Case Study Questions
1. TPB claimed it is only a search engine providing results to other peer to peer networks that provides access to music or movies and it cannot control what content the users find on those other networks. The Swedish court ruled the site violated Swedish copyright law and sentenced the founders to one year in prison and ordered them to pay restitution of 3 and a half million dollars each to the plaintiffs.
2. It has continued to operate by moving into other countries while the founders were on the run from law enforcement.
3. The entertainment industry has been forced to change its business model and move to digital distribution platforms for their property. The industry now uses online delivery platforms such as Apple's iTunes, subscription models, and cloud based streaming models. The copyright owners have licensing deals with technology leaders and now the music and movies can be downloaded instantly without the fear of downloading malicious virus's and malware.
1. In ethics it is assumed that individuals are free moral agents who can make their own right or wrong decisions.
5. A person might be concerned about researching his or her serious medical condition because their search history can be observed and keywords may be allowed to assume what their condition may be and may be possible for that medical condition to surface somewhere it is not supposed to. If the person was using an anonymous surfing browsers such as Anonymizer.com, Tor, GhostSurf, or Freedom Websecure that person could surf the net without a trace.
10. A safe harbor is a private self-regulating policy and enforcement mechanism that meets the objectives of government regulation or enforcement. The government's role in them is certifying the safe harbors and ensuring they meet all required standards.
15. Cybersquatting is registering a domain name of a well-known company, a brand name or a similar spelling of both and attempting to make a profit from it by selling the faux name.
20. The doctrine of fair use allows teachers, writers and certain others to use copyrighted material without obtaining permission from the copyright owner. The courts ruled in favor of Google because when called upon in a search an entire book would not be available to the user doing the search, the search result would only display a small portion of the page from a book.
3. Provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998:
1) Cannot circumvent digital protections to decrypt or defeat the control code imbedded into the digital work to make illegal copies of it
2) No distribution of devices designed to break the digital protections imbedded into the digital work
3) No selling of anti-security tools designed specifically to bypass the security to make pirated copies
4) No removing copyright information to hide whom the true owner of the copyrighted work
5) Safe harbor for internet service providers to be released from being liable for the actions of its subscribers from illegally infringing upon the true owners of the copyrighted content.
I reasonably believe this legislation tries at balancing the interests of the owners and the users for being able to use copyrighted material. I can certainly agree from an owners point that I would not want my brand to be displayed in a derogatory way to harm my company, and I think movies, music, and games should definitely be protected from being pirated for illegal distribution.
I think as long and there is no intent to harm or profit from the use of copyrighted material it should be available for anyone to use. Students especially should be allowed to use material for education purposes due to all the research they are required to do for their classes.