Copyright Law Presentation by Jason Hardin

Throughout the presentation, I discovered many new caveats to copyright law. Firstly, I found out that copyright violations and plagiarism are not really the same things. While plagiarism is an academic sin (ethical lapse), copyright violations carry legal implications. For example, criminal penalties for copyright infringement include a fine of not more than $500,000 or imprisonment of not more than 5 years or both for first offense. Obviously, repeat offenders severe harsher consequences with a fine of not more than $1 million and imprisonment for not more than 10 years. I did not realize the implications that copying copyrighted materials could have. Moreover, I was unclear on when a work was copyrighted. Apparently, anytime a work is created, it is automatically created. However, it is a good idea to get it legally copyrighted. Furthermore, I discovered that Trinity suffers from students violating copyright law. Diane Graves, a TU librarian, sends roughly 7 to 10 take down notices a year. Take down notices is a formal document telling whomever to remove the illegally downloaded files (usually music). On another note, I have always wondered why satirical movies such as Scary Movie (1-4 to infinity) could imitate and parody other movies. But parody and satire are protected under copyright law.

There are several issues in copyright law. For example, when a musician writes an original piece of music and fixes it to a tangible medium, such as lyrics or a recording, it is protected by copyright law. The creator is the only person who can make legal copies. With the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, a work remains copyrighted for up to 70 years after the creator's death. After his/her death, derivative works may be created and profited from. The issue with the music industry is should a person pay for music when they can download it for free. While many people do it, you hear very little about illegally downloaded music. After Napster shut down in 2001, little was said about illegally downloaded music because of new technologies. Mostly peer-to-peer sharing was getting harder to trace. In my opinion, downloading music from a blog is not unethical or illegal. When a website says that the posted music is for promotional use only, one would think it is okay for download. Additionally, think about mixtapes, why is it copyright infringement when the artist or a company releases his/her mixtapes for free? On another note, when a majority of mixtape music will never make it to the radio or iTunes, then I do not feel bad for downloading Kid Cudi's new mixtape.