EXCEPTION AND LIMITATIONS OF COPYRIGHT
EXCEPTION AND LIMITATIONS OF COPYRIGHT
Copyright is a kind of intellectual property the importance of which has increased enormously in recent times due to the rapid technological development in the field of printing, music, communication, entertainment and computers. Copyrights is the right of copy or reproduce the work in which copyright subsists. Copyright is essential for the protections of the owner of the work. No one can make use or produce of the work on which copyright subsists. If anyone want to produce the work on which copyright subsists they have to take the permission from the owner of the copyright, if without permission using the work or reproduce the work then it is the infringement of right of the owner.
Intellectual property law regulates the creation, use and exploitation of mental or creative labour. The term intellectual property has been used for almost one hundred and fifteen years to refer to the general area of law that encompasses copy right, patents, designs and trademarks as well as a host of related rights. Among these categories law of copyright has a special position in terms of its contents as well as its purpose.
In British legal parlance, copyright is the term used to describe the area of intellectual property law that regulates the creation and use that is made of a range of cultural goods such as books, songs, films and computer programs. Various rights are conferred on the owner of the copyright, including the right to copy the work and performing the work in public[3].
The rights vested in the copyright owner are limited, notably in that they are not infringed when a person copies or performs a work that they have created themselves. The rights given to a copyright owner lasts for a considerable time, in many cases seventy years after the life of the author of the work[4]..
For philosophers, it is important to ask this question because we have a choice as to whether we should grant such rights. It is also important because the decision to grant property rights in intangibles impinges on competitors and the public. It can be seen that philosophers have not always found these rights to be justified on the concept of public interest[5].
The justifications that have been given tend to fall into two general categories. First intellectual property induces or encourages desirable behavior. Alternatively, commentators often call upon ethical and moral arguments to justify these rights. It is often said that copyright is justified because the law recognizes an author’s natural rights or human rights over the products of their labour[6]. This justifications flows out from the Natural law philosophies propounded by thinkers like John Locke. Hegel, Immanuel Kant etc.
It has become extremely fashionable these days to suggest that copyright protection has outlived its usefulness, and that the "public's" interests should triumph over the "private" and exclusionary interests of copyright owners[7]. These expressions are some times considered to establish false dichotomy which began appearing in the press and legal briefs a few years ago. It is assumed that the underlying illogic upon which they were premised would quickly become evident, and that these theories would implode from the pressure of their internal irrationality[8]. This has not come to pass—in large part because many in society view these ideas as providing moral comfort for engaging in the theft of intellectual property at a time when such theft can be safely achieved from the comfort of one’s home[9]. It is argued that a society can no longer permit these attacks on the copyright system to go unchallenged, for this debate greatly affects the interests of the public, in much more important and complicated ways than certain commentators would have suggested[10].
There is basic strain on the copyright system to achieve a balance between the "public" on the one hand, and "private copyright owners" on the other. In this formulation, the "public’s" interest is exclusively defined as the ability to get copyrighted materials as cheaply as possible, with free obviously being the best (since it is the cheapest) option[11]. But in this digitalized era modern inventions of close access technologies brings new threats to tilt the balance. Moreover, free access of information justifies an unguided anti-copyright projection. Hence a well-structured doctrinal study to know the real intention behind protected copyright works to reward the real labour and dissemination of knowledge for the progress of science and technology is the need of the hour[12].
To some authors this is a dangerous mischaracterization of the "public interest" underlying the copyright law. It is my belief—reflected in the legislation of many countries including that of the United Kingdom-that the public has a much broader interest. The U.K. copyright system, like most, is based on the very notion that the public has an overt interest in protecting intellectual property, and not merely in restricting it. Stated in another way, the public interest in copyright is not limited to the notion of fair use or the public domain, but rather extends to the entire system of copyright. While the public certainly has an interest in securing cheap access to copyrighted materials, society's primary interest is in ensuring the production and distribution of original materials is under threat[13].
Every society has its own acknowledgement towards news items, day today happenings, mathematical and scientific formulae, Judgements of courts and other basic things which could not be banned from open access. It cannot be considered that this formulations more inclining towards the public interests. Because for the progress of next generation some data should be allowed to avail at free of cost in the common pool. Under-protection of copyright may decline the creativity in art and culture. In the same breath the over-protection will hamper the progress of society. So to draw a thick blanket between the under-protection and over-protection, the copyright protection and public interest should go hand in hand[14].
DISSERTATION: Research Proposal
Working Title
“EXCEPTION AND LIMITATIONS OF COPYRIGHT”
Introduction
Copyright is a kind of intellectual property the importance of which has increased enormously in recent times due to the rapid technological development in the field of printing, music, communication, entertainment and computers. Copyrights is the right of copy or reproduce the work in which copyright subsists. Copyright is essential for the protections of the owner of the work. No one can make use or produce of the work on which copyright subsists. If anyone want to produce the work on which copyright subsists they have to take the permission from the owner of the copyright, if without permission using the work or reproduce the work then it is the infringement of right of the owner.Intellectual property law regulates the creation, use and exploitation of mental or creative labour. The term intellectual property has been used for almost one hundred and fifteen years to refer to the general area of law that encompasses copy right, patents, designs and trademarks as well as a host of related rights. Among these categories law of copyright has a special position in terms of its contents as well as its purpose.
In British legal parlance, copyright is the term used to describe the area of intellectual property law that regulates the creation and use that is made of a range of cultural goods such as books, songs, films and computer programs. Various rights are conferred on the owner of the copyright, including the right to copy the work and performing the work in public[3].
The rights vested in the copyright owner are limited, notably in that they are not infringed when a person copies or performs a work that they have created themselves. The rights given to a copyright owner lasts for a considerable time, in many cases seventy years after the life of the author of the work[4]..
For philosophers, it is important to ask this question because we have a choice as to whether we should grant such rights. It is also important because the decision to grant property rights in intangibles impinges on competitors and the public. It can be seen that philosophers have not always found these rights to be justified on the concept of public interest[5].
The justifications that have been given tend to fall into two general categories. First intellectual property induces or encourages desirable behavior. Alternatively, commentators often call upon ethical and moral arguments to justify these rights. It is often said that copyright is justified because the law recognizes an author’s natural rights or human rights over the products of their labour[6]. This justifications flows out from the Natural law philosophies propounded by thinkers like John Locke. Hegel, Immanuel Kant etc.
It has become extremely fashionable these days to suggest that copyright protection has outlived its usefulness, and that the "public's" interests should triumph over the "private" and exclusionary interests of copyright owners[7]. These expressions are some times considered to establish false dichotomy which began appearing in the press and legal briefs a few years ago. It is assumed that the underlying illogic upon which they were premised would quickly become evident, and that these theories would implode from the pressure of their internal irrationality[8]. This has not come to pass—in large part because many in society view these ideas as providing moral comfort for engaging in the theft of intellectual property at a time when such theft can be safely achieved from the comfort of one’s home[9]. It is argued that a society can no longer permit these attacks on the copyright system to go unchallenged, for this debate greatly affects the interests of the public, in much more important and complicated ways than certain commentators would have suggested[10].
There is basic strain on the copyright system to achieve a balance between the "public" on the one hand, and "private copyright owners" on the other. In this formulation, the "public’s" interest is exclusively defined as the ability to get copyrighted materials as cheaply as possible, with free obviously being the best (since it is the cheapest) option[11]. But in this digitalized era modern inventions of close access technologies brings new threats to tilt the balance. Moreover, free access of information justifies an unguided anti-copyright projection. Hence a well-structured doctrinal study to know the real intention behind protected copyright works to reward the real labour and dissemination of knowledge for the progress of science and technology is the need of the hour[12].
To some authors this is a dangerous mischaracterization of the "public interest" underlying the copyright law. It is my belief—reflected in the legislation of many countries including that of the United Kingdom-that the public has a much broader interest. The U.K. copyright system, like most, is based on the very notion that the public has an overt interest in protecting intellectual property, and not merely in restricting it. Stated in another way, the public interest in copyright is not limited to the notion of fair use or the public domain, but rather extends to the entire system of copyright. While the public certainly has an interest in securing cheap access to copyrighted materials, society's primary interest is in ensuring the production and distribution of original materials is under threat[13].
Every society has its own acknowledgement towards news items, day today happenings, mathematical and scientific formulae, Judgements of courts and other basic things which could not be banned from open access. It cannot be considered that this formulations more inclining towards the public interests. Because for the progress of next generation some data should be allowed to avail at free of cost in the common pool. Under-protection of copyright may decline the creativity in art and culture. In the same breath the over-protection will hamper the progress of society. So to draw a thick blanket between the under-protection and over-protection, the copyright protection and public interest should go hand in hand[14].
Comments
Post a Comment