Copyright Laws in Security (Term Paper Sample)

Copyright Laws in Security Student’s Name Institutional Affiliation Course Title Date Copyright Laws in Security Court’s Decision I feel that the court’s decision was correct in the two cases. This is because, in the first case, Napster was a peripherally-managed storage space for songs that users download cheaply or at no amount. Often, music downloads are not creative in terms of the usage element. As much as Napster did not directly get income from uploads that the users made, exploitive and repetitive copying of copyright sources, even though its editions are not provided for sale, could be elucidated as advertising usage.             Also, it showed the result that the district court, that artistic operates such as the songs at hand can be noted as next to the core of the justification to copyright than non-innovative operations. In this case, this advocated for the plaintiff in the second case. Eventually, the Ninth Circuit progressed with the District Court’s counsel that the big transmit songs of the user influenced the probability of the sales of compact discs. This also affected the long-period applicability of the music industry in digital systems.            Based on Napster’s positive outcome in the music and movie industry, other activities, such as peer registration and file sharing, occurred (Aronov, 2021). Grokster and StreamCast were found guilty in the court case that was judged on Monday. The two companies were both based on advertising and providing free file-sharing services.             For the case regarding YouTube, the court’s decision was also correct. Viacom gave the court $1 billion and accused YouTube and Google that their website is involved in copyright infringement by allowing their users to view and share Viacom copyright information (Blumenfeld, 2018). Viacom claimed that YouTube has infringed its intellectual property rights when it copied and showed its copyright material. Judge Stanton passed judgement in favour of YouTube on all the accusations. The judge concluded that YouTube did not have the authority and right to control breach actions because no proof showed YouTube impacted its users to send breaching videos, pre-screened performance submissions, directed users to breach videos, and gave users clear direction on the materials to edit or post. In this case, the outcome of the court agrees with YouTube because there is no person with any proof that shows illegal videos of the company. Neither company would compensate another. Personal Feelings about sharing intellectual property over the Internet I feel that sharing intellectual property over the Internet can be a risk. The first reason is that copyright and patent trademarks can be a threat to the Internet. Nevertheless, laws and policies are being implemented by individual sites, government institutions, and other agencies to promote the security of intellectual property. The second reason is that the advancement of the Internet and new technologies have created an intense impa...