"Acceptable Use" varies in the opinion of the Internet users. For some "acceptable use" is limited to viewing the pages. For others, it is completely unlimited. Hence, it is a very relative issue where Internet is concerned. In times like this, it is always advisable to ask the administrator and seek permission to use the work. Writing for the Internet is publishing it in a global forum. Here, it is there for everyone to see and use. Thus, taking any material from a web site and using it can be seen as publishing someone else's work under your name.

In general, making a link to a page on the web and including the title of the page is always acceptable. Linking to the site is considered neither a violation of a copyright or plagiarism unless one takes steps to make it appear that the site is you are linking to is also you work. It would be advisable to use either the author's name or the title of the site. This shows courtesy and also an acknowledgment of the other's work.

Many site administrators would gladly oblige and flattered that their work is considered of worthy use and will be more than happy to give permission to use it. Asking for permission is always better since this avoids angry responses from the creators of the work. Hence, it all boils down to ethics and one's personal value system.

"The green report", a current report by the U.S. Department of Commerce, has set forth some preliminary recommendations for dealing with the use of digital information. This report was published in July 1994, and subsequently the hearings were held in the fall of 1994. Also, there is the final "white report", which may result in proposed legislative changed to the Copyright Law.

Several areas of digital copyright are being included in the copyright. Proper definition of multimedia, right of transmission of information is some of the issues that are being discussed in this report.

Another area needing clarification in the "green report" is section 108 of the Law, which addresses library exemptions. For example, the legal implications of "browsing" through electronic documents, scanning, uploading and document transfer maybe of some concern to the copyright holders. The American Association of Publishers has vociferously issued a statement against those who violate copyright laws on the Internet. Professional organizations such as the American Library Association and the Association of Research Libraries have also taken a strong pro user stance.

But until and unless clear guidelines and clarifications are developed for the use of digital information, it would be prudent to be cautious. All this to say, that now it is in the hands of the government to have stringent laws regarding copyright issues on the Internet.

Digital Millennium Copyright Act: H.R. 2281/Public Law (105-304): "An original bill to amend title 17, United States code, to implement the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO performances and phonograms treaty, to provide limitations on copyright liability relating to material online and other purposes."
{Signed by the President on October 28,1998. This is now a public law: No. 105-304}

2."If it is posted to Usenet, then it is in the public domain." This is totally false. Nothing should be considered "freely available" just because it is in the public domain unless it has a note specifically granting permission to use information from the public domain. Also, Usenet does not allow people to freely copy work.

3."It does not hurt anybody and moreover it is free advertising." This argument does not hold well at all because it is entirely up to the creator of the work and it is left to their discretion. Proper permission should be obtained from the owner and nothing should be taken for granted.

Thus, copyright makes it strictly illegal to copy anything, however this does not mean that it does not happen. Consequences for copyrighting any information generally come from the larger and more commercial companies who have a high web-profile and whose work is of commercial value. Most infringers stop at this point to avoid potential legal hassles.

"Information is free" is the mantra for the user-imposed Internet doctrine. Only on the Internet, the act of copying someone else's work, which is placed on the net, is viewed as a sign of rudeness rather than a cyber-crime. This brings us to the topic of "Netiquette." It is not considered a violation of their rights. But, this is slowly beginning to change and there are dedicated agencies on the Internet to curb such activities.

ZDTV's Luke Reiter, issues the following warning; "The chances you are going to get nailed are directly proportional to how high profile you are." Reiter is ZDTV's cyber-crime lawyer. In an exclusive e-mail interview with Reiter, he addressed some issues on "online copyright."

"Intellectual property rights are essential for economic growth. It is important for copyright holders to feel secure placing their material on the Internet. I do not see copyright law as a "hassle" to be "avoided". For me it is a necessary protection that is often abused or ignored."

Reiter said that "new case law" is being developed on the issue of "deep linking" to the web site material. He also said that there were issues being raised about "framing" another site's content is improper. Reiter is currently involved with a number of lawsuits, addressing these issues.

Reiter said that it was up to the copyright owner to monitor the copyright violations since there is no government agency that is involved in copyright infringement. He is of the opinion that if an unlawful site has a high profile, and draws attention from the copyright holder, there is a greater chance of litigation. On the other hand, if a copyright violator is making money illegally, the chances of a lawsuit also seem to increase.

Digital water marks, digital signatures and other technological solutions help in protecting a copyright work. Playboy magazine now uses these water marks as a result of a prior copyright suit they filed. This resulted in a multimillion-dollar damage award.

Two main Lobby groups regarding the copyright issues in the Internet: There now exist two groups who are vociferously arguing about the increasing regulation of information traffic on the Internet.
The Digital Future Coalition (DFC) is a group that was formed in 1995 to lobby congress not to overly limit transmission of information over the Internet. They represent the Internet access provider's interests. They argue that if information is severely limited or monitored, this impends the emergence of new commercial technologies by giving copyright owners control over data resources.

On the other hand, Creative Incentive Coalition (CIC) is another organization, which favors tighter copyright controls in order to protect the owners and authors who place their creation on the Internet. CIC represents the copyright holder's interest.

The global convenience of online resources gives rise to many issues as how to use these resources effectively and properly. This remains debatable because many web administrators feel that information should be available freely and to all. But on the other hand, some wish to maintain a firm hold over information on their site. Of course, both are justified in their own way.