Copyright Protection Of The Song "Akad" Created By “Payung Teduh” In Case Covered By Hanin Dhiya Based On Copyright Law

Technology is in progress increasingly sophisticated, enables everyone to explore and showcase her work in a variety of ways, one of which is now very easy to find is to upload video footage in a private channel on the YouTube site. However, disputes arise when recording on the channel associated with copyright issues. One of them is the activity of singing songs of others. The problems discussed in this study is how the Top Tracks Copyright Protection “Akad” Created by Payung Teduh In Case Cover Version By Hanin Dhiya Seen From the Copyright Act. The research approach is Normative legislation reviewing Act No. 28 of 2014 on Copyright. The results of this study explains that the song “Akad” is the creation of Payung Teduh, and copyright is protected by the Copyright Act, in order to perform a cover of the song, so it needed permission from Payung Teduh, as a tribute to the work of someone else's copyright. If this right is violated, the creator has the right to prosecute the song cover both civil and criminal.Keywords : Protection Law, Copyright, Cover Songs.

The paradigmatic roles of copyright and patent laws have been, respectively, to protect original authorial expressions from illicit copying and novel and nonobvious functional designs (if they have been appropriately claimed and examined by patent officials) from illicit uses. It would be convenient if copyright law could be assigned the role of protecting the expression in computer programs and patent law the role of protecting program functionality. While courts continue to try to distinguish between program expression and program functionality, this distinction has proven elusive in the decades since the U.S. Congress decided to extend copyright protection to computer programs.For more than twenty years, a series of court cases have held that copyright infringement does not occur when a second comer needs to copy some aspects of another firm’s program in order to achieve compatibility with other programs. Courts have deemed the functional requirements for achieving compatibility to be unprotectable elements of these copyrighted programs, even though more than a modicum of creativity may have imparted originality to these elements.The seeming consensus that program interfaces necessary for interoperability are unprotectable by copyright law was recently called into question by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc. At issue was whether the command structure of certain elements of the Java application program interface (API) was protectable by copyright law. The CAFC reversed a lower court ruling that this command structure was an unprotectable method of operation, or alternatively that copyright protection was unavailable under the merger doctrine. The CAFC was untroubled by the prospect that software developers might obtain both patent and copyright protection for APIs of computer programs. There was, in its view, no need to sort out functionality and expression in computer programs. Copyright could protect both as long as there was a modicum of creativity to support the claim of copyright. The Oracle decision has rekindled a decades-old debate, which many had thought had been settled in the late 1990s, about the proper scope of copyright protection for computer programs and how courts should go about analyzing claims of software copyright infringement. The U.S. Supreme Court decision not to review the Oracle decision leaves the CAFC ruling intact for the time being.This Article takes issue with the CAFC’s ruling and analysis. It aims to provide guidance about how courts should assess claims of copyright infringement in computer program cases. Part II reviews some key software copyright decisions and explains why the Second Circuit’s test for software copyright infringement is more compatible with traditional principles of copyright law than the Third Circuit’s is-there-any-other-way-to-do-it test. The Second Circuit recognized that sometimes external factors, such as the need to be compatible with other programs, constrain the design decisions of subsequent programmers, and when this happens, those constraints limit the scope of copyright protection in programs. While there is much in the Second Circuit’s ruling to praise, that court failed to heed the statutory directive in 17 U.S.C. § 102(b) that procedures, processes, systems, and methods of operation should also be filtered out before making judgments on copyright infringement claims in software cases. Part III articulates five propositions about § 102(b) that should be uncontroversial. It explains the important role that § 102(b) has played in numerous computer program cases. It goes on to discuss numerous respects in which the CAFC in Oracle misinterpreted § 102(b), as well as numerous cases in which courts have held that aspects of programs that are necessary for achieving interoperability with other programs or hardware are too functional to be protected by copyrights. Part IV explains why the merger doctrine has an important role to play in the assessment of infringement claims involving computer programs and why the CAFC erred in its interpretation of this doctrine. Courts should explicitly recognize a merger of function and expression doctrine in computer program cases. This doctrine usefully complements analysis of elements that may be unprotectable under § 102(b) as necessary incidents to the reimplementation of an unprotectable method or process.Part V considers the roles that copyright and patent law should play in protecting program innovations, with particular attention to how courts should assess claims that copyright protection should be unavailable to aspects of programs that might be eligible for patent protection. The CAFC in Oracle conflated copyright and utility patent protections for software as though it was unnecessary to even try to distinguish program expression and functionality. Part VI offers a pragmatic approach to distinguishing between program functionality and expression in copyright cases and a refinement of the Second Circuit’s test for software copyright infringement that is consistent with the overwhelming majority of software copyright cases (even if not with the CAFC’s Oracle decision) and traditional principles of copyright law. Competition and ongoing innovation will better thrive when the scope of copyright protection is relatively thin, allowing programmers to reuse functional design elements and know how that will promote the progress of science and useful arts, as the Constitution directs.

The establishment of criminal offences for copyright infringements has a long history under certain national copyright laws, including the laws of Australia and Malaysia. A new stage in the evolution of criminal laws for copyright infringements was, however, reached in the mid-1990s with the introduction of the first international standard for criminal enforcement measures, in the form of Article 61 of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (the ‘TRIPS Agreement’). The Article 61 standard, which is the current international standard, criminalizes, among other things, wilful copyright piracy on a commercial scale and compels WTO Members to impose ‘imprisonment and/or monetary fines sufficient to provide a deterrent, consistently with the level of penalties applied for crimes of a corresponding gravity.’ The Article 61 standard, however, could potentially be eclipsed by new, and potentially more severe, standards of criminal enforcement measures which are being proposed and negotiated between countries to be included in emerging multilateral treaties, namely the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. The attempts to strengthen the international standard for criminal enforcement measures have resulted in considerable controversy, partly due to the expansion of the scope of conduct being criminalized. The recent and ongoing controversies concerning the application of the criminal law to copyright infringements are related to more general controversies regarding the purpose and proper scope of copyright protection, especially in the digital environment. In view of the apparent movement towards increasingly prescriptive international standards of criminal enforcement measures, and bearing in mind that copyright infringements have historically been essentially regarded as private wrongs, there is an urgent need for a principled analysis of the application of the criminal law to certain forms of copyright infringement. This thesis examines this general issue by addressing two key research problems: • whether the criminalization of copyright piracy on a commercial scale is legitimate; and • if so, what are the objectives of imposing criminal sanctions and, in light of the objectives, what are the appropriate levels of criminal punishment for copyright piracy? Although the subject of much current debate, these issues have been under-researched in the academic literature. In relation to the first research problem, applying Joel Feinberg’s version of the Harm Principle, the thesis tentatively concludes that there is a prima facie case for criminalizing intentional or reckless acts of copyright piracy on a commercial scale. In relation to the second research problem, the thesis establishes that the overarching objective of establishing criminal penalties in Article 61 is to deter serious copyright infringements, essentially meaning intentional piracy on a commercial scale. In accordance with this objective, the penalties set by national enforcement regimes should be assessed by reference to the principles arising from the ‘deterrence theory’ of criminal punishment. Focusing on the Australian and Malaysian penal provisions, the thesis assesses whether the level of penalties set in the relevant criminal provisions comply with deterrence theory, in that they are sufficiently severe to deter infringements, but nevertheless proportionate. Accepting that the Article 61 standard requires that the penalties to be made available must be consistent with the ‘level of penalties’ applied to ‘crimes of a corresponding gravity’, and that most commentators on the TRIPS Agreement agree that offences for non-violent theft are ‘crimes of a corresponding gravity’, the thesis uses the penalties set for such offences as benchmarks for assessing the penalties set by representative criminal provisions under the relevant national copyright laws. The thesis demonstrates that the penalties set in the Australian and Malaysian penal provisions prima facie comply with the current TRIPS standard, which is inherently flexible. Further empirical research on factors such as the current enforcement and sentencing practices, however, is necessary to arrive at a definitive conclusion on the extent to which the criminal penalties set under Australian and Malaysian law represent an effective, but proportionate deterrent. Reflecting the complexity of the issues in this controversial area, many of the conclusions reached in the thesis are tentative and qualified. Nevertheless, the analysis of the two key research problems undertaken in the thesis represents an advance over the extant literature by establishing a rigorous conceptual framework for addressing the two key research problems, which hopefully may guide future research in this area. The law in the thesis is as at 23 June 2014.

Aereo is a cloud-based startup company that offers people the possibility to watch live (or nearly live) television on computing devices and smartphones. It was sued by the major US broadcasters for copyright liability and the case went to the Supreme Court where Aereo lost. It encapsulates a dilemma facing courts in the US and EUthat a ruling to shut down Aereo, on the basis that it is unlawful under copyright law, could threaten innovation in areas such as the cloud. The Aereo case turned on a narrow point of US copyright law, which this paper discusses. The core issue for this paper was to analyse the legal dispute between Aereo and the broadcasters as documented in the court papers, including transcripts of the hearing, and submissions in support of both parties. A key finding was that the technical design and characterisation of the service lay at the heart of the argument over copyright. The US courts deliberated at length as whether Aereo is more like a cable TV company, or is it merely an equipment provider, providing a digital video recorder in the cloud. The paper discusses whether technical design matters or whether the substantive effect could be the determining factor. The paper then broadens the perspective to examine the position of cloud service providers. It does so in general terms, using amicus curiae briefs and other documentation from the US court case, before concluding with a consideration of the EU position. An important finding is that the complexities of content acquisition, transmission and format-shifting will generate considerable legal uncertainty.

In this digital era have same importance of protection of information and dissemination of information. Information and communication of technology leads in instance access of information through internet but same way authors and creators fails in protecting their works and idea. Library professionals play key role in protecting and dissemination of information without violation of copyright. The present study discuss about copyright issues in digital era, copyright involve in library services and role of library professionals in protecting copyright law. digitization, preservation, archives, internet, open access all are in fever of violation of copyright but only one legislation for protecting authors or creators works therefore library professionals should play their role in protection of copyright law in this digital environment Keywords: Copyright, Library professionals, information Cite this Article Sagar S. Kumbhar, Pandurang B. Patil. Changing Role of Library Professionals in Prevention of Copyright Law. Journal of Advancements in Library Sciences. 2019; 6(Special Issue 1): 138s–141s.

In the times of network highly developing and freedom of speech rising, the speech technology springed up gradually and became the tool of comm -unicate in this generation, such as platform of YouTube is the great exam -ple. When the biggest Internet Information Storage Service Provider encounters the media monster, a war from business to lawsuit is rising. In fact, Viacom Int’l, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc. which gets everyone’s attentions in America as well as the world is due to above circumstance. This essay will focus on Viacom Int’l, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc. and study the exemption revision on copyright liability limitation for Internet Information Storage Service Provider. The discussions of each chapter will be based on this case. For Internet Service Providers and copyright owners to estimate the actual risk in secondary infringement lawsuit, this essay provider a flowchart of affirmative defenses to be the weight-bearing point. First, focusing on fair use and sorting out the theory of America and court practice of our country to infer the possibility of technology fair use. Second, this thesis focuses on the safe harbor provision at comparative point of view to analyze the application of safe harbor provision in our copyright law, and expounds the relation between safe harbor provision and secondary infringement. Lastly, according to an empirical study on cases of American safe harbor provision, this thesis inspects the above flowchart of affirmative defenses. Furthermore, having acknowledged the real application of safe harbor provision, this theis goes back to Viacom Int’l, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc. for conclusion.

On February 20, 2014, the Taiwan Intellectual Property Court (＂TIPC＂) issued its first adult video copyright case, Taiwan Intellectual Property Court Criminal Judgment 101 Xing-Zhi-Shang-Yi-Zi No. 74 (2012). It held that an adult video work is copyright-eligible under the Taiwan Copyright Act and found the Japanese adult video works at dispute meet the orginaility requirement. Unfortunately, the TIPC court failed to address that issue in its first adult video copyright infringement case. To enrich the discussion related to the AV decision, this paper explores the ＂choice of law＂ issues regarding the cross-border protection of copyright. The theory developed is to help resolve those issues ignored by the TIPC. Relying on the Berne Convention, this paper argues that the issues related to authorship, copyright-eligibility, originality, and ownership should be governed by the law of the country of origin. So, the appropriate governing law for the copyright cases concerning Japan adult videos is the Japan copyright law instead of the Taiwan copyright law.

The law of Copyright Act 1957 has been giving protection to literary, dramatic or musical works, artists, cinematograph film and sound record. Now days it has been challenging even in the field of research publications, thesis and patent. In this paper the Researchers focus on the laws of copyrights and libraries, also on the challenges and issues of copyright. Some of the cases related to the copyright are also discussed. Keywords: Copyright Laws, Library, Infringement of copyright, Intellectual Property, Licenses Cite this Article Vishwasrao S Mane, Namita Khot. Copyright Act, 1957: A Study with Reference to Selected Cases in India. Journal of Advancements in Library Sciences. 2019; 6(Special Issue 1): 336s–341s.

In the contemporary state of intellectual copyright online, there is a gravitation towards restricting consumer access to maintain corporate profit. Using video-sharing site YouTube as a case study, I argue that a more creative approach to policing copyright infringement is needed; otherwise, both consumers and producers lose a considerable amount of freedom in the ways they choose to interact with creative works online. YouTube’s policy of giving content owners the options to block, monetize, or track their protected content allows consumer access to subsist, while simultaneously appeasing corporate interests. Despite this, YouTube’s copyright policy may lead to a more commercialized setting, in which professionally generated content dominates over the amateur content that YouTube’s slogan—“Broadcast Yourself”—claims to offer. Consequently, YouTube’s copyright policy should be thought of as a step in the right direction, but not a viable solution to restrictive copyright altogether. The Internet’s current designation as a setting for copyright infringement is part of a historical trajectory. New technological media are often thought of as safe-havens for copyright infringement, and must often struggle to find legal grounding on which their survival may be secured. Alongside the VCR, the phonograph, and the portable MP3 player, the capabilities of the internet to rapidly and cheaply share creative content are likely here to stay. For copyright law to compete with the instantaneousness of peer-to-peer networks, it must be updated to find alternative methods of protecting intellectual property.

The academic library community has been at the center of the copyright wars, advancing the interests of students and faculty. Digital and network technologies, the licensing of electronic content, and the globalization of copyright have combined to challenge our traditional views of intellectual property. New laws and legislation over the past decade have threatened the sustenance of fair use and key exceptions to copyright. We must re-commit to the education of our campuses, to political advocacy, and to collective

Copyright Law and Science

<p><em>In 2003, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) initiated a surge of lawsuits against peer-to-peer (P2P) network users to stop them from illegally sharing music files. The main goal of this new strategy was not to dissuade individual persons from violating copyright laws, but to educate the general public about the illegality of this behavior and to deter the mass of Internet users from using the ever-emerging P2P networks to share music files</em><em>(RIAA, 2003)</em><em>. Despite these legal efforts, the few studies conducted on online music file sharing suggest that the majority of music downloaders show little awareness of wrongdoing and that a large gap exists between the self-perception of P2P users and the deviant label assigned to them by the recording industry. This study uses recent data from the PEW Internet and American Life Project to analyze the latest shifts in the population of P2P users. Results show that the popularity of P2P networks has been steadily increasing since the sharp decline in 2003 and that the sociodemographics of file-sharing communities are changing. P2P users appear to be largely unimpressed by the legal prosecutions. Implications for the music and video industry as well as future research are discussed.</em></p>

Functionality and Expression in Computer Programs: Refining the Tests for Software Copyright Infringement

Enforcement of criminal law within the Copyright Act alone is insufficient to effectively address acts of piracy, duplication, cover songs, distribution, and management of copyrighted music and songs. Offenders without a license/permit are subject to both criminal and civil sanctions. The Criminal Law No. 28 of 2014 on Copyright also imposes criminal sanctions for pirates, cover songs, and music rearrangement without permission from copyright holders or related rights. This study identifies two main issues. Firstly, there is a weak implementation of criminal sanctions in copyright law, particularly concerning juridical aspects in the formulation of criminal law provisions (penal policy). Secondly, there is a need for understanding among copyright holders, related rights, and offenders to operationalize law enforcement by employing other relevant laws outside copyright law. The use of criminal acts of corruption and taxation can be an effective effort to protect the law and ensure legal certainty. To address these issues, this research employs a socio-legal approach, which combines doctrinal studies with social studies. This integration is based on the belief that the rule of law cannot operate in isolation when dealing with copyright piracy of songs and music in Indonesia. The post-positivism paradigm underpins this study, acknowledging the reality based on experience while maintaining the researcher's objectivity towards the subject. Empirical verification, hypothesis testing, and maintaining a clear distinction between the researcher and the object under study are emphasized throughout this research.

Initially the scope of copyright protection only focused on conventional objects of creation. However, along with technological developments and advances, the object of copyright protection is expanding on the forms of creation in the form of science, art, and literature are digitized. Copyright Laws that are currently still experiencing some problems in order to provide protection to the creative works expressed through the internet media. Therefore, it is interesting to examine the legal protection against copyright infringement through internet media based on Law Number 28 Year 2014. The method used in this research is normative legal research. Sources of data used in this research are secondary data, namely data obtained from legislation, scientific journals, and legal literature. Data collection techniques used in this research is literature study. Data analysis technique used in this research is qualitative analysis. The results of this research indicate that the development and advancement of technology increasingly facilitate the occurrence of violations of Copyright through the internet media are hijacked, copied, and traded in the midst of society. Although in Law Number 28 Year 2014 has been set about bans and strict criminal sanctions, but due to weak regulation and lack of legal awareness of the public make law enforcement of Copyright is not running optimally.