Lecture 4 - 2010-2-18

Lecture 4 - 2010-2-18 - 2/18/2010 Intellectual Property and...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
2/18/2010 1 Intellectual Property and Changing Technology What is Intellectual Property? The intangible creative work, not its particular physical form Value of intelligence and artistic work comes from creativity, ideas, research, skills, labor, non-material efforts and attributes the creator provides Protected by copyright and patent law Intellectual Property and Changing Technology (cont.) What is Intellectual Property? (cont.) Copyright holders have exclusive rights: To make copies To produce derivative works, such as translations into other languages or movies based on books To distribute copies To perform the work in public (e.g. music, plays) To display the work in public (e.g. artwork, movies, computer games, video on a Web site) Intellectual Property and Changing Technology (cont.) Challenges of New Technology: Digital technology and the internet has made copyright infringement easier and cheaper New compression technologies have made copying large files (e.g. graphics, video and audio files) feasible New tools allow us to modify graphics, video and audio files to make derivative works Scanners allow us to change the media of a copyrighted work, converting printed text, photos, and artwork to electronic form
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
2/18/2010 2 Intellectual Property and Changing Technology: Discussion Questions How is intellectual property like physical property? How is intellectual property different than physical property? Do you agree with the idea that someone can "own" intellectual property? Copyright Law and Significant Cases (cont.) Significant Cases: Sony v. Universal City Studios (1984) Supreme Court decided that the makers of a device with legitimate uses should not be penalized because some people may use it to infringe on copyright Supreme Court decided copying movies for later viewing was fair use Arguments against fair use People copied the entire work Movies are creative, not factual Copyright Law and Significant Cases (cont.) Significant Cases (cont.): Sony v. Universal City Studios (1984) (cont.) Arguments for fair use The copy was for private, noncommercial use and generally was not kept after viewing The movie studios could not demonstrate that they suffered any harm The studios had received a substantial fee for broadcasting movies on TV, and the fee depends on having a large audience who view for free
Background image of page 2
2/18/2010 3 Copyright Law and Significant Cases (cont.) Significant Cases (cont.): Reverse engineering: game machines Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade Inc. (1992) Atari Games v. Nintendo (1992) Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. v. Connectix Corporation (2000) Courts ruled that reverse engineering does not violate copyright if the intention is to make new creative works (video games), not copy the original work (the game systems) Copyright Law and Significant Cases (cont.) Significant Cases (cont.): Sharing music: the Napster case
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 10

Lecture 4 - 2010-2-18 - 2/18/2010 Intellectual Property and...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online