There is an argument that copyright is invalid because intellectual property, unlike physical property, is not uncommon and is a legal fiction created by the state. The argument claims that copyright infringement, unlike theft, does not deprive the victim of the original material. [3] [4] “When you write a book, it is automatically protected. In fact, not just your book. Every email, every note to your spouse, every scribble, every creative action reduced to a tangible form – all this is automatically protected by copyright. There is no need to save or mark your work. Protection follows creation, not the steps you take to protect it. [25 pp.136-139] The fact is that there is no a priori obligation on the part of society to ensure that a particular profession is subsidized. This is not to say that what copyright beneficiaries do is not important; Of course it is. It is enough to respect the rules according to which all professions that do not benefit from copyright play – competition and innovation in the free market.

The activities associated with copyright are a bit overwhelming for those who don`t know much about it, but on the other hand, I think people in today`s economy are looking for monetary gain from anyone who infringes something they`ve protected by copyright. I agree that people shouldn`t take works from other individuals, but I think the world of “originality” has ceased to exist a little more than it did years ago. The marginal cost of creating a copy of the information on the network is essentially zero. Since there is no quota for the maximum copy, you can make as many copies of certain information as you want; The stock is endless. An economic model of supply and demand dictates that when supply is infinite, prices fall to zero. The only reason someone should pay for a copy of anything is that there are a limited number of copies. In other words, copies are scarce because there is a limited offer. Charging for each copy may make sense in some types of markets, but not for non-competing and non-excludable goods such as information. The French group Association des Audionautes is not against copyright per se, but proposes a reformed system for the application and compensation of copyright. Aziz Ridouan, co-founder of the group, proposes to the France to legalize peer-to-peer file sharing and to pay artists by increasing the fees of Internet service providers (i.e.

an alternative compensation system). Wired magazine reported that major music companies have equated Ridouan`s proposal with legitimizing piracy. [18] In January 2008, seven Swedish MPs from the Moderate Party (part of the government coalition) wrote an article in a Swedish tabloid calling for the complete decriminalisation of file sharing. They wrote: “Decriminalizing all non-commercial file sharing and forcing the market to adapt is not only the best solution. This is the only solution unless we want more and more control over what citizens do on the Internet. [27] Copyright infringement has nothing to do with plagiarism either. Plagiarism is the act of passing on someone else`s work like one`s own; That is, not correctly assigning the work to the right creator. Copyright infringement is the act of distributing a work without the permission of the copyright owner.

To infringe the copyright of The Beatles` “Hey Jude,” I could copy the song to another location via a computer network, for example. On the other hand, to plagiarize “Hey Jude” by The Beatles, I had to walk around and try to convince others that I had actually written the song. [G] Copyright has shifted from a mere prohibition on distribution for commercial purposes in some cases to a device used to censor freedom of expression when such speech is contrary to the financial interests of a copyright owner. Researchers in particular are affected. Two examples are the cases of Ed Felten and Dmitry Sklyarov. Platforms have also evolved towards automation to meet DCMA demands in a timely and cost-effective manner. By using automated systems and algorithms, platforms eliminate the need to use human systems, which are typically expensive and slower in their review process. While on-demand platforms like YouTube have been implementing algorithmic systems for about 14 years, live streaming platforms have started to implement more and more similar systems to quickly remove or disable a potentially counterfeit live stream.