Search

Summary: Society’s progression through the digital streaming age has created a music licensing landscape of grave concern to all stakeholders in the industry. These drastic changes have occurred under an outdated legal framework. This paper will recommend a comprehensive reform to our copyright law to uphold the intentions of copyright in the modern, digital age of today. By looking at the history of copyright and its evolution, one can assess how Congress has been tasked with establishing a fair market value for music by promoting the public interest and fairly compensating copyright owners. This will lead to an evaluation and comparison of those methods used to determine fair market value for creative works that will be the basis of the recommendation used to modernize copyright law. This recommendation will comprehensively provide for equitable treatment for all parties in the streaming age through its totality, additional reforms, and alternative ideas., 2015, Includes bibliography., Degree granted: Thesis (M.S.)--Florida Atlantic University, 2015., Collection: FAU Electronic Theses and Dissertations Collection

This article analyzes existing initiatives and proposes new technologies for the governed adaptations of secured content in heterogeneous environments. These technologies are integrated into an architecture for the secure management of multimedia content., Postprint (published version)

Copyright offers tight control over intellectual property while Creative Commons deliberately relaxes this control; this relaxed control provides an artist with an alternative marketing strategy as well as a secure electronic distribution method. Copyright has been a useful tool for controlling intellectual property since its inception in 1710, but new developments in distribution of copyrighted materials has provided new challenges for copyright law. Creative Commons offers an alternative approach to copyright that embraces, rather than confronts these challenges. Creative Commons is an alternative to copyright that is capable of representing all forms of art; sculpture, painting, literature, music printing and performances. This paper will discuss the difference between copyright and creative commons, and how they relate to music composition and performance.1 Whilst Copyright continues to offer steadfast protection to creators, Creative Commons' unique marketing potential and relaxed approach to intellectual property control provides customisable licensing formats for creators. Though it does have limitations, Creative Commons enables the artist to safely control their work as well as adequately promote it, making the most of new electronic marketing and distribution strategies.

Copyright offers tight control over intellectual property while Creative Commons deliberately relaxes this control; this relaxed control provides an artist with an alternative marketing strategy as well as a secure electronic distribution method. Copyright has been a useful tool for controlling intellectual property since its inception in 1710, but new developments in distribution of copyrighted materials has provided new challenges for copyright law. Creative Commons offers an alternative approach to copyright that embraces, rather than confronts these challenges. Creative Commons is an alternative to copyright that is capable of representing all forms of art; sculpture, painting, literature, music printing and performances. This paper will discuss the difference between copyright and creative commons, and how they relate to music composition and performance.1 Whilst Copyright continues to offer steadfast protection to creators, Creative Commons' unique marketing potential and relaxed approach to intellectual property control provides customisable licensing formats for creators. Though it does have limitations, Creative Commons enables the artist to safely control their work as well as adequately promote it, making the most of new electronic marketing and distribution strategies.

Copyright offers tight control over intellectual property while Creative Commons deliberately relaxes this control; this relaxed control provides an artist with an alternative marketing strategy as well as a secure electronic distribution method. Copyright has been a useful tool for controlling intellectual property since its inception in 1710, but new developments in distribution of copyrighted materials has provided new challenges for copyright law. Creative Commons offers an alternative approach to copyright that embraces, rather than confronts these challenges. Creative Commons is an alternative to copyright that is capable of representing all forms of art; sculpture, painting, literature, music printing and performances. This paper will discuss the difference between copyright and creative commons, and how they relate to music composition and performance.1 Whilst Copyright continues to offer steadfast protection to creators, Creative Commons' unique marketing potential and relaxed approach to intellectual property control provides customisable licensing formats for creators. Though it does have limitations, Creative Commons enables the artist to safely control their work as well as adequately promote it, making the most of new electronic marketing and distribution strategies.

Copyright offers tight control over intellectual property while Creative Commons deliberately relaxes this control; this relaxed control provides an artist with an alternative marketing strategy as well as a secure electronic distribution method. Copyright has been a useful tool for controlling intellectual property since its inception in 1710, but new developments in distribution of copyrighted materials has provided new challenges for copyright law. Creative Commons offers an alternative approach to copyright that embraces, rather than confronts these challenges. Creative Commons is an alternative to copyright that is capable of representing all forms of art; sculpture, painting, literature, music printing and performances. This paper will discuss the difference between copyright and creative commons, and how they relate to music composition and performance.1 Whilst Copyright continues to offer steadfast protection to creators, Creative Commons' unique marketing potential and relaxed approach to intellectual property control provides customisable licensing formats for creators. Though it does have limitations, Creative Commons enables the artist to safely control their work as well as adequately promote it, making the most of new electronic marketing and distribution strategies.

Copyright offers tight control over intellectual property while Creative Commons deliberately relaxes this control; this relaxed control provides an artist with an alternative marketing strategy as well as a secure electronic distribution method. Copyright has been a useful tool for controlling intellectual property since its inception in 1710, but new developments in distribution of copyrighted materials has provided new challenges for copyright law. Creative Commons offers an alternative approach to copyright that embraces, rather than confronts these challenges. Creative Commons is an alternative to copyright that is capable of representing all forms of art; sculpture, painting, literature, music printing and performances. This paper will discuss the difference between copyright and creative commons, and how they relate to music composition and performance.1 Whilst Copyright continues to offer steadfast protection to creators, Creative Commons' unique marketing potential and relaxed approach to intellectual property control provides customisable licensing formats for creators. Though it does have limitations, Creative Commons enables the artist to safely control their work as well as adequately promote it, making the most of new electronic marketing and distribution strategies.

Music industry suffered from an annual loss of five billion dollars due to illegal distributions of MP3s. Peer-to-Peer applications like Napster, KaZaA and Morpheus allow digital contents to be distributed freely over the Internet with ease. Hence, there is an urging need of a mechanism to protect the copyrights of digital contents. Digital Rights Management Systems (DRMS) have been used to address these problems. These systems generally deploy digital watermarking techniques to enforce copyrights management. Memon and Wong [35] proposed a buyer-seller watermarking protocol that only requires buyers to release an encrypted copy of their watermarks to sellers. The protocol can still identify the original buyers of unauthorized copies. However, we found that their protocol might not work in a second hand market. In this thesis, we will revisit this issue and give an adapted protocol called buyer-reseller watermarking protocol. We will also discuss the integration of our protocol to the NetBill micropayment system and e-Business XML (ebXML) [17].

Music industry suffered from an annual loss of five billion dollars due to illegal distributions of MP3s. Peer-to-Peer applications like Napster, KaZaA and Morpheus allow digital contents to be distributed freely over the Internet with ease. Hence, there is an urging need of a mechanism to protect the copyrights of digital contents. Digital Rights Management Systems (DRMS) have been used to address these problems. These systems generally deploy digital watermarking techniques to enforce copyrights management. Memon and Wong [35] proposed a buyer-seller watermarking protocol that only requires buyers to release an encrypted copy of their watermarks to sellers. The protocol can still identify the original buyers of unauthorized copies. However, we found that their protocol might not work in a second hand market. In this thesis, we will revisit this issue and give an adapted protocol called buyer-reseller watermarking protocol. We will also discuss the integration of our protocol to the NetBill micropayment system and e-Business XML (ebXML) [17].

Music industry suffered from an annual loss of five billion dollars due to illegal distributions of MP3s. Peer-to-Peer applications like Napster, KaZaA and Morpheus allow digital contents to be distributed freely over the Internet with ease. Hence, there is an urging need of a mechanism to protect the copyrights of digital contents. Digital Rights Management Systems (DRMS) have been used to address these problems. These systems generally deploy digital watermarking techniques to enforce copyrights management. Memon and Wong [35] proposed a buyer-seller watermarking protocol that only requires buyers to release an encrypted copy of their watermarks to sellers. The protocol can still identify the original buyers of unauthorized copies. However, we found that their protocol might not work in a second hand market. In this thesis, we will revisit this issue and give an adapted protocol called buyer-reseller watermarking protocol. We will also discuss the integration of our protocol to the NetBill micropayment system and e-Business XML (ebXML) [17].

Copyrights of digital content can be protected through the use of watermarks. Watermark detection, however, faces one major technical challenge. Existing detection mechanisms require the knowledge of a detection key, which may also be used for watermark removal. Due to the issues of performance and scalability, watermark detection is often offline and realized at the user's end. This makes the detection mechanism vulnerable to attacks and thereby jeopardizes the confidentiality of detection keys. As such, mechanisms of copyright protection may not rely on the robustness of watermarks. In this thesis, we propose an offline mechanism to reinforce copyright protection for situations where watermark robustness cannot be guaranteed. On purchasing a piece of digital content, a consumer receives a unique license in a signed license from the associated content distributor. The license will be used for checking the rights of the consumer as well as the genuineness of the watermarks. The integrity of licenses is protected by the public key infrastructure (PKI).

Copyrights of digital content can be protected through the use of watermarks. Watermark detection, however, faces one major technical challenge. Existing detection mechanisms require the knowledge of a detection key, which may also be used for watermark removal. Due to the issues of performance and scalability, watermark detection is often offline and realized at the user's end. This makes the detection mechanism vulnerable to attacks and thereby jeopardizes the confidentiality of detection keys. As such, mechanisms of copyright protection may not rely on the robustness of watermarks. In this thesis, we propose an offline mechanism to reinforce copyright protection for situations where watermark robustness cannot be guaranteed. On purchasing a piece of digital content, a consumer receives a unique license in a signed license from the associated content distributor. The license will be used for checking the rights of the consumer as well as the genuineness of the watermarks. The integrity of licenses is protected by the public key infrastructure (PKI).

Copyrights of digital content can be protected through the use of watermarks. Watermark detection, however, faces one major technical challenge. Existing detection mechanisms require the knowledge of a detection key, which may also be used for watermark removal. Due to the issues of performance and scalability, watermark detection is often offline and realized at the user's end. This makes the detection mechanism vulnerable to attacks and thereby jeopardizes the confidentiality of detection keys. As such, mechanisms of copyright protection may not rely on the robustness of watermarks. In this thesis, we propose an offline mechanism to reinforce copyright protection for situations where watermark robustness cannot be guaranteed. On purchasing a piece of digital content, a consumer receives a unique license in a signed license from the associated content distributor. The license will be used for checking the rights of the consumer as well as the genuineness of the watermarks. The integrity of licenses is protected by the public key infrastructure (PKI).