Content Regulation: Protecting Copyright in the Online Environment Gavin Sutter CCLS, Queen Mary,...

Content Regulation:Content Regulation:Protecting Copyright in the Online Protecting Copyright in the Online

EnvironmentEnvironment

Gavin Sutter

CCLS, Queen Mary, University of London

ICC

L @

CC

LS.e

duIC

CL

@ C

CLS

.edu

Copyright in the Online Copyright in the Online EnvironmentEnvironment

Protection of Copyright on the web Copyright online – the key issues

– Copyright in online content

Online infringement– Linking, framing, peer to peer

Technological Protection of Copyright works– Technologies available– Regulation of those technologies

Is the internet the end of copyright? Alternatives to copyright

ICC

L @

CC

LS.e

duIC

CL

@ C

CLS

.edu

Copyright OnlineCopyright Online

Copyright – What rights does copyright confer?– Right to control copying subject to certain restrictions

Application of copyright to online content– Copyright in text, code, artwork, sound files

Criminal Law– Copyright and alternative laws

Webpage as a compilation of IP Rights– Copyright, TM, databases…– Sui Generis database protection, e.g. web page

EU Directive 96/9/EC on the legal protection of databases

ICC

L @

CC

LS.e

duIC

CL

@ C

CLS

.edu

Protection of Copyright OnlineProtection of Copyright Online

Interests in protection– Rightsholders– Commercial assets in digital form

Internet: threat to copyright Licensing and rights of use Protection in the Courts

– Civil enforcement: litigation– Criminal copyright infringement

Technical protection of copyright works

ICC

L @

CC

LS.e

duIC

CL

@ C

CLS

.edu

Online InfringementOnline Infringement

Ease of online infringements– Primary and secondary infringement

Prevailing internet culture– Shareware, freeware, opensource– Perception online copying is ‘ok’

Nature of computer / online technology– Copying an integral part of use

E.g. storage memory E.g. email user user E.g. accessing web pages online and system caching

ICC

L @

CC

LS.e

duIC

CL

@ C

CLS

.edu

International Legislative International Legislative ResponseResponse

World Intellectual Property Organisation Treaties (1996)– Copyright Treaty and the Performances and Phonograms

Treaty

US: Digital Millennium Copyright Act (1998)

EU: Directive on Copyright in the Information Society– rights of creators & producers

making available to the public (art. 3) no exhaustion for on-line services (recital 29)

– exemptions & limitations (art. 5) “for the private use of natural person”

ICC

L @

CC

LS.e

duIC

CL

@ C

CLS

.edu

Licensing IssuesLicensing Issues

Express Licensing– Distribution online

E.g. New York Times v Tasini (2001)– ‘click-wrap’ licensing

Valid and enforceable?– Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (1999),

s. 210 - ‘Massmarket transaction’– e.g. Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, Inc., (2000) &

Register.com vVerio (2000) statutory limitations on licence terms

– ‘open source’ licensing E.g. GNU General Public Licence (GPL)

ICC

L @

CC

LS.e

duIC

CL

@ C

CLS

.edu

Licensing Issues IILicensing Issues II

Implied Licence– Nature of the medium

Web, Usenet…

– Scope of licence E.g. Trumpet Software Pty Ltd. v. OzEmail Pty Ltd [1996]

– not to adapt– not to remove notification of ownership & licence terms

– ‘spidering’ creating derivative works Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, Inc., (2000), eBay v Bidders

Edge (2000) tort of trespass to goods?

ICC

L @

CC

LS.e

duIC

CL

@ C

CLS

.edu

Usage RightsUsage Rights

Notification of Ownership– Required formalities– Evidential presumptions

E.g. CDPA 1988, s.104

– Public Domain www.creativecommons.org

Permitted Acts– E.g. fair dealing / fair use

Types of activity, e.g. private study Types of defendant, e.g. library

ICC

L @

CC

LS.e

duIC

CL

@ C

CLS

.edu

Peer to Peer Networks & Peer to Peer Networks & Copyright InfringementCopyright Infringement

Online file-sharing of copyright works– What is a “peer to peer” (p2p) network?

MP3s & infringement– What is an mp3?– Scale of the problem:– Google.com search for “mp3”:

30/01/02: 17.1 million hits 15/01/03: 30.3 million hits 28/01/04: 49.3 million hits 08/12/04: 200 million hits 19/01/06: 235 million hits 22/11/06: 741 million hits

ICC

L @

CC

LS.e

duIC

CL

@ C

CLS

.edu Centralised (e.g. Napster) Decentralised (e.g. Gnutella)

Peer to Peer Peer to Peer NetworksNetworks

Index Server

Client/Servers Client/Servers

ICC

L @

CC

LS.e

duIC

CL

@ C

CLS

.edu

P2P in the courtsP2P in the courts

A&M Records, Inc & ors v Napster, Inc (2001)– contributory copyright infringement

• receives knowledge of specific infringing files• knows that such files are available on the system• fails to act to prevent distribution

– vicarious copyright infringement• “has the right and ability to supervise the infringing activity

and also has a direct financial interest in such activities.”

– Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984): the ‘Betamax’ case

• ‘space-shifting’ or ‘time-shifting’

ICC

L @

CC

LS.e

duIC

CL

@ C

CLS

.edu

P2P in the Courts IIP2P in the Courts II

Vereniging Buma & Stichting Stemra –v-

KaZaA B.V. – Amsterdam Court of Appeal 28 March 2002– Decentralised p2p network– Minimal centralised service– ‘notice & take-down’ and ability to terminate

accounts– Distinction KaZaA & Napster systems

ICC

L @

CC

LS.e

duIC

CL

@ C

CLS

.edu

P2P in the courts IIIP2P in the courts III US cases on decentralised p2p, e.g.:

– US: MGM v Grokster 2003 US District Ct for Central District of California, April 2003 “Grokster…[is] not significantly different from companies that sell home videos

or copy machines, both of which can be and are used to infringe copyrights.” Morpheus & KaZaA

2003 – RIAA sues individual infringers– 382 individuals subject of RIAA suits by December 2003– Late 2003 – BPI indicates it is considering same policy– January 26th 2004 – IFPI announces its support for this approach– By July 2006 RIAA has sued “over 20,000” (EFF.org)

October 2004: BPI announces legal action against 28 UK File Sharers– Using KaZaA, Imesh, Grokster, Bearshare and WinMX networks. – Coincides with IFPI Announcement of of 457 new legal actions against

illegal file sharers across six European countries

– BPI’s parental awareness campaign http://www.childnet-int.org/music/

ICC

L @

CC

LS.e

duIC

CL

@ C

CLS

.edu

MGM v GroksterMGM v Grokster

MGM v Grokster in US Supreme Court – Case No. 04-480, 27 June 2005– Distributors of P2P system liable for copyright

infringement– A radical departure from general trend?– Reference to DRMS

UK: Play Louder MSP– http://www.playloudermsp.com– Broadband subscription to include ‘licence fee’ for

sharing music– Future of this business model?

ICC

L @

CC

LS.e

duIC

CL

@ C

CLS

.edu

Linking & Web PagesLinking & Web Pages

Uniform Resource Locators (URLs)– e.g. http://www.ccls.edu/itlaw– ‘inline link’ for images: <IMG SRC...>

Linking to infringing works– authorising infringement

Universal City Studios, Inc and others v Corley and others SD Cal., August 17, 2000

Links as protected items– Shetland Times v Wills [1997] FSR 604

as a literary work, as a compilation as an item in a cable programme service

ICC

L @

CC

LS.e

duIC

CL

@ C

CLS

.edu

Linking & Web Pages IILinking & Web Pages II ‘Deep links’

– SNC Havas Numerique & SA Cadres On Line v SA Kelijob (2000)

copyright and database infringement

– StepStone v Ofir (2001) database protection

– Perfect 10 v Google – “stolen content sites”

Creating associations– frames

Washington Post Co. v. Total News Inc (1997)

– Meta-tags & ‘wordstuffing’ Road Tech Computer Systems Ltd. v Mandata (May 2000)

ICC

L @

CC

LS.e

duIC

CL

@ C

CLS

.edu

Linking AgreementsLinking Agreements

Copyright & trademark protection– define “prohibited uses”

Validity & enforceability of contract– contract formation issues

Uniform Computer Information Transactions

Act– s. 611 re: access contracts

ICC

L @

CC

LS.e

duIC

CL

@ C

CLS

.edu

Criminal Copyright ICriminal Copyright I UK

– CDPA, s. 107, for making or dealing with infringing articles Copyright, etc. and Trade Marks (Offences and Enforcement)

Act 2002 Marks & Spencer v Craig Cottrell & ors (2001)

US– United States v LaMaccia 871 F. Supp. 535 (D. Mass. 1994)

– No Electronic Theft Act 1997 18 U.S.C § 2319: 5 years imprisonment, $250,000

– Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998 e.g. Dmitry Sklyarov

ICC

L @

CC

LS.e

duIC

CL

@ C

CLS

.edu

Criminal Copyright IICriminal Copyright II

Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime (2001)– Article 10

“..where such acts are committed wilfully, on a commercial scale and by means of a computer system.”

EU Directive on Copyright in the Information Society– acts of circumvention– circumvention devices

art. 6(4) making available “the means of benefiting from that exception or limitation”

DMCA (17 U.S.C. § 1201) – e.g. non-profit libraries, archives, educational institutions, law enforcement, encryption

research, filter software

ICC

L @

CC

LS.e

duIC

CL

@ C

CLS

.edu

Copyright in the online world…Copyright in the online world…

…a spent force?

Conceptual difficulties

Scale of online violations

Challenge of detecting and ending violations

How to protect copyright online?– Traditional litigation proceedings….

– …or technological copy-protection mechanisms?

ICC

L @

CC

LS.e

duIC

CL

@ C

CLS

.edu

Traditional legal protection: the Traditional legal protection: the drawbacksdrawbacks

Litigation can be a s-l-o-w process– c/f speed of change in the online world

Reactive, not proactive– ‘Prevention is better than cure’?

Effectiveness of traditional remedies online questionable– Mirror sites– The ‘Paul & Karla’ effect– Yahoo! before the French & US Courts– Time and Expense

ICC

L @

CC

LS.e

duIC

CL

@ C

CLS

.edu

Copy ProtectionCopy Protection

NOT the same thing as copy-prevention– UK European Directive on Copyright

(Computer Programs) Regulations 1992– Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988, as

amended Section 50A(1) Section 296A(1)(b)

– CDPA General ‘Fair Use’ provisions Private study, criticism & review, etc..

ICC

L @

CC

LS.e

duIC

CL

@ C

CLS

.edu Copy Protection TechnologiesCopy Protection Technologies

Dongles

ICC

L @

CC

LS.e

duIC

CL

@ C

CLS

.edu Copy Protection TechnologiesCopy Protection Technologies

Smartcards

ICC

L @

CC

LS.e

duIC

CL

@ C

CLS

.edu Copy-protection TechnologiesCopy-protection Technologies

Smartcards

ICC

L @

CC

LS.e

duIC

CL

@ C

CLS

.edu

Copy-protection TechnologiesCopy-protection Technologies

Serial Copy Management System (SCMS)

ICC

L @

CC

LS.e

duIC

CL

@ C

CLS


Limitation of hardware systems

Password & Serial Number Protection

–Very common online

–Flexible

–Simple – but insecure?

ICC

L @

CC

LS.e

duIC

CL

@ C

CLS

.edu


Labelling Techniques Digital Watermarking:

– NOT a means of controlling copying

– The ‘evidential gap’ in copyright law

– Provides evidence of authorship / origin

– Can be used to prove integrity of whole work

ICC

L @

CC

LS.e

duIC

CL

@ C

CLS

.edu


Steganography

‘Hides’ data within a work

Similar to watermarking but

imperceptible

Can be used to provide evidence of:– Authorship

– Integrity of whole work

– Legitimate user

ICC

L @

CC

LS.e

duIC

CL

@ C

CLS

.edu

Copy-protection TechnologiesCopy-protection TechnologiesCan be employed to ‘keep

tabs’ on licensee www.digimarc.com :

the MarcSpider

ICC

L @

CC

LS.e

duIC

CL

@ C

CLS

.edu

Copyright-protection Copyright-protection TechnologiesTechnologies

Can be used to provide evidence of purchaser…and trace infringement

– www.twintone.com

ICC

L @

CC

LS.e

duIC

CL

@ C

CLS


Watermarking & Steganography

Do NOT restrict or control copying

Evidential use only

Potential deterrent to infringers?

ICC

L @

CC

LS.e

duIC

CL

@ C

CLS


Encryption “Secure” transmission of a copyright work to the

intended recipient DVDs & ‘Copy-Scramble System’ Not unbreakable: makes infringement impractical,

not impossible Policy question: should such use of encryption

properly be governed by copyright or encryption legislation?

ICC

L @

CC

LS.e

duIC

CL

@ C

CLS

.edu


Digital Rights Management systems Anticipated increase in flow of IP online How to best protect IPR? None of technologies already discussed offers complete

online protection What are DRMs?

– Wikipaedia definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Rights_Management

– Windows Media DRM http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/drm/

– Authena open source DRM http://authena.org/

ICC

L @

CC

LS.e

duIC

CL

@ C

CLS

.edu

Forthcoming AttractionsForthcoming Attractions The Copyright Directive

– Article 6: Legal protections for copyright-protection technologies

– Artilce 7: Obligations concerning rights-management information

– UK Implementation of the Copyright Directive

Consequences of Breach of Copyright

Copyright –v- Freedom of Expression?

Alternative approaches to copyright

ICC

L @

CC

LS.e

duIC

CL

@ C

CLS

.edu

Concluding RemarksConcluding Remarks Applying & amending the law

–over extending protection? Economic rights & consequences Legal agreements & liability for

infringement Enforcement, dispute resolution &

technology protection

Content Regulation: Protecting Copyright in the Online Environment Gavin Sutter CCLS, Queen Mary,...

Documents

Transcript of Content Regulation: Protecting Copyright in the Online Environment Gavin Sutter CCLS, Queen Mary,...