The need for a balance between copyright owner interests and the public interest
Economic parity between copyright owners and consumers, that is owners should receive fair remuneration and consumers should be able to obtain copyrighted material at reasonable cost
Compliance measures should be encouraged rather than a resort to draconian criminal law prohibitions
A strong public domain should be maintained
In liability terms, the general principle should be that the main infringer will be the individual concerned and not a third party.
 
Peer-to peer issues

There is a plethora of examples of the use and abuse of this technology, both here in the UK and the EU and in the USA.  The technology allows individuals to swap data with each other that is contained on their machines. Detection is a problem. As technology advances and bigger and bigger files can be swapped, the threat to Intellectual Property owners is growing and moving away from illegal music downloads to the unauthorised copying and sharing of motion pictures.
Entertainment corporations have a number of avenues open to them, when attempting to deal with peer-2-peer technology and its potential abuse.

1. Technological tools to monitor use and track individuals who upload the material and those who download.
2. Sue 英语论文网 【http://www.51lunwen.org】the individuals who upload
3. Sue the individuals who download
4. Sue the ISP or other organisation which permits access to the site
5. Sue the manufacturer of the technology. 
In 2005, the US Supreme Court permitted MGM to sue Grokster for illegal downloading in the MGM v. Grokster case.  Similar reasoning has been adopted in Australia, in the case of Universal Music Australia v. Cooper.  In both cases, it appears that judges are becoming more willing to accept that manufacturers, developers and promoters of software and hardware that can be used to violate intellectual property  may be vicariously liable for intellectual property violations, when these manufacturers and developers do not take adequate steps to inform individuals that certain uses of the technology may be a criminal offence. It had been blithely assumed that following the American case of Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.  and the British case of CBS Songs Ltd v. Amstrad Consumer Electronics  that manufacturers of technology that facilitated intellectual property violations would not be held liable where  the technology could be used for non-violating purposes. These new cases appear to limit this defence to cases where the providers of new technology have alerted users to the fact that the technology may facilitate violations. It has to be questioned whether this jurisprudence will chill the growth of online entertainme 本文来自：英语论文网 【http://www.51lunwen.org】