Basing on both the division and Classification of Media Ownership, it can genuinely be ascertained that indeed, the way in which technology is both disseminated and owned has greatly changed. This is due to the fact that technological advancements that have become quite rampant in the contemporary or modern world have highly affected the ways in which individuals interact with entertainment. For example, movies can now be watched either instantly or on home computers and TVS and bought either digitally or physically. This therefore raises questions as to who owns the media and how such technology ought to be owned and distributed/disseminated. It can genuinely be asserted that the existing relationship between the copyrighted media towards the emerging technologies which are known to exploit most of the copyrighted works is normally perceived as pitying copyright against development or progress.
Indeed, it has historically been ascertained that when most copyright owners try to eliminate or abolish new forms of dissemination, they have always been disappointed by the Courts who do not see such forms of media dissemination as being harmful and destructive to the media and copyright owners. In most of the circumstances the courts have denied to grant the copyright owners infringement rights. Interestingly, when the Media owners try to get involved and get paid for the new forms of digital and conventional exploitation, both the Congress and the Courts have always appeared to side with Copyright control as opposed to new markets. Currently both the Congress and the Courts have regarded the unlicensed distribution of media and other contents over the web as impairing or preventing the ability of the copyright owners to avail themselves towards new markets for the communication of digital works. In order to enhance wide dissemination of such works, the two parties (Courts and Congress) have accorded control of the markets to the Copyright owners. It is prudent to note that by allowing copyright to be controlled by the authors or owners and especially those which have been excluded by conventional distribution systems, the general audience will gain significantly because they will be presented with not only a variety of works from different authorship but also increased quantity as well.
It can be genuinely ascertained that the invention of new technologies has indeed limited the ability of media owners or authors. This is based on the fact that despite other parties copying and sharing different works without the authority or license from the owners, the Constitution gives the authors little or limited powers to sue such parties against infringement on their works. This is quite evident owing from the fact that despite the assertion that the authors or owners of such works should have exclusive rights pertaining not only their reproduction and distribution but also their display and public performance, the Judges and the “Copyright Statute” have interpreted such assertions and made attempts at striking equality or a balance. They thus argue that despite the fact that authors or creators should maintain enough control on the new markets brought about as a result of new technologies so as to keep the copyright concept to become beneficial, they should do that but not to an extent of preventing the dissemination of such new technologies from being spread widely.
It would be prudent if all the concerned stakeholders such as the media owners, authors, Judges and the Courts realized that the copyright balance can never be immutable but rather, each technological progress can change equality or balance of control that occurs between users and authors leading to “new legal calibration”. The balance of control over authors’ works has shifted substantially towards the users because of the emergence of new technologies such as TVs and the use of the internet and other digital media. As result, this trend has significantly made the copyright owners to stand on the losing side as far as copyright control is concerned. The copyright owners’ ability to wield protective measures aimed at the prevention of new forms of their work exploitation has been greatly hindered as a result of new technologies. This has further been worsened by the assertion of the critics that “...the goal of copyright law has never been...and should not now become, to grant “control” over works of authorship, but rather to accord certain limited rights over some kind of exploitations..”.
It can genuinely be ascertained that Courts have narrowly interpreted the “statutory grant of rights” in circumstances where it has been perceived that most copyright owners are making attempts at stopping technology. The copyright owners have therefore been left on the receiving end because the Courts seem to be powerless in helping them resolve the issue of infringement on their works, “...in many of the new technology cases, courts faced with appeared to be all-or-nothing attempts at copyright enforcement preferred to interpret the statute in a way that would leave copyright owners with nothing...”.
In conclusion, it will be prudent if all the major stakeholders came together and agreed how technology should be owned and disseminated. This will ensure that the authors of various works get motivated for their creativity while ensuring that the final user is capable of getting various kinds of entertainment and content at affordable prices. Technology should thus be used in the contemporary world to bring benefits to all and sundry instead of selected parties alone.