Sorry your browser is not supported!

Quote: " In recent times, there has been a lot of talk about the increased use of Peer-To-Peer(P2P) software to illegally obtain software, music, and more for free. As a reaction to this, Copyright Laws relating to piracy are enforced more harshly, and there has been a wider spread use of Digital Rights Management (DRM) software. The intention of both is to curb the rate of piracy and its effects on sales. But, as the rate of piracy continues to steadily increase and become easier, it begs the question: Are the harsher enforcements and DRM really helping to fix this problem, or are they just hurting legitimate users? Clearly, the former isn’t the case. Software and music are still being made easily available to pirates immediately after, and sometimes even before commercial release. In trying to enforce Copyright Law, many amateur and remix artists, who make no profit from their use of existing material, are being punished. Even farther, punishments have increased to a point where a small offense meets excessive punishments. On top of the negative side effects of the current laws, the use of DRM software is further hindering the legitimate user, while showing almost no effect on piracy. Clearly, something is wrong with the current tactic. Despite their original intentions, piracy laws and DRM aren’t curbing the rate of piracy; instead, legitimate users are harmed by restrictions and punishments. We need to either see a change in Copyright Law, and in DRM, or even an altogether removal of the latter.
In an effort to stop illegal distribution of copyrighted materials, many amateur and remixed uses of existing works are being crushed. In the new digital age, it is much easier for the average person to express their creativity, and share it with the world. But, what happens when expressing their creativity includes using material that was created and copyrighted by another individual, regardless of whether or not profit is made? In many cases, their creative work is taken away from public view, and sometimes the creator is even fined. One such example is a mother, Ms. Lenz, recording 29 seconds of her young child dancing to a “barely discernable Prince playing on a CD player”. After the video was uploaded to YouTube, Universal, who manages the copyrights of Prince, demanded that the video be removed. According to Universal, under copyright law, Lenz could be liable to pay fines up to $150,000. (Lessig) Clearly, the 29 seconds of Lenz’s child dancing to Prince, is not putting Universal at risk of losing sales. Combined with the poor audio quality, and short time of the video, there is no reason anyone would try to “steal” the song from her video. Yet, despite a lack of profit or threat to rights owners’ sales, the video was removed and threats of fines were made. In an age of technology, and expanding creative opportunities, many amateur or remix artists are being punished, instead of the individuals these laws are intended to be aimed at: the pirates.
Further advancing the problem are excessive punishments, which are many times aimed at individuals who have done no wrong. One large example is the RIAA’s “making available” argument. They claim that it is proof of distribution, and therefore violation of copyright law, to simply have files in a publicly available folder. Many such folders are created automatically by P2P programs, without the general end-user being aware of them. The RIAA claims that the existence of such folders is “sufficient to quality as distribution.” In this argument, so far the RIAA has had one “success”. In a case held by Judge Davis, Capitol vs. Thomas, Davis gave in to the RIAA “making available” argument, resulting in an excessive “$222,000 infringement for 24 99-cent song files.” (Koman) The judge later acknowledged that he is not likely to make the same mistake again. Congress doesn’t support the idea that proof of downloading by others from a shared folder is implied and not necessary. But this is exactly the argument that the RIAA is trying to make. Even if no distribution occurs, which is a clear requirement in the Copyright Act for an offense, punishment could be made on the basis that the content is made available to the public by being in the shared folder. So far, the general consensus is that the courts will not support this claim, and as the copyright laws currently stand, they truly shouldn’t.
Possibly even more disturbing than the excessive laws and punishments, is the increasing use of DRM. DRM, or Digital Rights Management, is intended to protect against the unauthorized use of protected material. But in most cases, it is shown that it is having the opposite effect. Legitimate users have trouble using their own, paid for, software, while pirates are able to enjoy the same software, DRM and restriction free. One great example of this situation is a fairly popular game released by Electronic Arts in 2008. The game was Spore. Included in it was SecuROM, harsh DRM software. It limited the number of installs of the game allowed, and also required that the game be able to connect to the internet to verify that the games serial code was legitimate and not blacklisted. The problem that was seen was that if users ran out of installs, which could occur very easily if the user had to reinstall their operating system, or other such problems, is that the user would be unable to use their game, and would have to contact EA to get a renewed serial for their game. The ironic part, is that while the users who legitimately bought the game were struggling with the DRM software, pirates were enjoying the game completely DRM free. Within hours of release, the game was cracked to remove all aspects of the DRM software, and then uploaded to torrent sites. So, in effect, all the DRM implementation accomplished was to hassle and punish legitimate users, many times hindering their ability to play the game they purchased. It would seem that now pirates are getting the better deal on software, even without considering the fact that they aren’t paying for it. DRM has done little to nothing to prevent piracy, and has done plenty in terms of hindering legitimate users ability to use what they’ve purchased.
Clearly, there is a problem with the current enforcement of copyright laws, and the extensive use of DRM. Although they were intended to solve a problem, they have not increased progress in stopping piracy. The main effect that they have had is to punish innocents and restrict the average user’s ability to use software and media which they have purchased. To solve the problems caused by the two, there are seemingly two options. On one hand, they could both be trashed entirely, in the computer realm. This of course, isn’t a good option as copyright holders are entitled to profit off of their work without threat of it being redistributed for free, legally. The other option, could be to reform and edit copyright laws to allow for individual creativity and remixes, without limiting the use of available material. So long as a profit isn’t made, free use should be perfectly acceptable. At the same time, DRM needs to see dramatic changes. It may even be reasonable to remove DRM altogether, as it currently stands. For DRM to stay in place and actually do what it’s intended, it needs to be made in a way that won’t harm the user, while failing altogether to prevent piracy. It is up to software developers and lawmakers to implement and push these changes, but also up to the average user to voice their opinion and motivate the former to do so. As long as the laws and DRM remain unchanged, legitimate users will be hurt while the true offenders continue to innovate and prosper."

Quote: "There's the case against the piratebay people going on at the moment which is quite interesting to follow, I assume you've mentioned that?"

Quote: "Only thing with DRM is that it makes more damage then good. Have experience of it preventing me to play a game I got for Christmas (legal purchased), while a friend of mine can play it all he wants, even though he got it using less legal means."

Quote: "Also I would get rid of the option "The other option, could be to reform and edit copyright laws to allow for individual creativity and remixes, without limiting the use of available material. So long as a profit isn’t made, free use should be perfectly acceptable."

Any lawyer or business person would laugh at it. The reason why they would laugh is the fact companies have secrets they don’t want to give to their rivals. Their bit of code that does something never done before is a hidden guarded secret but with this law change everyone can look at it and make their own version. While saying “Its something we came up with during development.” A lie but in reality business is harsh world where getting one over the rival is all in a days work."

Quote: "Sorry if this seem harsh but I'm doing if from a degree level report style looking for a 1st. If lower level please don't read on.

Peronally this seem a little bit one sided for an essay you need both sides of the arguement. Then make evaluation takign into account all the different arguements. At them monment your only get half the marks. "

Quote: "DRM is not meant to stop piracy. It's meant to restrict the purchaser of the software. For example, many DRM titles cannot be sold used."