1. Conor Geraghty
Comm 360
10/15/14
Assignment 3
According to the most current version of the U.S. copyright law, there are several
provisions that I feel should remain in place and some that should be changed. The first chapter I
will be discussing in the title 17 version of the copyright law is Chapter 2, which discusses
copyright ownership and transfer. Section 201a states that, “Copyright in a work protected under
this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work” (2011, p. 126). I feel like this law
should be kept in place and should always be kept. This applies to musicians especially because
music is a form of art that should be financial rewarding to the person or persons that created the
piece. In the two decades I have been alive, I have heard several cases where an artists will claim
a lyric or a beat as their own which they clearly stole from another artist. Acts like these
eventually lead to lawsuits. This form of copyright law is crucial because it ensures an economic
value to a media product (Havens & Lotz, 2012). This section also enables protection for book
writers and movie producers. The second chapter I want to discuss is Chapter 5, which elaborates
on copyright infringement and remedies. Section 504b states that, “The copyright owner is
entitled to recover the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the infringement, and
any profits of the infringer that are attributable to the infringement and are not taken into account
in computing the actual damages” (2011, p. 160). I also feel that this law should stay in place for
years to come because it is not fair to the artist of whatever media platform that someone can
claim their work as their own. Someone put their heart and soul into creating a song, or a movie,
or a novel. In cases where someone attempts to steal someone else work and claim it as their own,
the infringer is looked upon as someone who cannot produce their own media text. I feel that the

2. author of the media text should recover 100 percent of the profits lost to the infringer
immediately. While these two laws are crucial to the media industry, there is one law that I feel
should definitely be updated. This law is found in chapter 3, which deals with the duration of
copyright. Section 302a states that, “Copyright in a work created on or after January 1, 1978,
subsists from its creation and, except as provided by the following subsections, endures for a
term consisting of the life of the author and 70 years after the author’s death” (2011, p. 133).
While I can see that the law makers had good intentions, I don’t think it is necessarily right to put
a number on how long a piece can be held under copyright laws. I think that if an artist creates a
media text that is profitable, it should be held in their name forever. While every artist passes
away, I feel that their work should be appreciated in the form of copyright as long as the earth
still rotates. Even after an artist is dead for 100 years, nobody should be allowed to claim their
work as their own in order to gain profit.
There are two notable examples of copyright infringement that come to mind when
discussing these sections in the recent U.S. copyright law. The most recent example of copyright
infringement I could find was in the beginning of June when the lawyer for the Beastie Boys
urges jurors to make the energy drink company Monster pay over $2 million for copyright
infringement. What happened was that Monster released an online video that incorporated the
song “Sabotage” throughout the video without a license or discussing the video with the Beastie
Boys. Their lawyer stated that, “the band's demands for damages and claims Monster intended to
steal the music to make it look as if the Beastie Boys endorsed the drink were "contrary to
common sense" (Raymond, 2014). The second example of recent copyright infringement in the
news was the case of Quentin Tarantino and Gawker in the early stages of 2014. Quentin
Tarantino attempted to sue the company Gawker for, “its promotion and dissemination of his

3. leaked Western screenplay, The Hateful Eight” (TheWrap.com, 2014). The media company
apparently leaked the entire screenplay illegally to the public as the first source to read.
I think the most important concept of the copyright law that should be revised is the
section that deals with copyright infringement punishments. While I do feel like all financial
damages should be compensated to the author of a media text from the infringer, I do not feel
like that is enough punishment. When another author uses another artist’s work as their own,
there should not only be a hefty fine, but the infringer should lose their license and right to
produce their product forever. By that I mean that the infringer should lose all privileges to get
compensated for their product and should be dropped from their company. I think it should be a
law that if anyone uses someone else’s work without their permission in situations like the
Beastie Boys case, they should not only pay the artist but should also lose their right to use any
other artist’s form of media text in any of their advertisements.

4. References
Quentin Tarantino sues Gawker for copyright infringement. (2014, January 27).
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-01-27/entertainment/chi-quentin-tarantino-gawker-
lawsuit-20140127_1_copyright-infringement-gawker-media-links. Retrieved October 15, 2014.
Beastie Boys seek $2 million from Monster for copyright infringement. (2014, June 4).
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-06-04/entertainment/sns-rt-us-beastieboys-monster-bev-
20140604_1_adam-yauch-beastie-boys-ad-rock. Retrieved October 15, 2014.
Havens, T., & Lotz, A. (2012). Understanding media industries. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Copyright Law of the United States | U.S. Copyright Office. (n.d.).
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/ Retrieved October 15, 2014.