Towards learning and sharing about IP & Cyber law

[psyther2748-blog]

Edge Computing vs. Cloud Computing: Which One Is Right For Your Application?

A look at the differences between cloud computing and edge computing, the edge’s advantages and challenges, and 7 best practices for success on the edge.

This blog talks about the differences in edge computing and cloud computing. It blog also shares an example of autonomous cars and explains why using edge computing will be helpful than using cloud computing and provides 7 best practices for better implication of edge computing. I agree with the views of the blogger. 

[psyther2748-blog]

Privacy in the Age of Ubiquitous Computing

REDMOND, Wash.–If one were to draw up a list of the most challenging jobs in the technology industry, chief privacy officer at Microsoft likely would be pretty near the top of it. For a company with the size and scope of Microsoft, the volume of potential privacy issues is nearly endless, and if someone is calling you for help, something has probably gone wrong.

This article gives an insight about ubiquitous computing and the data protection challenges imposed. 

[psyther2748-blog]

Behavioral targeting is an effective marketing strategy but annoying at the same time. Is it an invasion of consumers' privacy?

This blog talks about online behavioural marketing. It also talks about the advantages, disadvantages and impact of behavioural targeting on privacy of an individual. 

[psyther2748-blog]

Is Europe moving away from protecting platforms, internet intermediaries?

Whether Article 13 is ever enacted and in what form is still to be decided, but it is closer to adoption now than before the vote in September 2018. Meanwhile, we await answers from the CJEU regarding the permissible subject-matter breadth and territorial width of injunctions made against intermediaries.

This article talks about Article 12-14 of the E-commerce Directive (ECD). This article also gives a brief insight upon the “notice and stay down” where Australian court obliged facebook to remove and further restrict the uploading of “identical to original” posts. This blog also discusses several cases and the commissions recommendations for effectively tackling the online content. 

[psyther2748-blog]

How Cambridge Analytica Sparked the Great Privacy Awakening

Repercussions from the scandal swirling around the data analytics firm continue to be felt across the tech industry.

This blog discusses the Cambridge Analytica case and tries to awaken people about the threat that social media platforms possess on personal data.

[psyther2748-blog]

The War between Remixes and Originality: A Copyright Controversy

Thinking about remixes one question that pops up in my mind is that can a work be derivative and original at the same time? Is it possible to create a new work by deriving it from some one’s original work? First let’s talk about what do we mean by remixes. Remixes can be understood as a version of musical recording that has been produced by mixing something with the original musical recording. Remixes are derivative works.

A person needs to have a permission from the original creator of the copyrighted work to create/ distribute the derivative work. If a permission is not taken, then It would result into copyright infringement. Let’s take an example, I try to write a song and the music I use in the background is of Crossfire (by Stephen), but the lyrics I use are different, which are my original creation. Here if I don’t take permission from the copyright owner of the song and upload my song on a platform where others can hear it and I start making profit from it, then I will be liable for copyright infringement.

But then, the doctrine of Fair use/ fair deal comes to the rescue and creates a limited exception. It works as a defence to copyright infringement. There are a set of questions that would be required to be assessed for this defence to be applicable, which are - • Purpose of the remix • Availability of the original song • Amount of original song used in remix • Did the remix diminish the value of the original song to the copyright holder?

On the other hand, I believe that the doctrine of fair use is not enough to protect the interest of creators of remixes / remix artist. We require new approaches to cope up with the upcoming challenges. I am aware of instances where a remix of a song uploaded on YouTube gets taken down by the YouTube if there isn’t proper sourcing done or there is evidence that prior permission was not taken by the copyright holder. Also, the music remix platform SoundCloud was sued for copyright infringement.

I feel that we need to create a “Right to remix” and grant it to remixers. This doesn’t mean that the remixers will be free from liability. It has to be obligated upon them to credit the sources, remunerate the copyright holders for creating remixes. This approach may protect remix creation and help achieve a level of balance of interest between copyright holders, social media and users.

Recognising remix rights will help in achieving the ultimate objective of the copyright which is to encourage the number of creative works and to bring it into the reach of public. Copyright was not created to confer monopoly on any stakeholder. At the end to answer my question, Yes, a work can be original and derivative at the same time and we can create a new work by deriving it from someone else’s original work.

Sources -

 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3316523&download=yes   https://newatlas.com/internet-copyright-history-remix/45536/ https://djtechtools.com/2012/03/25/legal-concerns-for-digital-djs-should-i-worry-about-copyright/ https://abovethelaw.com/2018/06/will-the-eu-adopt-new-copyright-rules-that-threaten-memes-remixes-and-mashups/?rf=1 https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2015/03/article_0006.html

[psyther2748-blog]

The Cloak of Fair Dealing in Copyright

Like there are two sides of a coin, copyright also has two faces the good and the bad. On one hand copyright protects the work of an author and ensures that they don’t lose profit unfairly and on the other hand copyright limits the creativity and potential of other equally successful artists. It limits the creation of good material.

Under the protection of Copyright an individual can’t use the creation of another person without the consent of the author. Whereas there are certain exceptions to this rule and one of them is the concept of “Fair Dealing”. Today I will be talking about the concept of Fair Dealing and how people escape from infringing a copyrighted work because of fair dealing.

Fair Dealing can be understood as the copy of a copyrighted material that is used for transformative and limited means. The concept of Fair Dealing permits the usage of copyrighted material in few circumstances without seeking the permission from the creator or without providing payment to the copyright owner. It also includes within its ambit parodies, critiques and commentary. For using the copyrighted work without permission of the creator there are certain requirements that are to be met for the usage to come under the umbrella of fair dealing. Section 30  of the Copyright and Protection Act provides the conditions that must be met to legitimately fair deal a copyrighted work.

Taking parodies into consideration they are humorous comments. Parody can be defined as “a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule.” Parodies require mimicking of an original work which is an infringement of copyright but they also require a certain amount of imagination and intellectual creation to make that work comic in nature which allows a person to escape from the liability of copyright infringement. But in case there is a parody created of a song and a huge portion of that song is copied and very less original creativity is put into the parody and as a final outcome the song still sounds like the original version for most of the part, this would be a copyright infringement.

In my opinion I believe that even though parodies, critiques and commentaries may be in line with the copyright act and may not be infringing any copyrighted material but using someone’s hard work just for the sake of making fun of it or giving critical comments about it, it may demotivate the creator or author and may lower his moral down which may result in to a barrier for innovation and invention of new work which is the sole purpose of creation of copyright act. By allowing creativity in parodies we might be limiting the creation of original work. The question here arises that do we need more of parodies or do we need more original work or can parodies be made without playing with the sentiments of the creator?

Sources : https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1087/20150309

https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/9-625-2313?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1

[psyther2748-blog]

Intellectual Property Rights and It’s Importance

Intellectual Property has gained momentum in the past decade but very few are aware of its actual meaning and purpose. For example, when you see logo of any company like Burger King or KFC some have a “®” with their logo and some have “™” symbol. Some people will say that these symbols relate to trademarks, but very few people are aware that “®” is used when the trademark is granted whereas “™” is used when the application for registration of trademark is still under process. It is now need of the hour for people to have knowledge about what Intellectual Property is and why is it so important. 

Gloria Estefan once said that “The Internet has been a blessing and a curse. The curse we know: A lot of people appropriating your intellectual property without paying for it. But I think it's important to realise the blessing of the Internet, which is that everybody has a voice and you can break through, even without a record company.” The internet has given us a platform to create things that we want and share it with world, but there are certain drawbacks attached to it as well. Imagine a person creating a song and uploading it on internet, that song doesn’t gains the momentum and isn’t heard by a lot of people, but later on that song gets copied and is then released by a big music company and that company starts gaining profit by the sale of that song which wasn’t even their original creation. For such instances there is a rescuer “intellectual property rights”. 

According to WIPO intellectual property is the creation of the mind: inventions; literary and artistic works; and symbols, names and images used in commerce. This intellectual property can then be further divided into two categories a) Industrial Property and b) Copyright. Industrial Property includes patents, trademarks, industrial designs and geographical indications, whereas Copyright includes literary works, dramatic, music, artistic works and architectural design. 

In general terms intellectual property rights can be understood as any other property right a person has. They give the creator or owners the right to be benefitted from their property. For examples Intellectual property right is just similar to the right a house owner has. He may or may not allow any person to enter into his house. He may sell the house, rent it or lease it to someone. Similarly, a creator or owner of intellectual property can obtain monetary or other benefits by providing their creation or invention to any other party; he may or may not want to share his creation with the world. 

Protecting copyright is necessary for mainly three reasons – 

1) The development of humanity relies upon the capacity to create and invent new works in areas of technology and culture. 

2) Protecting the creations legally encourages people to innovate further. 

3) Promotion and protection of IP spurs economic growth and helps in creating new jobs. It also enhances quality and enjoyment of life. 

Sources - https://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/