Copyright essay question

So how do you use it without committing copyright infringement?

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

All you have to do is ask — the worst they can say is no, right? But, if they do say no, there are several items in the public domain which may help you to finish your project without having to commit copyright infringement. Material that is not copyrighted is considered in the public domain.

You cannot commit copyright infringement on works in the public domain. These works include things that the copyright has expired on, or is not copyrightable — such as government publications, jokes, titles, and ideas. Some creators writers, musicians, artists, and more deliberately put their work in the public domain, without ever obtaining copyright, by providing an affiliation with Creative Commons. Creative Commons allows people who create materials to forfeit some, or all, of their copyright rights and place their work either partially or fully in the public domain.

I understand what your saying. Sorry, I am a creative professional. I would, and will copyright my work. It's my job why shouldn't I? I think it's dumb to just give away everything you work hard for. That is what you are doing when you choose to not protect your work. You leave it open for everyone including pirates. How do you like that?

Plagiarism is a big problem.

You wouldn't even have a legal claim. Why should anyone credit the artist who fails to copyright? I wouldn't.

The Future of Copyright

I'd steal public domain and not credit the creative. Too late to change your mind now. It's on the internet now. Things placed freely on the internet get distributed freely forever. Plagiarism is both easily detected and easily prosecuted. It's unrelated to copying -- when people download songs from the Internet and share them with their friends illegally, do they remove the artist's name and replace it with their own?

Assignment on copyright

No, they don't. Copyright isn't about credit, it's about copying. That's why it's called "copyright", not "creditright".

No it is not! Ever hear of P2P? It is related to copying. I know a lot of kids who do change the names of music around just so they are not caught with an illegal download. Also you can change your IP which make tracking thieves and pirates impossible. Learn about the internet. Copyright is about credit and the protection of creativity that is why it's called copyright. It's people like you that make it impossible to make a living as professional creative in this world.

Your the reason why rates and royalties shrink. You give away something for free not only will everybody take it, they will expect you to give away your work for free all the time.

Please quit trying to supress creativity the the protection thereof. We are living in a world where bleach-blonde fashion bimbos make a good living blithering about nonessential crap on their free-to-access blogs, and where you can sell bottled water at a thousand times the production price with a brand name alone. Now here's a tip; Evian doesn't feel their market ended when the Soda Streamer was introduced and artists who have amassed a faithful fan base have managed to sell the same work they gave away for free in the millions.

Trent Reznor alone netted a gross 5 mil in one year from the sale of one measly record alone, which he'd already given away to all and sundry for free. Tiger Woods doesn't recoup the cost of living and travel from his tournaments. Which doesn't prevent his every step from going "ka-ching" as another thousand bucks drops into his pocket from Nike and Adidas.

Or did until he mishandled his brand. Copyright doesn't work in any reality.

  • Copyright In Computer Software Information Technology Essay.
  • Online Library of Liberty.
  • How Katy Perry’s “Dark Horse” lawsuit could change pop forever | The FADER.
  • Copyright infringement case study ppt.
  • Search and menus!
  • 5 paragraph essay graphic organizer.
  • Some Observations on Copyright Law?

It's as simple as that. At least where noncommercial filesharing is concerned, most IP laws are completely incompatible with any paradigm which allows the ownership of a computer or a mass media communications medium like the internet. End of story. What that means is simple. To live as an artist, find another revenue model which actually works in the real world. If you can't manage to do so simply don't quit your day job. Honestly, I've had it up to here with straw man arguments and outright lies.

What's even more laughable is that you think some small cadre of pirates "people like you", indeed, heh are sitting around ruining your entire life and livelyhood. I'm afraid it's a bit worse than that.

Time frame master thesis

Human nature itself is what you're up against. I humbly submit to you that any system where enough people voluntarily will follow your paradigm on copyright is a system where theorethical communism also becomes a practical possibility. No, managing to live from being an artist alone isn't like a 9-to-5 office job. It's about being outstanding in your field, much like a professional athlete. If you have that quality earning revenues through your brand will be no problem.

If you don't, find another field to earn your way in. It's that simple. And I'll tell you something else.

Questions and Answers for UK writers

Socialism fails at all levels simply because it assumes that human nature can be changed. Copyright fails because it does the same. Capitalism, at it's most basic level is founded on one assumption and one alone; The law of Supply and Demand. If you can obtain or manufacture a copy of anything for literally no cost at all then the monetary worth of said copy becomes zero as the supply is de facto infinite whereas the number of consumers with the demand for said product is limited.

Copyright, in essence, shares more of old stale socialist ideals than anything else, right up to and including the view on "controlled" information. Which is true for almost any IP law in general. The idea that IP belongs under a capitalist system at all is nothing more than a convenient excuse thought up by special interests who were deathly afraid of having to act under a market paradigm in the first place.

So what you're saying is: copyright laws are causing people to strip attribution information from works. That sounds like an argument against copyright, not for it. I am a creative professional.


Yes I want to get paid for it. You did just give your "creative work" away for free. And then I removed the commercial link.