Welcome to elreno.org

Copyright Law Plagiarism Plagiarism Is Simply Unethical Anyone who is a writer is concerned with plagiarism. Copyright Plagiarism Laws protects copyright holders from having their works plagiarized. Many people think it is ironic that the word plagiarism derives from “kidnapper” in Latin. However, it is true. If a person uses another person’s words without permission, they have indeed stolen or kidnapped something that was owned by another and is in violation of copyright law. Plagiarism is a very bad word in the writing world. Crediting the author of the work will not keep someone immune from being in violation of copyright law. Plagiarism is plagiarism, even if the author is cited if the author did not give permission for the work to be used. One of the most common areas that copyright law plagiarism is violated is in the academic world. Many students will copy and paste the information they need for their research papers and essays straight off the Internet and turn it in to their professors. However, this type of cheating is easily detected now with special programs that professors can use. Plagiarism is unethical, not only in the writing world, but in the academic world, as well. Did you know that you could plagiarism a work but not be in violation of the copyright? Likewise, you can be in violation of a copyright and not have been plagiarizing. It is really not that hard to understand. Let’s say you are using Abraham Lincoln’s exact words in a paper and you did not cite him as the source or give him credit. Well, Lincoln’s words aren’t copyrighted because they are in the public domain. But, you did plagiarize because you tried to pass off his words as your own. Alternatively, if you use a picture in a book and you did not gain permission to use the book, you have violated copyright law because you did not source the artist and you did not get permission from the artist to use the picture. If you are in school, the best way you can get around committing plagiarism is to simply list your sources. If you use someone’s word, list it in an endnote or in a footnote. List the resource you found it in the bibliography. Another way around copyright law plagiarism violations is to take notes when you are reading. Take notes in your own words and put the resource away. Write your paper from your own words. No one wants to be singled out for plagiarism, especially a student who is concerned about their reputation at school and writers who need to keep their credibility in good standing. With today’s technological advances, it is not too hard to pinpoint plagiarized work. Even webmasters who run websites are on to the plagiarism crowd. They can run their entire sites through a special program to see if their content has been stolen and duplicated elsewhere on the Internet. If you are dealing in the written word, either academically or as a profession, it is a good idea that you only use your own words. It was probably easier to get away with plagiarism 100 years ago, but it is not that easy today. The changes are very high that if you are caught violating copyright law plagiarism laws you will be caught. Not only is it embarrassing, but it can cost you a bundle in a lawsuit.

Copyright music consecutive notes Copyright Music, Consecutive Notes, and Fair Use When it comes to copyright music, consecutive notes, and lyrics are all covered under the blanket of copyright protection. Once you've registered your copyright you have legal recourse should someone steal or 'borrow' any part of your music without permission. Just so you understand, most of sites online that you visit when checking out the lyrics to your favorite song are actually infringing on the copyright of the author and the recording artist. Not only are the sites that offer lyrics guilty of infringing on the copyright music, consecutive notes and all so are the sites that offer written music, chords, and tabs. It is not legal to use any part of the song that isn't covered by 'fair use' without the express permission of the holder of the copyright. It makes things a little difficult for most people and it is often hard for many to distinguish what qualifies as fair use from what is actually copyright infringement. Copyright music, consecutive notes included keeps artists paid as most of them live on royalties rather than fat cat advances, fair use will not take those future payments from the authors for the sake of personal entertainment. Fair use was once thought to mean that if you weren't making money from the copy or use of materials then it was allowable. This is one of the arguments that was used when defending massive file sharing servers, the defense however falls flat of the law. It is illegal to share copyright music, consecutive notes, lyrics, tabs, chords, or any other part that is part of the music and covered by copyright. The fact is that the only case where the copying of music is clearly allowable is when used for non-profit education and educational research, for the purpose of criticism, commentary, and news reporting. According to the letter of the law ripping your CDs is an infringement of copyright. The result of massive file sharing has prompted new laws to address the problem and provide a more clear definition of what is not allowable as far as copyright music consecutive notes and any other part of a song are concerned. According to the amendments you must have the express permission of the performer to fix the sounds or images into any type of phonorecord, to transmit these sounds to others, or to offer to distribute, sell, or rent any of the copyrighted material. That about sums up file sharing in a nutshell and clearly establishes the practice as illegal. Artist copyright music consecutive notes, lyrics, and performances in order to protect those things from abuse, misuse, and to protect their interests. While some may be artists that perform for the sake of the art, most of them are not independently wealthy and need the income that results from the sales of their music. Many have families to feed as well as fabulous lifestyles. Regardless of their inherent needs for the funds, they've provided a service (entertainment) that we place a certain value on and they deserve to get paid for the services they provide. The copyright music, consecutive notes, new music, and future music depends on people honoring the spirit of current music copyrights. If you haven't noticed entertainers are more often than not interested in the money that is their reward for entertaining. If that wasn't the case, NFL players wouldn't make more money than many corporate CFO's. You might also have noticed that players and entertainers often stop playing and entertaining when they do not think they are getting what they are worth. If you don't recall, the NHL skipped an entire season a few years back over salary negotiations. This, more than many things, should drive home the point that if things such as copyright music consecutive notes and otherwise aren't respected and observed our favorite performers will stop producing new material for us to enjoy.

Software Copyright Laws Software Copyright Laws Fail to Provide Adequate Protection Software copyright laws are among the most difficult to enforce among the masses. Many companies and corporations are also well known for overlooking these laws, which were designed to protect the makes of software from not earning their worth. Perhaps one of the biggest hitches leading so many software businesses to go out of business is the fact that they have a great deal of difficulty actually enforcing the software copyright laws that are in place and getting the money that is owed them according to the agreements that have been made with those on the using end of the software. Software developers, particularly in the corporate world design software that makes other companies run more efficiently. The software allows these companies to save millions of dollars each year. Software copyright laws protect the interests of the software developers that create these massive programs. These programs are often designed specifically for that one company and are very expensive. The agreement often consists of a certain number of users with the company purchasing more licenses or copies of the software during expansions or paying some sort of royalties for the use of the software. The purchasing companies agree to this and then more often than not fail to honor that agreement. The agreement is what allows this company to use that software, this agreement is what allows that permission. When companies aren't living up to their end of this agreement they are not only guilty of breaching that agreement but also of breaking software copyright laws. The trouble always lies in proving that they are not honoring the contract and the extent and duration of the breach. Some of the ways that companies will argue in defense of them not paying the royalties, additional fees, purchasing additional software, etc. is that they upgraded computers and reused the old software (they did actually purchase the rights to use the original software and by doing so feel that they have broken no software copyright laws) the problem lies in the fact that adding ten new computers and placing the software on those should mean that you remove it from or get rid of 10 old computers. This is rarely how it works. So now they've basically stolen ten copies of software that can be well worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. Multiply this by 10, 20, or 100 companies trying this or worse each year and the offending companies are costing software developers millions of dollars in profits. This is when software copyright laws are not as far reaching in their scope as they really need to be. Software copyright laws exist to protect the software companies from this type of abuse and misuse, however, the hands of the companies are almost unilaterally tied when it comes to proving that software copyright laws have been broken in court. There are always exceptions to every rule. In this case big business software developers that abuse the software copyright laws to the point of breaking make the exceptions rather than miserly consumers that do not wish to pay for the products they are consuming. The big boys are able to do this by offering licenses for their software and claiming that these laws do not apply to their situation because they are not actually selling the software only 'renting' out permission for people or companies to 'use' that software. The true irony is that these practices began as a response to the corporate irresponsibility mentioned above. It's amazing that the very software copyright laws that were created to protect these companies can't protect their consumers from the greed of the developing companies.