Infringement law

Laura Huey
5653463
June 16, 2019
ITMG381
Infringement law
According to the 7 U.S. Code § 501-513 states, copyright infringement is illegal. This includes
violating the rights of an owner for reproduction, distribution, or otherwise unlawful use without
permission of the owner. This could be anything from copying a movie for distribution to others
where they did not purchase it from the original distributor, stealing music offline which has
become a lesser issue thanks to streaming services, illegal streaming services, and more.
According to the infringement law, the legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under
copyright has the right to institute an action of infringement of the particular right committed
while he or she is the legal owner of the materials. The infringement law further states the court
may require the owner of the copyright to serve notice of the action of infringement. This will be
done with a copy of the complaint to the person showing interest to the copyright.
According to the infringement act, any court with jurisdiction of the civil action which is subject
to provisions of sections 1498 of title 28 can grant temporary and final injunctions these crimes
come with a punishment of up to $2,500. Additional remedies of infringement states that any
time while an action under infringement title is pending, the court may order that all copies
claimed to have been made or used in violation of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner
will be seized includes any record that was produced as they wait for the final judgment of the
court. As part of the final decree, the court might order the destruction of other reasonable
disposition or all copies or records found to have been made or used in the violation of
copyrights owner’s exclusive rights. Infringement is also known for affecting the economy of
the country but reducing the number of revenues being paid.
Remedies for infringement
Unless stated otherwise, an infringer of copyright is liable for either the copyrights owner actual
damages as well as any additional profit of the infringement. The copyright owner is entitled to
recover the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the infringement. Additionally,
the owner should improve any profits of the infringer that are attributed to the infringement and
are not taken into account when it comes to computing the actual damages. However, when it
comes to establishing the infringement profit that the owner was to incur, he or she is expected to
provide proof only of the infringer’s gross revenue. On the other hand, the offender is expected
to provide or prove his or her deductible expenses and the elements of profits which are
attributed to factors other than copyrighted work.
Additionally, the owner of the copyright may elect before the final judgment is rendered instead
of the actual damages and profits to be awarded statutory damages for all infringement involved
in the action. In some cases, the owner might sustain the burden of proving, and the court finds
that the infringement action was carried out willfully; the court has the right to increase the
statutory damages to a sum, not more than $150,000.
In cases where the infringer sustains the burden of proving and the court finds out that the
infringer was not aware or did not know that his or her actions were an infringement of
copyrights, the court may reduce the statutory damage to a fee not less than $200. However, the
infringement law, in many cases, does not rule on jailing. Punishment in terms of a fine is seen
as a way of helping the copyright owner recover the losses experienced due to infringement and
also deal with the infringer. Although violation is a crime against property, it does not harm
human life as compared to other crimes as in many cases, and it is a crime of the mind.
I somewhat agree with this punishment. I don’t think jail time is necessary, and I believe that
many jails would become overcrowded for a crime that isn’t necessarily dangerous or harmful to
others. I think $2,500 is good enough for a first-time offense; however, numerous violations of
this law should result in higher fines in hopes of discouraging the criminal act from happening,
as well as possible jail time down the line for three or more offenses.
Some of the more famous cases of copyright infringement include Vanilla VS. The band Queen
where the member of the band was suing vanilla for stealing the beat of their song and using
them without giving credit . However, for any person or group to claim for copyright, one must
have to prove they are the legal owner of the materials. The person claiming to be the owner of
the content must have legal rights over the materials or product for a fixed number of years. This
was settled before it went into litigation. Another case is Associated Press photographer suing an
artist for using a picture the photographer took as inspiration for former President Obama’s
campaign. Another most recent case is Oracle v. Google in which Oracle believed Google used
their Java API’s for their Android platform. A final lower and pretty widely known case is
Starwars v. Battlefield Galactica in which 20th Century Fox sued Universal Studios because of
too similar of ideas within the two films.
Inadequacies:
There isn’t anything I would want to challenge in this law other than the fine. I think plenty of
cases have set a precedent enough to where this is an easily solvable issue in or out of the
courtroom. The court, after instances of infringement, has also offered lessons on copyright
infringement to avoid such cases in the future as some people commit such crimes out of
ignorance while other lose their materials on such grounds.
Adequacies:
This law has withstood the test of time. It has been a significant issue for many large companies
and suffices to say, and it is well established and clearly outlined as to what does and does not
constitute copyright infringement. This can be well illustrated through the Google and Oracle
case where the district court was instructed to make the ruling as it was found that indeed Google
had infringed the rights to use the Java API’s for their Android platform without the consent of
Oracle yet the software initially belong to Oracle.
The infringement law has also over times offered the option of setting any dispute when it comes
to copyrights outside the court where many cases have been successful. This has reduced the
workload of the court as well as the cost involved in the court procedures.
Proposed Changes:
As previously stated, the only changes I could see being necessary is the punishment for
committing this crime. While different charges can be pressed against someone along with the
infringement, I believe $2,500 is not a decent enough fine if someone is a repeat offender. The
infringement law should also include public education on copyrights and various ways in which
a person can protect their materials and content to avoid cases of infringement. The court should
also embark educating people when it comes to breach to sue not only the infringer but also
those who facilitate infringement by others.
Conclusion:
I believe my proposal will discourage repeat offenders from continually committing copyright
crimes, as well as possibly deter new criminals from debating going down this path. I think to get
my idea passed; I believe it would need to be taken to legislation with proof of how many
copyright violators are actual repeat offenders (if any at all) as well as the likelihood of repeating
once the fine is paid. The proposal will also serve as educational material to people who have
little or no knowledge when it comes to copyrights and infringement and might spark future
interest to study infringement law in details in the near future.
Work cited
17 U.S. Code, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/chapter-5, (last visited June 15, 2019).
Famous Copyright Cases, https://realbusiness.co.uk/6-famous-copyright-cases/, (last visited June 15,
2019).
Famous Copyright Infringement Cases, https://99designs.com/blog/tips/5-famous-copyright-
infringement-cases/, (last visited June 15, 2019).
Lemley, Mark A., and R. Anthony Reese. "Reducing digital copyright infringement without
restricting innovation." Stan. L. Rev. 56 (2003): 1345.
Lichtman, D., & Landes, W. M. (2002). Indirect liability for copyright infringement: an
economic perspective. Harv. JL & Tech., 16, 395.

Place new order. It's free, fast and safe

-+
550 words

Our customers say

Customer Avatar
Jeff Curtis
USA, Student

"I'm fully satisfied with the essay I've just received. When I read it, I felt like it was exactly what I wanted to say, but couldn’t find the necessary words. Thank you!"

Customer Avatar
Ian McGregor
UK, Student

"I don’t know what I would do without your assistance! With your help, I met my deadline just in time and the work was very professional. I will be back in several days with another assignment!"

Customer Avatar
Shannon Williams
Canada, Student

"It was the perfect experience! I enjoyed working with my writer, he delivered my work on time and followed all the guidelines about the referencing and contents."

  • 5-paragraph Essay
  • Admission Essay
  • Annotated Bibliography
  • Argumentative Essay
  • Article Review
  • Assignment
  • Biography
  • Book/Movie Review
  • Business Plan
  • Case Study
  • Cause and Effect Essay
  • Classification Essay
  • Comparison Essay
  • Coursework
  • Creative Writing
  • Critical Thinking/Review
  • Deductive Essay
  • Definition Essay
  • Essay (Any Type)
  • Exploratory Essay
  • Expository Essay
  • Informal Essay
  • Literature Essay
  • Multiple Choice Question
  • Narrative Essay
  • Personal Essay
  • Persuasive Essay
  • Powerpoint Presentation
  • Reflective Writing
  • Research Essay
  • Response Essay
  • Scholarship Essay
  • Term Paper
We use cookies to provide you with the best possible experience. By using this website you are accepting the use of cookies mentioned in our Privacy Policy.