Back More
Salem Press

Table of Contents

Principles of Business: Marketing

Copyrights

by Michael Erbschloe

Abstract

This article examines copyright laws and the process of protecting works by registering copyrights. The history of copyrights is reviewed along with the types of works that can be copyrighted. International trends and activities in copyright law and copyright protection are explained. The concept and process of fair use of copyrighted materials is examined along with some of the problems that creators have encountered when using the copyrighted material of others to create a parody. Issues in combating piracy and copyright infringement are reviewed along with some of the social issues surrounding various antipiracy efforts.

Overview

A copyright gives the owner of a created work the right to use, sell, or license the creation and prohibits others from doing so without appropriate approval from the copyright owner. A copyright extends protection for the work as long as the author is alive and 70 years after the author’s death. This duration enables the author’s estate to collect royalties from the work (U.S. Copyright Office, 2008). Central to the concept of copyright are economic rights that are recognized by copyright laws around the world and generally apply to any commercial activity including physical reproduction of books, public performances, and electronic distribution (UNESCO, 2009).

The U.S. Copyright Office

The U.S. Copyright Office has several strategic goals and responsibilities:.

  • First, the office works to support Congress, the executive branch, and the courts on issues related to copyright policy and regulations.

  • Second, the office serves the public with registration services and information on copyright processes and issues.

  • Third, the office is responsible for acquiring copyrighted works to be deposited in the Library of Congress. Since 1870, copyright deposits have formed the bulk of the library’s best-in-class collections of books, sound recordings, photographs, motion pictures, and other creative works.

  • Finally, the office strives to be a leader in educating the public about copyright issues such as piracy and the affect of emerging technologies on copyrights (U.S. Copyright Office, 2008).

In 2007, the U.S. Copyright Office registered more than 500,000 claims to copyright. More than one million items were transferred to the Library of Congress and were valued at more than $45 million, half of which were obtained through the mandatory deposit requirements set in copyright law. The office collected licensing royalties of $234 million and distributed $280 million in royalties. In addition, the office responded to more than 300,000 inquires for information (U.S. Copyright Office, 2007).

U.S. Copyright Law

The Copyright Act of 1976 is the basis of copyright law. In the United States, the federal Copyright Office manages the process of registering copyrights. Once a work is filed with the Copyright Office, a public record of the copyright claim is established (U.S. Copyright Office, 2008) According to the Copyright Office, “Copyright protection is available for original works or authorship in a tangible medium. Works of authorship include: Literary works; musical works, including any accompanying words; dramatic works, including any accompanying music; pantomimes and choreographic works; pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; motion pictures and other audiovisual works; sound recordings; and architectural works” (U.S. Copyright Office, 2007). Copyright protection is also available for computer chip designs and vessel hull designs. In addition, computer programs or software packages sold for commercial or private use can also be copyrighted (U.S. Copyright Office, 2008).

International Copyright Law

International action on the protection of copyrights dates back to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works held in 1896. The convention has been revised and updated several times since it was first developed. International activity and cooperation on copyright administration and protection accelerated after World War II. With the support of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the Universal Copyright Convention was adopted in 1952 (UNESCO, 2009).

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) continues to work on copyright issues with countries around the world. The WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) meets frequently to discuss ongoing as well as emerging issues, including the protection of broadcasting organizations and the protection of audiovisual performances. Work is also continuing on the WIPO Copyright Treaty, and discussions have focused on software, databases, and Internet distribution and content (WIPO, 2009).

Similar to the patent process, the copyright process is becoming more harmonized around the world. Most countries have an established copyright office and a registration process. The procedures for managing copyrights at the national level, as with managing patent applications and grants, are evolving consistently toward the recommendations and standards of WIPO. However, not all countries are in step with international efforts to protect copyrights, especially those copyrights that are registered in other countries (Crockford, 2008).

Under U.S. law, copyright protection is automatic when an original work is created and is put into a tangible form. The work does not need to be published or registered with the Copyright Office (Dames, 2009). However, many people feel that it is prudent to register their creation with the Copyright Office, and national offices are in virtually every country in the world where they can accomplish this.

The Copyright Process

The process of registering a copyright is not overly complicated and can be done online or by competing paper forms and filing them with the Copyright Office. The electronic process and the paper process are not substantially different but the electronic process is not equipped to handle all items that can be copyrighted at this time. Each method requires three basic steps: completing a form, paying a fee, and submitting a copy of the work (U.S. Copyright Office, 2009).

Fees for registering a copyright vary, and other fees are applicable for a variety of services provided by the Copyright Office. These services include searches, copying, and bulk registration (U.S. Copyright Office, 2009).

Economic Implications of Copyright Law

The economic importance of copyrights cannot be overstated. The International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA), a coalition of seven trade associations with members that produce and distribute copyrighted materials, contends that in 2010, the value added to the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by copyrighted materials was $1.627 trillion. This is equivalent to about 11.1 percent of the 2010 GDP (IIPA, 2011).

IIPA members are very serious about protecting their industry and the economic benefit of their members as derived from copyrights. The members of the IIPA are the Association of American Publishers (AAP), the Business Software Alliance (BSA), the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), the Independent Film & Television Alliance (IFTA), the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA), and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) (Siwek, 2011).

An Ever-Evolving Prospect

Copyright laws will continue to evolve. More countries will adopt mainstream copyright practices and copyright protection. New technologies will continue to change how the distribution of copyrighted material is managed and licensed (Kaushik & Prakash, 2009) (Quint, 2009). As distribution systems such as cable and satellite television add more features and services, lawmakers will be faced with more copyright protection issues as well as more regulatory challenges (“Cable, satellite,” 2009).

Applications

Balancing Owner Rights & Creativity through Fair Use

There has been ongoing debate, as well as numerous court cases, regarding the concept and practice of the fair use of copyrighted material. The purpose of the fair use process is to allow creativity, scholarship, and research to continue and promote the creation of knowledge and the perpetuation of culture (Kirsch & Klett, 2009). As new technologies emerge and consumer demand for content continues to grow, the boundaries of fair use have often become blurred and violated.

The goal of copyright protection is to provide the owner “the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce their work” and to receive economic gain for doing so (UNESCO, 2009). The primary limitations to these rights are established in sections 107 through 118 of the Copyright Act (title 17, U.S. Code) and are centered in the doctrine of “fair use.” Section 107 provides “a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research” (U.S. Copyright Office, 2006) (Mattingly & Samardzija, 2009).

Section 107 also provides four factors that need to be considered in determining whether or not a specific use is fair:

  • 1) The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes

  • 2) The nature of the copyrighted work

  • 3) The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole

  • 4) The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work (U.S. Copyright Office, 2006)

Determining Copyright Infringement

The determination as to whether use is a copyright infringement or use is fair is not easily defined. There is a lack of structure and formula in making the determination. For example, there is not a specific number of words, lines, or notes that automatically constitute fair use. In addition, citing the source does not also automatically constitute fair use (U.S.Copyright Office, 2006).

The courts have agreed that a use is fair in many generic circumstances including excerpts in a review or criticism and brief quotations in a news report. Other court rulings have included reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy and reproduction by a teacher of a small part of a work for use in a lesson or to illustrate a lesson. Not surprisingly, fair use has also been expanded to include reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports (U.S. Copyright Office, 2006).

On November 14, 2013, a federal judge ruled that Google did not violate copyright with its massive book-scanning project, arguing that the project was fair use under copyright law and provided significant public benefits (The Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 2013).

Parodies & Copyright Infringement

Over time, the use of copyrighted material in a parody has also been covered under the concept of fair use (U.S. Copyright Office, 2006). The creation of parodies has also been considered free speech and is protected by the First Amendment (Celedonia and Doyle, 2007). However, because the goal of a parody is basically to make fun of a person, a product, an idea, or a belief, it is not likely that a copyright owner would grant a parody creator permission to use the work. Thus, any parody creator that uses the original work of another person or company will assume some risk of being accused of infringement (Johnson & Spilger, 2000).

The parody creator faces many challenges in avoiding or maintaining innocence in an infringement lawsuit. First, the court must determine that a work is indeed a parody. Second, the parody creator must be able to demonstrate that the use of the material falls within the guidelines and is consistent with previous court rulings as to what is fair use (Johnson & Spilger, 2000). It is important that the parody creator note that courts have anguished over the fair use defense when dealing with works of parody, and just because the creator thinks something is a parody does not dissolve possible litigation and rather costly legal fees (Eisenstein, 2000).

Case Study: Al Franken’s Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them

One of the many parodies to draw backlash in the 2000s was Al Franken’s book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right (a parody of Fox News). Fox did not appreciate the title and chose to file a lawsuit for trademark infringement (similar to copyright infringement). The suit claimed that the publisher, Penguin, did not have the right to use the term “Fair and Balanced.” The suit also stated that the design of the cover of the book, which included a picture of Fox commentator Bill O’Reilly and mimicked the look and style O’Reilly’s books, was an infringement. Part of what may have fueled the fire in this case was that Franken and O’Reilly had a confrontation at the 2003 BookExpo America, where they broke into a shouting match during a panel discussion. The animosity was played out in the court filings, which reportedly include repeated personal attacks on Franken (Holt, 2003). Ultimately, the court threw out the suit, stating it was without merit. Book sales soared, and Fox did not appeal the ruling.

Case Study: Alice Randall’s The Wind Done Gone

Another high-profile parody suit involved Alice Randall, who in 2001 was about to have her first novel, The Wind Done Gone, published by Houghton Mifflin. The book was a parody of Gone With The Wind, an American icon of literature authored by Margaret Mitchell. Randall’s version blatantly expounded upon the racism of the old South. U.S. District Judge Charles A. Pannell decided that Randall’s version was unabated piracy. Randall and Houghton Mifflin then planned to appeal (Kniffel, 2001).

The American Library Association’s Freedom to Read Foundation, the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, and the PEN American Center, among others, defended the right of the author and the publisher. The debate and the attention it caused reached a fever pitch. Advance galleys of The Wind Done Gone were in distribution during the trial. Four of those copies showed up in eBay auctions. Bidding reached $485 for one copy when eBay removed all of them, supposedly at the request of lawyers from the Margaret Mitchell Trust (G.M.E., 2001).

In 2002, Houghton Mifflin and the estate of Mitchell publicly announced that they had reached a settlement in the infringement case. Some interpretations of the settlement’s language suggest that Randall would face even more litigation should she try to sell movie rights or create new adaptations (Reid, 2002). The Wind Done Gone was published and lives on. It was another test, and a rather emotional and complex one, of the fair use concept (Grossett, 2002).

Issue

Combating Piracy of Copyrighted Materials

Piracy, or illegal copying, distribution, and sales of copyrighted works including books, music, software, and videos has become an international business (Einhorn, 2000). In the United States, federal law protects against the unauthorized use of copyrighted works. In addition, many copyrighted works feature embedded technology designed to hinder copying. Federal law also prohibits willfully creating or selling technology to circumvent such protections (U.S. Department of Justice, 2006).

Under these laws, copyright infringement for profit is a felony that is punishable by a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine or twice the gain/loss for an individual first-time offender and double that for a second offense. Large-scale copyright infringement even without a profit motive is a felony punishable by a maximum penalty of three years in prison and a $250,000 fine or twice the gain/loss for an individual first-time offender and double that for a second offense. Developing technology to circumvent antipiracy protections is also a felony punishable by a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $500,000 fine or twice the gain/loss for an individual first-time offender and double that for a second offense (U.S. Department of Justice, 2006).

The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) actively pursues investigations and indictments of copyright infringement crimes. It handles more than 300 cases per year and participates in more than 100 indictments per year. Many of these cases have been international in scope and have resulted in thousands of arrests and the seizure of hundreds of millions of dollars in pirated works. The FBI has also developed a label that producers of copyrighted works can place on their products:

“Warning: The unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this copyrighted work is illegal. Criminal copyright infringement, including infringement without monetary gain, is investigated by the FBI and is punishable by up to five years in federal prison and a fine of $250,000” (FBI, 2009).

File Sharing

The big cases with hundreds of arrests are impressive. But other situations have brought criticism to law enforcement and industry groups that are attempting to stop piracy. In the United States and many countries around the world, peer-to-peer sharing or exchanging of files has become almost ubiquitous. Due to the ubiquity of this activity in the United States, many feel that the lines which separate general law-abiding citizens from criminals are blurred (Adamsick, 2008).

Efforts to stop file sharing have been compared to the past efforts to stop the distribution of alcohol during U.S. prohibition in the 1920s. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has sued thousands of individuals alleging millions of dollars in damages. Schools across the nation are implementing strict policies to stop file sharing and halt an activity that the U.S. Supreme Court declared presumptively illegal in 2005 (Schlesinger & Lessig, 2008).

University students are said to illegally download well over one billion music files every year. The RIAA and others are putting the pressure on universities to stop the illegal downloading. Universities are responding by installing filtering appliances to prevent downloads or are offering a free service with a wide range of music choices (Pike, 2008).

In 2006, the RIAA informed university officials that it was initiating a process to bring lawsuits against students for the illegal downloading of music. In this effort, the RIAA had identified students they considered violators and were sent letters offering out-of-court settlements. The RIAA accepted credit cards for the fines (Read, 2007).

User-Generated Content

Internet users, mostly younger users, are creating user-generated content at an astonishing rate. Much of this content now consists of videos and sometimes results in lawsuits (Beckerman, 2009). YouTube and Viacom had a legal battle because YouTube videos were found to include a mix of copyrighted video material with some of their original creations. This battle has cost a considerable amount for both sides. YouTube has agreed to put in place video content filters to protect copyrighted video; however, the ability of it to stop YouTube users or to satisfy Viacom is not guaranteed (Meisel, 2009).

The list of copyright crimes and criminals continues to grow. As long as new technology continues to emerge, Internet users will increase their consumption of content, copyright protected or not.

Conclusion

The copyright process and copyright law have evolved over the last two centuries. New technologies including electronic mediums and the Internet have presented challenges for policy makers, creators, and sellers of copyrighted works. It is likely that technologies will continue to expand the options for distribution of works and that copyright law will continue to evolve along with the new technologies.

Some aspects of copyright law are ambiguous, especially the concept and process of fair use. The courts continue to grapple with fair use as creators push the envelop on how they use works created by others while copyright owners, for a variety of reasons, attempt to minimize the value of their work being diluted.

In the case of Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them by Al Franken and The Wind Done Gone by Alice Randall, it may have been far more than just the protection of a copyright that motivated the owners to pursue litigation. The political and social motivations of those lawsuits may have well outweighed the economic gain that the copyright owners could have reaped.

Protecting copyrights or stopping the piracy of works has become a major challenge in the global, technically advanced marketplace. Massive international efforts are making some progress in the fight against piracy. On the other hand, the pursuit of litigation against consumers who copy small quantities of copyrighted work has created considerable social backlash and may also be creating an entirely new generation of criminals.

Bibliography

1 

Adamsick, C. (2008). “Warez” the copyright violation? Digital copyright infringement: Legal loopholes and decentralization. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 52, 10-12. Retrieved April 12, 2009, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=35622988&site=ehost-live

2 

Beckerman, R. (2009). Content holders vs. the web: 2008 U.S. copyright law victories point to robust internet. Journal of Internet Law, 12, 16-21. Retrieved April 12, 2009, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=36066990&site=ehost-live

3 

Cable, satellite tv executives battle in Congress over copyright laws. (2009). Satellite News, 32, 1. Retrieved April 12, 2009, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=36845199&site=ehost-live

4 

Celedonia, B., & Doyle, K. (2007). Trademark parody, statutory and nominative fair use under the Lanham Act. Computer & Internet Lawyer, 24, 11-27. Retrieved April 14, 2009, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=26633515&site=ehost-live The Authors Guild, Inc., et al. vs. Google, Inc. (2013). United States District Court, Southern District of New York. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=26633515&site=ehost-live The Authors Guild, Inc., et al. vs. Google, Inc. (2013). United States District Court, Southern District of New York. http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/834877-google-books-ruling-on-fair-use.html

5 

Crockford, P. (2008). EU copyright developments and enforcement in European Countries. IP Litigator, 14, 9-15. Retrieved April 13, 2009, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=34617841&site=ehost-live

6 

Dames, K. (2009). Information business meets copyright policy. Information Today, 26, 16-17. Retrieved April 12, 2009, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=37191477&site=ehost-live

7 

Einhorn, B. (2009, March 2). Microsoft has hope in Asian piracy fight. Business Week Online, 23. Retrieved April 12, 2009, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=36822257&site=ehost-live

8 

Eisenstein, M. (2000). An economic analysis of the fair use defense in Leibovitz V. Paramount Pictures Corporation. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 148, 889. Retrieved April 14, 2009, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=2937890&site=ehost-live

9 

Fakler, P. (2013). Music copyright royalty rate-setting litigation: Practice before the copyright royalty board and how it differs from ASCAP and BMI rate court litigation. Licensing Journal, 33, 9-16. Retrieved November 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=89389487&site=ehost-live

10 

G.M.E., G. (2001). Wind Done Gone Called ‘unabated piracy’. American Libraries, 32, 30. Retrieved April 14, 2009, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=4525666&site=ehost-live

11 

Grossett, J. (2002). The Wind Done Gone: Transforming Tara into a plantation parody. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 52, 1113. Retrieved April 14, 2009, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=6870900&site=ehost-live

12 

Holt, K. (2003). Franken gets a big, fat publicity boost. Publishers Weekly, 250, 16-16. Retrieved April 14, 2009, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=10615867&site=ehost-live

13 

Holt, K. (2003). With court victory, Penguin ups Franken run. Publishers Weekly, 250, 12-12. Retrieved April 14, 2009, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=10708648&site=ehost-live

14 

Hugenholtz, P. (2013). Fair use in Europe. Communications Of The ACM, 56, 26-28. Retrieved November 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=87500045&site=ehost-live

15 

Johnson, M., & Spilger, U. (2000). Legal considerations when using parodies in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 29, 77-86. Retrieved April 14, 2009, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=4224209&site=ehost-live

16 

Kaushik, A., & Prakash, N. (2009). Google library project: Following the copyright debate. ICFAI Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 8, 74-80. Retrieved April 12, 2009, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=36350168&site=ehost-live

17 

Kirsch, E., & Klett, A. (2009). US and European courts split over fair use. Managing Intellectual Property, 3. Retrieved April 12, 2009, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=36824874&site=ehost-live

18 

Kniffel, L. (2001). The perils of birthin’ a parody. American Libraries, 32, 50. Retrieved April 14, 2009, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=4525696&site=ehost-live

19 

Meisel, J. (2009). Economic and legal issues facing You Tube and similar internet hosting web sites. Journal of Internet Law, 12, 1-16. Retrieved April 12, 2009, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=36511957&site=ehost-live

20 

Nichols, J. (2009). The big lie on Franken. Nation, 288, 6-7. Retrieved April 14, 2009, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=35973368&site=ehost-live

21 

Quint, B. (2009). Books, books, books: Going, going, Google. Information Today, 26, 7-8. Retrieved April 12, 2009, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=36344103&site=ehost-live

22 

Read, B. (2007). Recording industry will sue students but let them settle. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53, A1-A40. Retrieved April 12, 2009, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=24514203&site=ehost-live

23 

Reid, C. (2002). Suit done gone, for now. Publishers Weekly, 249, 17. Retrieved April 14, 2009, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=6693490&site=ehost-live

24 

Samuelson, P. (2013). The quest for a sound conception of copyright’s derivative work right. Georgetown Law Journal, 101, 1505-1564. Retrieved November 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=90613565&site=ehost-live

25 

Schlesinger, R., & Lessig, L. (2008). Don’t make kids online crooks. U.S. News & World Report, 145, 15. Retrieved April 12, 2009, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=35864181&site=ehost-live

26 

Siwek, S. (2011) Copyright industries in the U.S. economy: The 2011 report. Retrieved November 14, from the International Intellectual Property Alliance. http://www.iipa.com/pdf/2011copyrightindustriesreport.PDF

27 

The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Basic notions about copyright and neighboring rights. (2009). Retrieved April 13, 2009, from http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/files/30671/11443368003faq%5fen.pd df/faq_en.pdf

28 

United States Copyright Office. (2006). Copyright fair use. Retrieved April 12, 2009, from The Register of Copyrights. http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

29 

United States Copyright Office. (2007). Annual report of the Register of Copyrights fiscal year ending September 30, 2007. Retrieved April 13, 2009, from The Register of Copyrights http://www.copyright.gov/reports/annual/2007/ar2007.pdf

30 

United States Copyright Office. (2007). Circular 92 Copyright Law of the United States and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code. Retrieved April 12, 2009, from The Register of Copyrights. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf

31 

United States Copyright Office. (2008). Circular 1 copyright basics. Retrieved April 12, 2009, from The Register of Copyrights. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf

32 

United States Copyright Office. (2008). Strategic plan 2008-2013. Retrieved April 13, 2009, from the United States Copyright Office. http://www.copyright.gov/reports/s-plan2008/s-plan2008-2013-i.pdf

33 

United States Copyright Office. (2009). Current fees. Retrieved April 12, 2009, from http://www.copyright.gov/docs/fees.html

34 

United States Copyright Office. (2009). How to register a copyright. Retrieved April 12, 2009, from The Register of Copyrights. http://www.copyright.gov/register/index.html

35 

United States Department of Justice. (2006). Progress report of the department of justice’s task force on intellectual property. Retrieved April 14, 2009, from Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section United States Department of Justice. http://www.cybercrime.gov/2006IPTFProgressReport(6-19-06).pdf

36 

United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). (2009). Investigative programs, cyber investigations. Retrieved April 14, 2009, from United State Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). http://www.fbi.gov/ipr/

37 

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). (2009). Copyright and related rights. Retrieved April 12, 2009, from http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/

Suggested Reading

38 

Copyright and fair use. (2008). ASHE Higher Education Report, 34, 31-52. Retrieved April 12, 2009, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=36317447&site=ehost-live

39 

Crawford, J., & Strasser, R. (2008). Management of infringement risk of intellectual property assets. Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal, 20, 7-10. Retrieved April 12, 2009, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=35423366&site=ehost-live

40 

Duffin, F., & Watson, B. (2009). Best practices in protecting and enforcing trademarks, copyrights, and other intellectual property rights. Franchise Law Journal, 28, 132-180. Retrieved April 12, 2009, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=36985964&site=ehost-live

41 

Guernsey, L. (2008). New machines reproduce custom books on demand. Chronicle of Higher Education, 55, A1-A13. Retrieved April 12, 2009, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=35633798&site=ehost-live

42 

Mattingly, T., & Samardzija, M. (2009). Minimizing liability for copyright infringement. Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal, 21, 16-20. Retrieved April 12, 2009, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=35876120&site=ehost-live

43 

Morgan, M., & Cohn-Sfetcu, S. (2008). Automated software systems for intellectual property compliance. Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal, 20, 14-24. Retrieved April 12, 2009, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=35423368&site=ehost-live

44 

Newman, J. M. (2013). Copyright freeconomics. Vanderbilt Law Review, 66, 1409-1469. Retrieved November 14, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=91711701&site=ehost-live

45 

Ong, R. (2009). Tackling intellectual property infringement in China. China Business Review, 36, 17-21. Retrieved April 12, 2009, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=36834857&site=ehost-live

46 

Ouellet, J. (2007). The purchase versus illegal download of music by consumers: The influence of consumer response towards the artist and music. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 24, 107-119. Retrieved April 12, 2009, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=26363444&site=ehost-live

47 

Pasquale, R. (2009). The great copyright debate. Managing Intellectual Property, 1. Retrieved April 12, 2009, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=37374320&site=ehost-live

48 

Pike, G. (2008). The financial aid ‘stick’ against illegal downloading. Information Today, 25, 17-20. Retrieved April 12, 2009, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=34584101&site=ehost-live

49 

Ross, P. (2008, December 29). Copyright laws are working. U.S. News & World Report, 14. Retrieved April 12, 2009, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=35864179&site=ehost-live

50 

Rothstein, J. (2009). Unilateral settlements and retroactive transfers: A problem of copyright co-ownership. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 157, 881-921. Retrieved April 12, 2009, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=37275911&site=ehost-live

51 

Rott, P. (2008). Download of copyright-protected internet content and the role of (consumer) contract law. Journal of Consumer Policy, 31, 441-457. Retrieved April 12, 2009, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=36165034&site=ehost-live

52 

Shared and related concerns about intellectual property. (2008). ASHE Higher Education Report, 34, 93-113. Retrieved April 12, 2009, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=36317450&site=ehost-live

53 

The Law of Copyrights. (2008, November). ASHE Higher Education Report, 34, 13-30. Retrieved April 12, 2009, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=36317446&site=ehost-live

54 

The parody defense to copyright infringement: Productive fair use after Betamax. (1984). Harvard Law Review, 97, 1395-1414. Retrieved April 14, 2009, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=7732261&site=ehost-live

Citation Types

Type
Format
MLA 9th
Erbschloe, Michael. "Copyrights." Principles of Business: Marketing,Salem Press, 2017. Salem Online, online.salempress.com/articleDetails.do?articleName=POBMkg_0018.
APA 7th
Erbschloe, M. (2017). Copyrights. Principles of Business: Marketing. Salem Press. online.salempress.com.
CMOS 17th
Erbschloe, Michael. "Copyrights." Principles of Business: Marketing. Hackensack: Salem Press, 2017. Accessed September 18, 2025. online.salempress.com.