澳洲生态学论文代写：Fab Four乐队
Fab Four乐队是在模仿披头士乐队的歌曲，这是一种版权材料。本法第三十六条的适用，表明Fab四人组在表演中使用了受著作权保护的材料，侵犯了原受著作权保护的材料，是违法的。然而，如果四人组事先得到披头士或其经纪人的书面许可，就复制事宜进行了许可，那么他们并没有违反法案第31条的规定。此外，如果披头士拥有的版权超过了70年的里程碑，那么根据第33条的规定，Fab四人组没有任何侵权行为。
我完全违反了法案第36条的规定，因为我未经Fab Four group的许可复制了该视频并将其用于个人用途。
澳洲生态学论文代写：Fab Four乐队
唐也违反了法案第36条，因为他在没有得到制作视频的人的任何书面许可的情况下下载了视频，尽管他把视频和猫混在一起并对其进行了修改。没有原因，结果就不可能存在。
根据该法案第31(1)条，如果安德鲁最初是在获得披头士或其经纪人的许可后制作的，那么他可以被认为是原始视频的真正所有者。如果Andrew和Fab Four组合一起获得了披头士的许可，那么他们就是该视频的原始版权所有者。
澳洲生态学论文代写：Fab Four乐队
The Fab Four group was impersonating Beatles group’s songs, a copyright material. Applying section 36 of the act here indicates that the Fab Four group is in violation of the law, since they have used the copyright material in their impersonation and have infringed the original copyright material. However, if the Fab Four has in written permission taken a prior licence from the Beatles or their manager about the reproduction, then they are not in violation, as per section 31 of the act. In addition, if the copyright held by Beatles have crossed the milestone of 70 years, then the Fab Four group are not in any violation, as per section 33 when applied.
I am in complete violation of section 36 of the act, because I have copied the video and used it for personal use without taking permission from the Fab Four group.
澳洲生态学论文代写：Fab Four乐队
Don is also in violation of section 36 of the act, because he has also used it by downloading the video without taking any written permission from the one who has made the video, though he has mixed it with cats and modified it. The effect cannot exist without the cause.
As per section 31(1) of the act, Andrew could be considered the true owner of the original video, if he has made it originally after taking permission from the Beatles or their manager. If Andrew and the Fab Four group have together secured license from the Beatles, then they are the original copyright owners of the video.