​Should media be blocked for copyright infringement whether it was

done intentionally or unintentionally?

Tanya Puebla

Word Count: 2,547

Introduction

The internet is a platform that has become essential in everyday society. People rely on

it for entertainment, communication, work, news, and many other uses. Today, the internet has

become something so extensive in use, laws have been implemented to protect people’s

original works. Videos, music, artwork, and even essays can find themselves victim to copyright

infringement and plagiarism on the internet. Social media platforms, for instance, are a popular

place for people to share original artwork, music, and animation.Social media's popularity allows

for well-known creators to easily notice when their work is claimed and posted under another

account without credit. Once alerted, creators can take appropriate actions to protect their

intellectual property. Copyright infringement is the distribution of content that doesn’t originally

belong to the seller.The major issue today is whether or not platforms such as websites should

be blocked for committing copyright infringement. Those who support copyright laws believe

that intellectual property should be protected at all costs, while those who oppose argue that the

issue is not an important one that deserves concern.

Point of View 1: All media should be taken down for Copyright Infringement

Copyright laws play an important role in the arts community. Laws are created to set a

standard for people to follow and are enforced with the imposition of penalties. They protect

against intentional and unintentional plagiarism, theft, and misuse. Infringement fits into all these

categories. Jonathan Pink (2014), a Los Angeles attorney for Bryan Cave LLC, states, “Theft is

theft, it doesn't have to be physical and the copyright act supports this component.” The

Copyright Act, or 17 USC Section 506, explains infringement to be the reproduction and

distribution physically or electronically. It is considered a crime because it can affect the original

Word Count: 2,547

creator when the content is being used for financial gain. This implies that any money made

from the distribution of the content would belong to the original creator, but because the original

creator did not give permission to distribute the content, they will not be gaining any profit.

Therefore, the crime is regarded as theft because the offender is gaining profit that does not

belong to them originally. An example of this type of theft can occur when an artist posts a

design on social media. Individuals can steal the design to place on clothing, sell, and make

profit. Throughout the distribution process, the original artist will never be credited for their work

and won't get shares from the profit made

As a result of the copyright laws, both the entertainment industry and economy will be

affected. The Department for Professional Employees and the Congress of Industrial

Organizations speak for different entertainment employees writing, “In 2005, the US economy

lost an estimated $12.5 billion in total output due to music piracy.” Taking into consideration the

statistic for music, there are other creative medias being downloaded illegally, including video

games and movies that have similar results. In addition, the vice president of Trade and Federal

Affairs for the Motion Picture Association goes over statistics and standards put into place both

nationally and internationally in order to protect creative content. Richardson (2005) reveals,

“The company had an estimated 16.9 million worldwide users and the system accommodated

about 65 million downloads.” Due to the loss of revenue, companies and corporations believe it

is important for national and international treaties, such as the Berne Convention, to be

enforced.

The Berne Convention for the Protection for Literary and Artistic Works is an

international treaty that was adapted in 1886 that protects the works of creators such as

musicians, poets, authors, painters and many others. It determines the minimum protection for

Word Count: 2,547

all states including special provisions for developing countries. Specifically, the World

Intellectual Property Organization (1886) recognizes, ¨the right to make reproductions in any

manner or form (with the possibility that a Contracting State may permit, in certain special

cases, reproduction without authorization, provided that the reproduction does not conflict with

the normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests

of the author; and the possibility that a Contracting State may provide, in the case of sound

recordings of musical works, for a right to equitable remuneration).¨ Therefore, the produce may

be reproduced as long as it is not taken advantage of or exploited unreasonable. The author

should be able to have control of the distribution of their product without having to worry about

losing money. It would be unjust for the author if the distributor gained profit over a work they

did not create. Thus, treaties like the Berne Convention were implemented to protect creativity

from being taken advantage of both physically and electronically.

Point of View 2: Not all Media should be Blocked or Taken Down for Copyright

Infringement

Not all Media should be blocked or severely punished for copyright infringement because

revenue loss is extremely exaggerated, copyright is not thievery and rather than hurtful, it is

beneficial for all creators. Many companies like to inflate the idea of copyright and investigate

which media is using their content without their permission, although sometimes unnecessary.

Taking action would prevent other from making money or share freely and redirect audiences to

the company because it would be the one of the only legitimate sources with the specific

content. If companies are able to find a sufficient amount of evidence, they are able to claim

thievery and sue the distributer. Ben Jones, a writer and engineer, claims copyright is not theft

Word Count: 2,547

and because it is over exaggerated it makes the situation much worse than what it may be.

Jones (2014) found, “Civil law provides for both actual damages and statutory damages from

$200 to $30,000 for non-willful infringement and $750 to $150,000 for willful infringement---per

infringement.” Claiming it to be theft would indicate benefit to the creator but in reality the trial

would benefit the infringer. For example, if someone was on trial for infringement, the case

would take longer, cost more and benefit the industry in the outcome. On the other hand,

criminal theft would take a much shorter time and be in the prosecutor's favor, and cost the

defendant significantly less.

Jones (2014) expands on this point by stating, “If copyright was theft, it would be treated

as such and ‘copyright infringement’ wouldn’t exist.“ Video streaming websites often have

creators using popular tunes in order to include background music making the video more

interesting and block out any unnecessary, distracting background noise. Many of these

creators are well versed of what music is appropriate for them to use and how to properly give

credit to the original composers. For that reason, they are not causing any harm or committed

theft according to the law. Even if copyright infringement was fully considered theft, many

people would have to go through some sort of legal process because everyone has committed

infringement purposely, without noticing or meaning to. Marvin Ammori, a First Amendment

Lawyer explains the First Sale Doctrine which explains that once a person buys a product, they

are able to sell and buy freely without any copyright restrictions. Due to the variety of loopholes

in this doctrine, it has been reviewed and edited over the years. Being a U.S doctrine, it would

then only affect products in the U.S and so products designed in the U.S and assembled in

other countries, should technically be considered as unlawfully distributed but because they

take place outside of the country, it can be difficult to enforce these doctrines. Ammori (2014)

points out, “The lower court decision did acknowledge, ‘the force of the concern’ that the rule

Word Count: 2,547

would lead to more companies moving manufacturing abroad, and noted that the law was

particularly unclear.” By moving manufacturing to other countries, companies wouldn’t have to

take into consideration as the laws established by the U.S as much and thus achieving more

profit compared if they were to have stayed in the country. On the creative standpoint, many

artists and creators do not believe copyright infringement is jeopardizing their career, rather it’s

supporting them in gaining publicity and thus relying heavily on sharing features often found in

media.

Jaszi, a law professor, and Aufderheide, a film and media director, believe the over

exaggeration of having to enforce these laws is considered to go against one’s freedom of

speech and the public's ability to be creative. Especially when media is credited to the original

creator but gets copyrighted anyway. Jaszi (2014) stated, “More and more, video creation and

sharing depend on the ability to use and circulate existing copyrighted work.” As more work gets

striked for copyright infringement, the more creators are restricted and discouraged from being

creative. Thus, many creators believe copyright infringement is not as big of a problem as it is

portrayed. Rather, it is a way for them to share content and get their name known. People who

have been striked have already created slang for copyright, using words such as ´dinged´ and

´flagged´ which are words referring to the action of demonetizing and taking down videos.

However, they are also often used to warn others of using certain content while streaming of

posting any sort of media that does not belong to them. In conclusion, doctrines and laws

established to protect from copyright infringement have many errors and are considered

unnecessarily overstated by many creators to the extent where the internet community has

found ways to combat unfair claims.

Word Count: 2,547

Writer’s Point of View

I believe that websites and other media should not be blocked or taken down completely

if they aren’t causing any actual harm. It’s important to remember that copyright doesn’t

necessarily mean plagiarism, it won't be the first time that copyright has been over exaggerated,

and the fact that many artists believe that sharing platforms actually are very beneficial since it

can be considered free promotion. Many artists and creators believe copyright laws should be

clarified. Van Der Sar is the founder and editor in chief of TorrentFreak, a file-sharing news

website who summarises a survey that artist took and whether or not copyright violations hurt

them economically. The survey Van Der Sar (2012) conducted reveals ,“Little over 50% of

those questioned responded affirmatively to the question of whether file-sharing helps to get

their work known among the public, while only 5% completely disagreed with this statement. In

particular the younger artists (< 25yo) recognized promotional benefits, as more than 80%

through file-sharing increases the popularity of their work.” Majority of artists aren't convinced

that these violations harm them economically and many believe that it's hurting the customer

more. Those who believe that punishments should be harsher tend to be older artists while

other think unauthorized file sharing websites should be the ones to be punished. Those who

are small creators and choose to share their creations on the internet also believe infringement

is over exaggerated. K. Matthew Dames is a professor at Syracuse University who teaches

copyright and licensing and he states copyright and plagiarism are two different concepts.

Dames (2009) explains it thoroughly in the following:

Word Count: 2,547

 ”Copyright simply is a set of laws that governs the creation, reproduction, and distribution of

original works that can be perceived. Copyright law is codified as a federal statute at Title 17

of U.S. Code [federal laws of the United States]. The most important things to remember

about copyright are that 1) it is a set of laws and 2) allegations of wrongdoing—the illegal use

of protected works without exception, license, or purchase...Plagiarism, in comparison, is the

act of stealing and passing off someone else's ideas or words as one's own without crediting

the source, as defined in [dictionary] Merriam-Webster Online. Brief or attributed quotes

generally do not constitute plagiarism. Typically, no law governs plagiarism, so no one can be

sued for plagiarism.”

In other words, Plagiarism is passing someone else’s ideas as your own while copyright is the

distribution of work that isn’t your own and you don’t claim it to be. This is important to keep in

mind because there are many documents that state what is considered copyright infringement is

but a majority of these documents have loopholes that can cause issues for the creators as well

as people who use media fairly. In this age, where technology is something people grow up

with, laws for copyright are always changing. In fact, it would not be the first time copyright has

been a debated issue. Orson Scott Card is an author who shares his opinion on copyright

claims on sites such as YouTube and online music sharing sites. He also explains that this has

been an issue before with radio stations not using the live version rather than the original but

later had been resolved. Orson reveals, “When radio first started broadcasting records instead

of live performances, the music publishing industry became livid. This was going to hurt sales! A

compromise was reached whereby radio stations paid small fees to the publishers for each

playing of a record. But the truth is that it's a lot of bother for nothing. Radio didn't hurt record

Word Count: 2,547

sales. Radio made record sales, because people wanted to own the records they heard on the

radio. Radio let people hear musicians they might never have found otherwise.” Today,

compromise is something that is not often seen on sites such as YouTube causing many videos

to be demonetized or taken down even when the creator follows the guidelines for fair use.

Many other creators have gone through expensive legal battles for a couple of seconds in a

video they created because of the lack of clarification to combat copyright infringement laws. I

believe a compromise needs to be made in order to handle fair use and that can be applied

around the world instead of having different laws that may not correspond with other laws.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I believe copyright should have established laws that applies for all

internet use in order to fairly accuse those who have plagiarized and understand who has used

other’s content fairly. Although, there have been attempts to regulate copyright laws, it is difficult

to agree upon one set of rules and so different individuals may have different opinions over the

topic. For many individuals, specifically creators on the internet who are on sites like YouTube

or Deviantart, it has become a major issue where creators have been accused and removed

from the site because of copyright claims even though the content was fair use. Unfortunately, it

is difficult to differentiate between what is intentional and unintentional infringement. Hence, I

believe that in order to avoid unfair claims, websites should create or adjust their committee in

charge of monitoring claims and look into claims that may or may not go against their copyright

policies. Websites who clearly plagiarized content from small creators can and should be taken

down. For more well known creators, infringement is almost inevitable. Illegal downloads are

done by everyday people and it can be difficult to keep track of every single individual who has

downloaded content intentionally and unintentionally. What can be done is monitor websites

Word Count: 2,547

websites for copyright infringement. All in all, copyright infringement continues and will continue

to be a debated topic with the expansion of the internet.

Annotated Bibliography:

Aufderheide, P., & Jaszi, P. (2009). Many Viral Videos Use Copyrighted Materials Legally. In R.
Espejo (Ed.), Opposing Viewpoints. Copyright Infringement. Detroit: Greenhaven Press.
(Reprinted from Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Online Video, 2008, July 7) Retrieved
from ​http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010595215/OVIC?u=gree82036&xid=25ed3913

Ammori, M. (2014). If You've Ever Sold a Used iPod, You May Have Violated Copyright Law. In
C. Ullmann & L. M. Zott (Eds.), Opposing Viewpoints. Copyright Infringement. Farmington Hills,
MI: Greenhaven Press. (Reprinted from The Atlantic, 2012, June 8) Retrieved from
http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010595238/OVIC?u=gree82036&xid=2a65790c

Berne convention for the protection of literary and artistic works, of September 9, 1886,
completed at Paris on May 4, 1896, revised at Berlin on November 13, 1908, completed at
Berne on March 20, 1914, revised at Rome on June 2, 1928, revised at Brussels on June 26,
1948, and revised at Stockholm on July 14, 1967. (1967). Geneva: United International Bureaux
for the Protection of Intellectual Property.

Card, O. S. (2005). The Harms of Online Music Sharing Are Exaggerated. In J. D. Torr (Ed.), At
Issue. Internet Piracy. San Diego: Greenhaven Press. (Reprinted from MP3s Are Not the Devil,
and MP3s Are Not the Devil—Part II, The Ornery American, 2003, December 6) Retrieved from
http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010337203/OVIC?u=gree82036&xid=63942f5a

​Copyright Clearance Center. (2009). Copyright: An Overview. In R. Espejo (Ed.), Opposing

Viewpoints. Copyright Infringement. Detroit: Greenhaven Press. (Reprinted from Copyright
Basics, 2008) Retrieved from
http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010595206/OVIC?u=gree82036&xid=ab87264d

Copyright Infringement. (2015). In Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection. Detroit: Gale.

Retrieved from
http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/PC3010999308/OVIC?u=gree82036&xid=5db91c0

"Copyright, International." In Gale Encyclopedia of American Law, 3rd ed., edited by Donna
Batten, 212-215. Vol. 3. Detroit: Gale, 2010. Opposing Viewpoints in Context (accessed April
27, 2017).
http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/CX1337701135/OVIC?u=gree82036&xid=0340c0ba​.

Word Count: 2,547

Dames, K. M. (2009). Plagiarism Is Different from Copyright Infringement. In R. Espejo (Ed.),
Opposing Viewpoints. Copyright Infringement. Detroit: Greenhaven Press. (Reprinted from
Computers in Libraries, 2004, June, 27[6], 24(4)) Retrieved from
http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010595207/OVIC?u=gree82036&xid=0217d09d

Department for Professional Employees, AFL-CIO. "Copyright Infringement Hurts the

Economy." Copyright Infringement, edited by Carol Ullmann and Lynn M. Zott, Greenhaven
Press, 2014. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context,
link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010595240/OVIC?u=gree82036&xid=664bfd4c. Accessed 1
May 2017. Originally published as "Fact Sheet 2012: Intellectual Property Theft: A Threat to US
Workers, Industries, And Our Economy,", Jan. 2012.

Jones, B., & Carpenter, M. (2014). Copyright Infringement Is Not Theft. In C. Ullmann & L. M.
Zott (Eds.), Opposing Viewpoints. Copyright Infringement. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven
Press. (Reprinted from Copyright Infringement and Theft—The Difference, TorrentFreak, 2011,
August 27) Retrieved from
http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010595236/OVIC?u=gree82036&xid=76cc30c5

Pink, J. (2014). Copyright Infringement Is Theft. In C. Ullmann & L. M. Zott (Eds.), Opposing
Viewpoints. Copyright Infringement. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press. (Reprinted from
Call It What You Will, Copyright Infringement Is 'Theft', JonathanPinkEsq.com, 2012, May 31)
Retrieved from
http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010595235/OVIC?u=gree82036&xid=c5291008
Richardson, Bonnie J.K. "The Government Must Combat Online Piracy." Internet Piracy, edited
by James D. Torr, Greenhaven Press, 2005. At Issue. Opposing Viewpoints in Context,
link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010337209/OVIC?u=gree82036&xid=cc63bc9c. Accessed 1
May 2017. Originally published as "testimony before the House Subcommittee on Commerce,
Trade, and Consumer Protection, Committee on Commerce," 2001.

Sar, E. V. D. (2012). Copyright Violations Do Not Hurt Artists' Income. In N. Berlatsky (Ed.),
Opposing Viewpoints. The Music Industry. Detroit: Greenhaven Press. (Reprinted from Artists
Don't Think Piracy Hurts Them Financially, Study Shows, TorrentFreak.com, 2011, April 12)
Retrieved from
http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010806209/OVIC?u=gree82036&xid=42613ab3

Word Count: 2,547