How can copyrights be abused

Many media consumers get hooked on something because they saw it being talked about on YouTube. While it is possible to successfully file a dispute against a claimant such as Sony or Universal, YouTube makes it difficult for YouTubers to feel like they have any power. The automated content identification system often makes mistakes, accidentally copyright claiming videos that follow fair use guidelines. Most of the time, only YouTube channels with large followings can even hope to have their copyright claims reversed.

The most we can do right now is to bring awareness to the issue, and to support the creators that suffer from wrongfully getting their monetization taken away from them. Eric Miller Contributing Writer March 18, I too attempted to get on this bandwagon back in , alongside hundreds of thousands of other creators. Over a couple of years, I created animated shorts about video games that I liked and live-action short films about superheroes that garnered around views each.

I n the case Tekla Corporation v. While normal companies use their patents to protect their product from being counterfeited and sold in the market, patent trolls often acquire patents cheaply from bankrupt companies and, instead of using such patents in operations, these companies charge hefty licensing fees on other persons or businesses which appear to infringe any of their acquired patents.

Fees can range from ten to hundred thousand dollars, whereas patent lawsuits can cost the individuals or companies in millions. Hence, when such are the costs, many companies prefer to concede and settle, even if they believe there to be no patent infringement. This practice is a lucrative option for making money with minimal risks. Small mobile and software companies, mostly startups, are most vulnerable in this case and an easy target of patent trolls.

Out of those, patent trolls were responsible for 2, cases, i. A landmark case that came as a relief for companies in the United States, as it would mitigate the threat of phoney patent suits, was decided by the United States Supreme Court recently. The Court, in TC Heartland v. Until now, patent cases could be heard anywhere throughout the country, causing the companies to find the courts where the odds would be in their favour, often resulting in biased results and over burdening of certain courts.

However, not all the suits filed by patent troll companies are a hoax. Apple and VirnetX had been fighting in court since , when the patent-holding company alleged that Apple infringed on four of its patents related to internet-based communications. They acquire information to track down the potentially disputable patent rights before their acquisition by patent trolls to be used against companies. According to Prof. Read more. He states that there are two main reasons which make acquired intellectual property rights ideal for tax evasion.

However, when looked from a broader view, these two laws have always complemented each other in their implementation.

In order to understand the complications in applying competition law and IPR simultaneously, it is important to analyse the laws adopted by several countries and how they have framed their legislation in order to counter these problems.

While the negotiations over the TRIPS Agreement were going on, many countries expressed their serious concern over the regulation of unfair competition and abusive monopoly powers of the IP rights holder.

Subsequently, after much deliberations, Article 40 of the TRIPS agreement was inserted to address the issue of IPR misuse and combat it through necessary government intervention:. Article 40 of the Agreement empowers the member countries to specify any exploitation of monopoly rights and adopt such laws that may be necessary to curb the abuse of IPR.

According to World Trade Organisation,. C ompulsory licensing is when a government allows someone else to produce a patented product or process without the consent of the patent owner or plans to use the patent-protected invention itself. The right over the product still rests with the owner, who is entitled to royalty by the users. This is an effective statutory measure to deter complete control of the owner over the unfettered use or misuse of the product. In this case, I assume Content ID flagged the gameplay clip as infringing on the Family Guy episode, and took it down.

The clip has since been restored. This is a particularly bad example of something that happens all the time: a fifteen-second clip of a song will be playing in the background, while something else completely different is happening.

Please also be advised that we enforce a policy that provides for the termination of users who are repeat infringers. If you are the subject of a copyright infringement notification and believe you possess all necessary rights to use content in the manner that is being complained about, you may wish to file a counter-notification under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

To file a counter-notification with us, you must provide a written communication that sets forth the items specified below. Please understand that filing a counter-notification may lead to legal proceedings between you and the complaining party. Be aware that there may be adverse legal consequences in your country if you make a false or bad faith allegation by using this process.

Please also be advised that we enforce a policy that provides for the termination of users who are repeat infringers, and our contracts also provide us with additional rights to terminate you or disable access to content in certain circumstances. If you are not sure whether certain material infringes the copyrights of others, we suggest that you first contact a lawyer.

Identification of the specific URLs or other location of material that iQ media has removed or to which iQ media has disabled access. Your full name, address, telephone number, email address, and the username of your iQ media account.