(1 bookmark) 1. Copyrights in Digital Information When she was in college, Jammi
ID: 1166797 • Letter: #
Question
(1 bookmark)
1. Copyrights in Digital Information
When she was in college, Jammie Thomas-Rasset wrote a case study on Napster, the online peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing network, and knew that it was shut down because it was illegal. Later, Capitol Records, Inc., which owns the copyrights to a large number of music recordings, discovered that "tereastarr"—a user name associated with Thomas-Rasset’s Internet protocol address—had made twenty-four songs available for distribution on KaZaA, another P2P network. Capitol notified Thomas-Rasset that she had been identified as engaging in the unauthorized trading of music. She replaced the hard drive on her computer with a new drive that did not contain the songs in dispute. Is Thomas-Rasset liable for copyright infringement?
11. Did Thomas-Rasset help her case by replacing her hard drive to conceal her acts?
Select
A. Yes
B. No
12. Was Thomas-Rasset’s act of replacing her hard drive ethical?
Select
A. Yes
B. No
13. The civil remedies of Select A. injunction B. damages C. criminal conviction and Select A. injunction B. damages C. criminal conviction are available to the owners of the copyrighted songs.
14. Would a court likely find Thomas-Rasset reliable for copyright infringement?
Select
A. Yes
B. No
15. WHAT IF THE FACTS WERE DIFFERNT?
What if Thomas-Rasset had not shared files, but rather used digital samplings in her college project presentation? Would that have possibly changed the result?
Select
A. Yes
B. No
16. Why?
1. Select
A.Some courts have not found digital sampling illegal.
B. Thomas-Rasset's use was fair use for educational purposes.
C. Thomas-Rasset may have been an innocent infringer.
D. Thomas-Rasset's motives were altruistic.
E. Thomas-Rasset did not know about copyright law.
2. Select
A.Some courts have not found digital sampling illegal.
B. Thomas-Rasset's use was fair use for educational purposes.
C. Thomas-Rasset may have been an innocent infringer.
D. Thomas-Rasset's motives were altruistic.
E. Thomas-Rasset did not know about copyright law.
3. Select
A.Some courts have not found digital sampling illegal.
B. Thomas-Rasset's use was fair use for educational purposes.
C. Thomas-Rasset may have been an innocent infringer.
D. Thomas-Rasset's motives were altruistic.
E. Thomas-Rasset did not know about copyright law.
Explanation / Answer
Answer11:- yes, Thomas Rasset is guilty of copyright infringement as she downloaded the copyrighted songs despite knowing that sharing any copyright material without the permission of the copyright owner is not permitted under the law.
Answer12:- No, merely by replacing the hard drive of the computer, the act of copyright infringement does not get relieved.
Answer13-No replacing the hard drive is again not an ethical action as it was an attempt to protect herself against the crime committed by her.
Answer14:- The civil remedied of injunction and damages are available to the owners of the copyrighted songs. Any owner of the copyright can sue the person who violated the rights in the civil court for the injunction and damages resulting from the unauthorised use of copyright material.
Answer15:- Yes, the court will find her guilty of violating the copyrighted songs as she used those songs without the permission of the owner.
Answer16:- some courts have not found digital sampling illegal. If the songs were downloaded only for the sampling purpose to conduct some research, some court may not find it as an illegal act as the motive was not to violate or use the copyrighted contents.
Thomas Rasset’s use was fair use for educational purposes
Thomas Rasset may have been an innocent infringer. In case of the innocent infringer, the actions of illegal use of copyrighted contents would not be prosecuted as this was done without having the understanding of copyright material.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.