There is no doubt that the deep integration of computer technology into life has greatly simplified specific tasks. With Internet tools, users from different countries can seamlessly exchange data, communicate or interact daily. Nevertheless, computer technology development has raised significant social, legal, and ethical concerns, including copyright protection in a virtual environment. This essay reflects a critical analysis of the three academic sources offered for reading and offers the author’s thoughts on copyright and intellectual property protection online.
A Brief Summary of the Materials
The proposed academic chapter extensively covered copyright protection in the Internet age and provided a list of specific working recommendations that can be used for self-protection purposes. In particular, the author of the chapter fully recognized the need for preventive measures since the amount of data that was considered confidential yet publicly accessible is shocking (Chapter 8, n.d.). So, the textbook suggested methods such as computer protection and login authentication, data encryption, backups, and the installation of anti-virus and anti-phishing software. While each of these methods can provide privacy, it is difficult to call it complete protection. The author admitted that one could not rule out the phenomenon of social engineering, in which fraudsters steal data when a user comes into contact with vulnerable platforms: porn sites or pirate resources. In these cases, a person’s sensitive data can be stolen due to ignorance, excessive trust, or a mistake. Concluding the chapter, the authors also discussed ways to make responsible money online and the pitfalls that can await the user when they came into contact with scammers.
Next, Mudrytska wrote about recognizing the problem of protecting intellectual property in the fast-growing Internet era. In her research article, the author raised the procedural difficulties that individuals faced when protecting an intellectual property object in the virtual environment. In particular, according to Mudrytska (2020), a significant problem is the lack of a precise, elaborate evidentiary mechanism to prove a valid case of online theft, piracy, or fraud. Conducting an extensive meta-analysis of legislative practices and topical academic sources preceded a series of five recommendations for individuals to protect property. Briefly, these included videotaping the infringement, filing a notarized lawsuit, contacting local cyber police departments and the courts, and conducting an intellectual property examination. Summarizing the above, Mudrytska took a detailed look at the procedure for protecting intellectual property rights and, while acknowledging the legislative practice’s imperfection, offered some useful recommendations for users.
Similar ideas are held by Lewis in her newspaper column, summarizing ideas from another researcher’s book, Boucher. In particular, in the piece, Lewis showed how urgently needed intellectual property protection has become in the face of Internet technology development. First of all, the author cited the definition of intellectual property as intangible assets, which can mean customer lists, strategic development plans, or the name of products to be prepared (Lewis, n.d.). That said, in general, intellectual property includes trademarks, copyrights, patents, and trade secrets, so it is understandable that there are many ways to steal critical data. In addition, one of the main problems of intellectual property theft, made illegal by the 1999 CPA ruling, is cybersquatting. In particular, in the early days of the Internet rollout, most of the official names of major companies and agencies were registered by one person for subsequent resale: this forms a critical trademark protection issue. In summarizing the above, in her article, Lewis recognized the criticality of developing intellectual property protection technologies to keep companies safe.
There is no reason to doubt what the author of such a comprehensive study chapter was writing about. Thus, their study’s central theme was recognizing the need for copyright protection while enhancing students’ knowledge of ways to protect their information. Indeed, this idea has profound implications for today’s society, in which children’s use of the Internet is no surprise. That said, the section on the virtual porn industry and piracy does an excellent job of demonstrating the importance of protecting individuals from social engineering and responsible use of the Web. This academic chapter is essential for developing a student’s computer literacy and minimizing the likelihood of cybercrime and data theft.
The scholarly article’s search for integration between legal and virtual practices illustrates countries’ legal systems’ imperfection concerning intellectual property protection. While it cannot be ruled out that these findings are region-specific, in general, it is clear that the legal industry may not be able to keep up with the rapid development of the Web. This is particularly important concerning companies and minor users whose data are stolen and illegally copied. Moreover, the suggested list of recommendations is an excellent strategy for the reader unfamiliar with the ways law enforcement protects virtual data.
Finally, the newspaper article plays a severe role in terms of defining intellectual property and its elements. Although the source’s publication date is not given, one can assume that it is not recent, as these ideas are somewhat naive and transparent. Nevertheless, the article does an excellent job of reflecting the literacy culture of the era in which it was printed and showed that even large companies could be vulnerable on the Web. Also, counting intellectual property as an asset is an important decision, showing the vital need for their legal protection.
Finding the Connection
A thoughtful perusal of the three sources offered showed that all of the authors certainly agree on the need to protect intellectual property on the Web. Each of them wrote about the progress of computer technology as the cause of the problem. Intellectual property, the authors summarized, represents an essential intangible resource that must be reliably protected. At the same time, property protection should be preventive because once data is stolen, the user may have problems proving their case.
While there is general agreement on personal data protection, the approach with which each of the authors has reported differs. Whereas the newspaper column illustrates the very possibility of a data theft problem, be it a domain or corporate data, the academic article demonstrates the importance of post-procedural data protection in court. In contrast, the academic chapter authors offered the reader an extensive list of preventive protection recommendations without discussing post-factum issues.
At the end of the study and critical analysis of academic sources, it is appropriate to outline the author’s intellectual property protection thoughts. In particular, there is no reason to consider this problem insignificant or not worth discussing because, in fact, the unstoppable development of computer technology naturally generates the relevant issue. More people listen to music online, watch movies, or use other posted content every day. In this case, as a rule, services require the user to pay for the material, and there is nothing wrong with that because every work must be paid for. However, when a person accumulates more paid subscriptions, it cuts into their finances, and then, they turn to piracy.
From this point of view, the piracy or theft and exploitation of media companies’ intellectual property is a direct consequence of organizations’ unwise economic policies and the tipping of the decision towards unethical but free use of data. The author of this essay does not believe that piracy is a severe problem for the Internet or the legal practices of individual countries, as it demonstrates the elegance and cunning of human logic in the face of limitations. At the same time, companies respond to this user reaction by improving their property protection systems, which means that each side ultimately benefits. The application of piracy to scholarly articles, which traditionally have limited, subscription-based access, is particularly relevant. A young student who does not have the finances to buy papers can use third-party resources to review a scientific paper to bypass blockages. Although this initiative is disadvantageous for online publishing, it ultimately leads to the development of science and the population’s intellectualization.
It should be separately emphasized that the author of the essay does not support the idea of illegal theft of copyright data or fraud, but the above points do not have any serious negative consequences. Opposite conclusions are characteristic of cases of personal data theft, social engineering, and blackmail, in which one user parasitizes the personal data of another. From the author’s perspective, this is unacceptable and unethical and has nothing to do with free listening to music or reading scientific articles.
Summarizing all the above data, it is appropriate to note that in the era of digitalization of society, the problem of intellectual data protection and copyright becomes the most urgent. In fact, great importance should be given to improving ways to protect data from theft, piracy, and social engineering, leading to an increase in the population’s computer literacy. This paper has critically analyzed three academic sources and shown the different sides of the problem. In addition, while acknowledging the evil nature of theft and fraud, the author of the essay does not consider pirated movie watching, music listening, and scholarly reading to be illegal virtual acts since, in the end, each of the parties involved benefits from them.
Chapter 8: The digital society. (n.d.). PDF document.
Lewis, Q. L. (n.d.). It’s all mine to protect your intellectual property. Techwatch, 42.
Mudrytska, K. (2020). Specificity of proof in cases of infringement of intellectual property rights on sites on the Internet. ScienceRise, 5, 103-110.