Just because something is not on paper cannot be taken to mean that an act of copying might not be an infringement (Raman, 2004). For example, consider the economic rights that are given to a copyright owner. The copyright owner is the only person who can copy a work or distribute copies of the work or communicate the work to the public or someone who requests for an authorized copy of the work on electronic transmission etc. In the case of electronic communication, the exercise of intellectual property rights could be challenged as the chances of a person making a copy of the work online increases. A person can request for an authorized copy of a work, such as music and then enable others to listen to it in an unauthorized manner. This form of an unauthorized copy is just one-way electronic communication can result in infringement, there are many more ways (Mansell, & Steinmueller, 2011).
In most cases of electronic communication based copyright infringement there are questions on whether communication can 1) be considered as a form of electronic communication, such as a broadcast to the public and 2) at which point the communication becomes an infringement. Consider the case of the Football Association Premier League v QC leisure (No3)  EWHC 108(Ch);  FSR 12. Here the dispute arose because the Greek satellite decoder cards were issues to UK pubs and bars. The Football Association Premier League issues the license for decoders for both UK and Greece, the Greece decoders charge less that the UK ones. The UK operators were using Greece decoders instead of using the UK Sky decoders. While there were multiple legal issues that were raised in the case, the one that is relevant for current discussion was to understand “whether the publicans were communicating the relevant copyright works to the public by either re-broadcasting from the receiving satellite dish to the bar area; or by displaying the works on the pub’s TV screens and playing the works on the TV speakers” (Aplin et al, 2013, p.175). The Court concluded that the bar was communicating the content in a profit making way. The said transmission will attract customers to the pub and this will add to the profits of the firm and hence has an impact on its financial results According to the Article 3(1) of the Copyright directive, the transmission was considered as a form of broadcast to the public. Hence based on both these conclusions the users of the Greece decoders have copyright infringed.
Also consider the case of BMW v Round and Metal Ltd  EWHC 299. Here electronic communication once again interferes with the application of copyright (in this case a database). Here there is no proper electronic communication, but there is a temporary transfer of substantial content of a database to another medium. A question raised here was whether making a copy for the purpose of extraction can be considered as a form of reutilization (Mansell, & Steinmueller, 2011). The court in this case made a ruling that a substantial part of the content of the database was not extracted and reutilized and hence it would not be a copyright breach. Also the contents are not published to the public, they are not shared and are not used in a profitable way and hence cannot be considered a breach.
留学生论文写作提升，可以找美国论文代写Advanced Thesis平台机构，美国论文代写Advanced Thesis平台机构经过多年的经营与磨砺，已经发展成为一家专业的美国论文代写平台机构，而且硕士论文代写价格公平合理，擅长写作科目广泛，有硕士论文代写、美国代写、essay代写、assignment代写等论文服务，良好的口碑和信誉、丰富的论文代写经验值得留学生选择和信赖！