Welcome to beszeljukmac.com

US Copyright Lawyer What can a US Copyright Lawyer Do for You that Others Can’t? First a US copyright lawyer can help anyone that is in the United States, they know the laws of the land and the best ways to fight them. A US Copyright Lawyer is here to protect you. That’s right I said YOU, not the neighbor down the road, or someone that lives in the next country but YOU. A US copyright lawyer is there to help you actually file a copyright, advise you and to help you get back what was once yours and sue someone. If you are an American or someone currently living in the United States you will be able to hire a US lawyer, however if you reside out of the states there may be restrictions. In the internet world copyright issues are becoming a big thing and having a US Copyright lawyer behind you can definitely help if you need to fight against someone stealing your work. Copyright lawyers must stay current in all the recent rulings dealing with copyright issues, which means they know their job. Don’t just stick with a lawyer you already had because you’ve used them before. They may have been great at your car accident or your divorce but for copyright issues, you need a lawyer that deals with them. A US copyright attorney can also help you in retrieving money even if you never filed the copyright until after it was stolen or online. This can get a bit tricky when it comes time to prove it though, however if you have a good lawyer this shouldn’t be a problem. A US copyright lawyer will be able to help you copyright any work that you may have, it does cost $20 to file a paper to get the copyright on your work. This does not mean that there is a one time fee of $20 and all your work is safe, actually you must do this with all your work. You are paying per piece, but in the long run if you need to sue someone for using your content they can end up paying $35,000. A US copyright lawyer can help you with this if you live in the United States and the case happened in the states, technically they could help even if it happened internationally but things get a bit more expensive when this happens. Your US copyright lawyer may have already dealt with people stealing content, or maybe celebrity pictures. Recently a big name celebrity had her pictures leaked on the internet, she sued the people that were spreading them and it suddenly stopped. All those websites that had the pictures on them were asked politely to take them down since they were copyrighted and they were gone. That’s what a good US copyright lawyer will do; he/she will be able to prove their case because they know the law. They will have to show proof of when something was taken, said, or documented. In the case of pictures, she was able to show that she had the proofs and that there was no agreement for anyone to use them. Copyright laws have been changing since 1976; however it changes as our technology advances. Lawyers and judges know our needs and are learning every day how to protect them and in order to do that laws are passed and the copyright laws are updated. Granted laws may be different in other countries but the chances are if it happens on US soil, the best representative would be a US copyright lawyer because they have been studying ever since law school.

Patent and copyright law Understanding Patent and Copyright Law Patent and copyright law gives the inventor the exclusive rights to the invention. No one else can produce the invention for a set period of time under patent and copyright law. Patent and copyright law is set up to protect inventors. The law on patents can be found in the United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 and in Title 35 of the United States Code. The agency that is in charge of patent laws is a Federal Agency known as the Patent and Trademark Office. Anyone who applies for a patent will have their application reviewed by an examiner. The examiner will decide if a patent should be granted to the inventor. Individuals who have their patent application turned down can appeal it to the Patents Office Board of Appeals. Just because someone has a patent does not mean that they have the right to use, make or sell the invention. For instance, if a drug company comes up with a new drug, they can get a patent on it. However, it would not be available to be sold to the general public until the drug becomes approved by other regulatory bodies. Likewise, someone may invent an improvement to an existing product, yet they will not be allowed to produce or sell the item until they obtain a license to do so from the owner of the original patent holder. For someone to receive a patent, as stated, they must fill out an application on their invention. The application will entail the details of the invention and how it is made. In addition, the person applying for a patent must make claims that point to what the applicant deems or regards as his or her invention. A patent may have many claims with it. The claims protect the patent owner and notify the public exactly what the individual has patented or owns. If someone infringes upon patent and copyright law, it is usually enforced in a civil court setting. The owner of the patent will generally bring a civil lawsuit against the person who has infringed upon their patent and ask for monetary compensation. In addition, the patent owner can seek an injunction which would prohibit the violator from continuing to engage in any acts that would infringe upon their patent in the future. Many patent owners will make licensing agreements (or contracts) with others. These agreements allow another person or company to use someone’s patented invention in return for royalties. In addition, some patent holders who are competitors may agree to license their patents to each other to expand both of their profits. Most everything we use in our day to day life was invented by someone. That person had to seek out a patent for their invention. Patent and copyright law protects inventors from having their ideas and inventions stolen out from under them. This makes the playing field more level for individuals. Without these laws, the marketplace would be out of control and the small guy would probably be eaten alive by big business

Copyright Music Infringement Copyright Music Infringement is Not Preferred Method for Music Lovers In recent years, copyright music infringement has seen an unprecedented leap in scope and scale. This is largely due to online services that allowed unchecked file sharing among their subscribers. While this abuse of copyright is not by any means limited to music, this is where the most profound effects of file sharing have been observed. Industry giants of file sharing are cropping up left and right with the demise of the pioneer for illicit file sharing, Napster. The Recording Industry Association of America (or RIAA) has made copyright music infringement their primary cause to fight. They estimate that peer-to-peer file sharing takes around 4.2 billion dollars each year worldwide from the coffers of the music industry. I really cannot blame them that is a fairly large chunk of change. The problem with their estimates however is the assumption that people would actually buy every piece of music they download or that they aren't buying the music they would have bought at any rate. While I by no means condone copyright music infringement or any other copyright infringement I do believe they are overestimating the damage to the industry that is being done by these file-sharing programs. One of the primary arguments that the RIAA is using in order to, hopefully, discourage people from not supporting their favorite groups and artists by buying their recordings, is the fact that new and struggling bands are less likely to continue making music because it will no longer be profitable. The bulk of musician's incomes are the result of royalties, which depend entirely on the sales of their albums. The RIAA is using the legal system to back them up by taking the fight to court. Recent claims made by the RIAA include one rather controversial claim that people ripping CDs they have bought and paid for does not constitute fair use because CDs are not "unusually subject to damage" and that if they do become damaged they can be replaced affordably. This assertion has raised more than a few eyebrows and is giving rise to opponents of the RIAA who claim that the lawsuits and crackdowns against those presumed guilty of copyright music infringement are actually hurting music sales and the profits of the music industry. During the height of Napster popularity (the hallmark by which all file sharing seems to be compared) CD sales were at their highest rate ever. People were exposed to music and groups they otherwise may not have heard without file sharing. As a result of enjoying the music by these groups people went out and actually bought the CDs of the music they enjoyed. It's ironic that the very lawsuits designed to stop copyright music infringement have actually managed to stifle file sharing enough that CD sales are dropping noticeably around the world. Opponents and critics also challenge that rather than being a source of copyright music infringement, peer 2 peer networks offer unprecedented exposure for new artists and their music. Another argument against the RIAA is that the real reason for the lawsuits against file sharer is because they want to keep the prices for CDs over inflated while keeping the actual royalties coming to the artists relatively low. The copyright music infringement claims made by the RIAA have become suspect. The music industry is currently working on ways where fans can legally download music. This will mean that fans have access to the music they love from their PCs and directly to their music playing devices without resorting to illegal copyright music infringement. The truth is that most people want to do the right thing and given viable alternative will elect to do so.