絡與適用範圍，有望釐清轉化性要素之於合理使用原則應有之地位。本文將先簡述轉化性要素之背景與適用上之分歧，接著分析近兩年相關案例所呈現的新趨勢，以期對著作權合理使用原則有更完整之理解。Since the Supreme Court of the United States introduced the element of ''transformativeness'' in the 1994 case Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music into the fair use doctrine under U.S. Copyright Law, the finding of transformativeness is almost equal to the finding of fair use. However, transformative elements were not included in the statutory factors of fair use doctrine under the section 107 of the US Copyright Law, and the U.S. federal courts have interpreted the meaning of ''transformation'' respectively, which divided interpretations results in no certainty of which kind of secondary use could constitute as ''transformative use.'' Yet, in the past two years, the relevant copyright infringement cases indicated different trends, and rather than focus on the transformative elements under the first factor of the fair use doctrine, these courts were more willing to consider all four statutory factors of the fair use doctrine, especially the fourth factor - ''The single most important element of fair use.'' Furthermore, the US Supreme Court recently grants certriori to review Google LLC v. Oracle America, in which the Court would address: 1.Whether the copyright protection extends to a software interface; 2. Whether, as the jury found, petitioner’s use of a software interface in the context of creating a new computer program constitutes fair use. As to the second issue, the Court inevitably has to interpret the context and scope of transformative use, and its relationship with other factors of the fair use doctrine, which would lead to solve the dilemma of ''transformativeness'' under U.S. Copyright Law.

The Economics of Copyright Law and Problems With Its Implementation

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey L. Harrison
Keyword(s):  
Transaction Costs ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Copyright Infringement ◽  
Public Domain ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Original Writings ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Benefits ◽  
The Supreme Court

Without copyright law, authors would be unable to internalize the benefits of their writings. Copyright law reacts to this by providing authors with a period of exclusivity. The relevant legislation has a contract-like character; authors receive a period of exclusivity, and the public benefits by virtue of original writings that eventually pass into the public domain. Ideally each contract between the public and an author would be individually negotiated. Because U.S. copyright law is strictly utilitarian, authors would be “paid” the lowest amount possible to bring their works into existence. For example, popular authors may be able to internalize sufficient returns in just a few years. In other cases, a longer period of exclusivity is necessary. Huge transaction costs prohibit individual transactions and, at this writing, most works are protected for the life of the author plus 70 years. As an economic matter, the actual implementation of copyright law is hard to rationalize. Works with even a modicum of creativity are copyrightable. This can result in a disincentive to be creative and invites expensive legal disputes about works that are socially irrelevant. In addition, works receive levels of protection that are independent of their value to the public. In some instances Congress with the approval of the Supreme Court has extended the copyright term for works already in existence. Retroactive extension of the copyright term cannot have an impact on works in existence. Oddly, copyright law views authors as profit maximizers but also limits the value of their works by allowing heirs to terminate assignments after a set period of time. Finally, the remedy for copyright infringement is the damages suffered by the author plus all profits made by the infringer that can be traced to the infringement. It is not clear that this remedy is consistent with the goals of copyright law.

The ‘Mere Civility’ of Equality Law and Compelled-Speech Quandaries

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 288-304
Author(s):  
James M Oleske
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Business Owners ◽  
High Profile ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Roger Williams

Abstract When, if ever, do business owners have a right to be exempted from laws prohibiting discrimination in the commercial marketplace? Although public debate over this question often focuses on the issue of religious liberty, litigants seeking exemptions in court have placed equal or greater reliance on arguments about compelled speech. This article examines how such arguments have been employed in recent high-profile cases in both the UK and the USA. The article also addresses a new variation on the exemption argument inspired by Teresa Bejan’s book, Mere Civility, and the allegedly ‘minimal’ conception of civility Roger Williams advocated in the 17th century. After explaining why reliance on Bejan and Williams is misplaced, the article turns to the key questions that arise under modern compelled-speech doctrine when a business owner seeks to resist an equal-service mandate. The US Supreme Court ultimately sidestepped those questions in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd v Colorado Civil Rights Commission, while the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) offered cursory and unsatisfactory answers in Lee v Ashers Baking Co. This article fills the gap with a more thorough analysis.

scholarly journals PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM TERHADAP PENCIPTA LAGU “LAGI SYANTIK” ATAS PERUBAHAN LIRIK TANPA IZIN PEMEGANG HAK CIPTA

Yurispruden ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 75
Author(s):  
Lully Tiyas Junita
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Copyright Infringement ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Copyright Holder ◽  
Legal Regulations ◽  
The Creation ◽  
Exclusive Right

ABSTRACTCopyright is an exclusive right that arises automatically based on declarative principles after the creation is in real or visualized form. Legal protection for songwriters is regulated in Law Number 28 of 2014 concerning Copyright. This research covers two main problems. First one, how is the implementation of copyright infringement on the song "Lagi Syantik" which is sung without permission from the copyright holder? The second, how is the legal protection of authors for songs whose lyrics have been changed without the permission of the copyright holders? This paper uses normative juridical research. This research uses 2 types of approaches, such as the statute approach and the case approach. The result of the research were the cover version of the song is not a prohibited activity if it is carried out based on applicable legal regulations and legal protection for copyright holders is regulated in the Copyright Law, Criminal Law, and Civil Law. Keyword: Copyright, The Copyright Holder, Legal Protection, Song. ABSTRAKHak Cipta adalah hak eksklusif yang timbul secara otomatis berdasarkan prinsip deklaratif setelah ciptaan sudah dalam bentuk nyata atau sudah divisualkan. Perlindungan hukum untuk pencipta lagu telah diatur di dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 28 Tahun 2014 tentang Hak Cipta. Permasalahan penelitian ini meliputi yaitu Pertama, bagaimana bentuk pelanggaran hak cipta atas lagu “Lagi Syantik” yang dinyanyikan ulang tanpa izin dari pemegang hak cipta? Kedua, bagaimana perlindungan hukum terhadap pencipta atas lagu yang diubah lirik tanpa seizin pemegang hak cipta?. Penulisan ini menggunakan penelitian yuridis-normatif. Penelitian ini menggunakan 2 jenis pendekatan, yakni pendekatan perundang-undangan (statute approach) dan pendekatan kasus (case approach). Hasil dari penelitian ini adalah cover version lagu bukan kegiatan yang dilarang jika dilakukan sesuai aturan hukum yang berlaku dan perlindungan hukum terhadap pemegang hak cipta diatur dalam Undang-Undang Hak Cipta, Hukum Pidana, dan  Hukum Perdata. Kata Kunci: Hak Cipta, Pemegang Hak Cipta, Perlindungan Hukum, Lagu

US. supreme court rules on punitive damages in title VII discrimination cases

2000 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 131-138
Author(s):  
Arthur F. Silbergeld ◽  
Tracy L. Turner
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Title Vii ◽  
Punitive Damages ◽  
Us Supreme Court
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document