MS 워드 
소개글
미국대학교에서 그룹으로 쓴 엣세이입니다.파이널 드래프트이며, 그룹으로 한것이라 그래머는 완벽합니다.
목차
없음본문내용
“The Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. " - U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8Since the founding of America, copyrights have been issued for intellectual property in order for those inventing and developing new works to receive compensation as an incentive for their labors. However unlike physical property, possession of intellectual property is not a guaranteed natural right, but a claim right governed by statutes and laws. Do the laws of today meet the goals of the founders of this country to promote science and useful arts by providing adequate exclusivity to the creators of new works? Or have corporations hindered those goals by lobbying congress to pass unreasonable protections and restrictions that prevent decades-old works from entering the public domain and limiting fair use? Copyright law is a difficult subject and the advent of new technologies pose new questions to old problems: what constitutes fair use and what constitutes copyright infringement?
<중 략>
The first step to solving many of these issues is to go back to the original intent of the law given in the U.S. Constitution: “to promote the progress of science and useful arts. ” With this as the main guide, other answers to copyright laws may become more apparent. However, special interests will always seek that which is most to their advantage and so it takes statesmen with integrity to avoid promoting laws that hinder the purpose given in the constitution, rather than encourage it. Also, copyrights should remain with the creator and not be transferable except under special conditions, such as death and transfers to family. This would prevent businesses from coercing creators to give up their copyrights in order to be published, only later to find that their work has made someone else wealthy while they have lost all control over their work and effort to create it.
참고 자료
Adler, Prue. “Copyright Timeline: A History of Copyright in the United States.” Association of Research Libraries. Ed. Prue Adler. 12 July 2007. Web. 30 Mar. 2010. .All in Korea. com. Retrieved March 15, 2010. .
Bracelin, Jason. "Steal This Song; Go ahead and burn that MP3. The music biz will thank you later. " Cleveland Scene 19 Nov. 2003,Alt-Press Watch (APW), ProQuest. Web. 16 Mar. 2010.
Canwest News service. Retrieved 27 March 2010. .
Chris Sherman. "Napster: Copyright killer or distribution hero? " Online 1 Nov. 2000: Discovery, ProQuest. Web. 16 Mar. 2010.
Copyright Office, United States. "Copyright Basics. " 2008. U.S. Copyright Office. .
Copyright Office, United States. "U.S. Copyright Office - Fees. " U.S. Copyright Office. 17 Sept. 2009. Web. 30 Mar. 2010. .
Cummings, Gary. “Inland Northwest Broadcasting.” Personal interview. 8 Mar. 2010.
Greenburg, Andy. “Sony's Spyware Strikes Back.” Forbes. com. 29 Aug. 2007. Web. 30 Mar. 2010. .
Kyunomghyang.com. Retrieved March 15, 2010.
McMillian, Robert. “Sony Ships Sneaky DRM Software.” PC World. IDG News Service, 1 Nov. 2005. Web. 30 Mar. 2010. .
Park, J. “Daum cafe has more than 450,000 illegal copies.” December 28, 2005.
Park, K. “Campaign is stamping out about the sound sources’ Illegality.” February 14, 2008
Shaw, Gillian. “From Dickens to digitization: How technology killed copyright.” 2010.
“The Satire/Parody Distinction in Copyright and Trademark Law? Can Satire Ever Be a Fair Use?.” Juli Wilson Marshall, las J. Siciliano, Latham & Watkins LLP. Web. 26 Mar. 2010. .
Woellert, Lorraine. “Sony’s Escalating ‘Spyware’ Fiasco.” BusinessWeek.com. 22 Nov. 2005. Web. 30 Mar. 2010. .
