Copyright in the blockchain era: Promises and challenges

The paper focuses on various legal-related aspects of the application of blockchain technologies in the copyright sphere. Specifically, it outlines the existing challenges for distribution of copyrighted works in the digital environment, how they can be solved with blockchain, and what associated issues need to be addressed in this regard. It is argued that blockchain can introduce long-awaited transparency in matters of copyright ownership chain; substantially mitigate risks of online piracy by enabling control over digital copy and creating a civilized market for “used” digital content. It also allows to combine the simplicity of application of creative commons/open source type of licenses with revenue streams, and thus facilitate fair compensation of authors by means of cryptocurrency payments and Smart contracts. However, these benefits do not come without a price: many new issues will need to be resolved to enable the potential of blockchain technologies. Among them are: where to store copyrighted content (on blockchain or “off-chain”) and the associated need to adjust the legal status of online intermediaries; how to find a right balance between immutable nature of blockchain records and the necessity to adjust them due to the very nature of copyright law, which assigns ownership based on a set of informal facts, not visible to the public. Blockchain as a kind of time stamping service cannot itself ensure the trustworthiness of facts, which originate “off-chain”. More work needs to be done on the legal side: special provisions aimed at facilitating user's trust in blockchain records and their good faith usage of copyrighted works based on them need to be introduced and transactions with cryptocurrencies have to be legalized as well as the status of Smart contracts and their legal consequences. Finally, the economics of blockchain copyright management systems need to be carefully considered in order to ensure that they will have necessary network effects. If those issues are resolved in a satisfactory way, blockchain has the potential to rewrite how the copyright industry functions and digital content is distributed.     

编辑侵权行为研究

编辑未经作者或其他著作权人授意,又无法律上的根据,擅自对著作权作品进行利用或以其他非法手段行使著作权人专有权利的行为就构成侵权。编辑侵权行为主要表现在编辑未经著作权人许可而发表其作品,编辑未经合作作者许可而将与他人合作创作的作品当作自己单独创作的作品发表;编辑违背作者意愿未在作者创作的作品上署名,编辑擅自改变作品的署名及署名方式,编辑利用职务之便违背作者意愿在没有参加创作劳动的作品上署了己名;编辑非法阻止作者修改作品,编辑未经作者许可修改作品;编辑在加工过程中歪曲作品原意,编辑在改编过程中篡改作品内容;编辑侵犯著作权人信息网络传播权的行为;编辑侵犯著作权人获得报酬权的行为等等。编辑侵权要承担相应的民事责任、行政责任,对于严重侵犯著作权和邻接权且对社会公共利益造成了严重损害而构成犯罪后果的还要追究侵权人的刑事责任。欲避免编辑侵权行为发生,就要进一步提升编辑的法制意识和水平,强化编辑的道德素养和责任,加大刊社的规范管理和建设,完善出版的法律制度和政策。     

《著作权法》修改:关键条款的解读与分析(上)

修改后的《著作权法》将"作品类型法定"模式改为"作品类型开放"模式,可能将导致作品与其他智力成果的界限变得模糊不清。法院应避免为"创新"而不当扩张著作权的保护范围。广播权被重新定义为可规制任何以非交互式手段向公众传播作品行为的专有权利,具有实质意义。"三步检验标准"的纳入是对法定权利限制的适用进行再限制,并非允许法院自行创设新的权利限制。有关制作和向视障者及其他阅读障碍者提供无障碍格式版的权利限制意义重大,其扫清了我国批准《马拉喀什条约》的障碍。对涉及课堂教学和免费表演的权利限制的修改形式意义大于实质意义。对有关复制公共场所艺术品的权利限制的修改可能造成误解。删除"播放以录音制品体现的作品的法定许可",并不意味着广播电台、电视台今后播放录音制品时须经过其中作品著作权人的许可,对其行为应适用"播放已发表作品的法定许可"。     

Money for nothing and your MP3s for free

The judgment of the Federal Court of Australia (‘the Court’)in Universal Music is the first judicial pronouncement in Australiaon the legality of website operators who provide hyperlinksto remote websites to allow ‘internauts’ (web users)to download MP3 music files and the liability of internet serviceproviders (ISPs) and their employees for authorizing that infringementunder Australian copyright law.     

The failure of the Russian global license proposal and the future of alternative remuneration systems

As rights holders, courts, and policy makers worldwide struggle with the question of copyright infringement and the potential liability of internet service providers (ISPs) worldwide, Russia developed – and subsequently abandoned – a proposal for the creation of a global license to be imposed on ISPs which would allow for rights holders to be compensated for copyright-infringing activities carried out through those ISPs.Russia is not the first jurisdiction to look at a global license as solution to the wide spread of copyright infringements online. By analysing the Russian proposal for a global license, this article addresses the sustainability of such a model on a wider scale by analysing the legal implications this may cause. In this context, this article will address the Russian proposal's legislative history before moving into a substantive discussion about the synergies between legal justifications and merits of a global license.     

Wikitopia: Balancing intellectual property rights within open source research databases

Wiki “communities” based on the open access ideology allow any visitor to easily add, remove or edit content. However, there are a slew of ethics and policy challenges inherent in their use. Open source software developers are faced with the dilemma of openly sharing their intellectual property and prevent others from claiming proprietary rights from the code they freely shared to the public? Intellectual Property rights licensing, ironically, is the route by which open software developers have chosen to regulate their free code in cyberspace. Open source code is generally free on the surface; but in reality, it comes with obligations which are enforceable by law. Aside from the potential liability for intellectual property infringement, the use of open software raises competition law and tort liability issues. The European Union has developed the European Public License which is written in conformity with the copyright, product liability and consumer protection laws of the 27 member states. The EU Commission has also proposed a new Directive which will extend the principles of consumer protection rules to cover licensing agreements of products like software. This paper will address the various legal issues that may arise in open source community sharing.     

深层链接法律规制理论的反思与重构

所有具有或者可能具有重大的经济或实际重要性的作品利用方式，原则上都应当保留给作者。中国著作权法“应当由著作权人享有的其他权利”为应对技术发展提供了充分的制度空间。深层链接对著作权人具有重要商业利益，应属于著作权人专有权的涵盖范围；相比于适用兜底条款，采取扩张解释“信息网络传播权”的方式更优。借鉴国际版权法学界早期应对固定服务卫星传播的规制方案，并结合《世界知识产权组织版权条约》的文本与外交会议文件，可提炼出“间接提供理论”，以合理平衡著作权人、网络服务提供者与公众之间的利益关系。     

Banking in the cloud: Part 1 – banks' use of cloud services

This paper looks at EU banks' use of public cloud computing services. It is based primarily on anonymised interviews with banks, cloud providers, advisers, and financial services regulators. The findings are presented in three parts. Part 1 explores the extent to which banks operating in the EU, including global banks, use public cloud computing services. It describes how banks are using cloud computing and the key drivers for doing so (such as time to market), as well as real and perceived barriers (such as misconceptions about cloud and financial services regulation), including cultural and technical/commercial aspects. It summarises how banks have approached the cloud and how cloud providers have approached the banking sector.Part 2 of this paper will cover the main legal and regulatory issues that may affect banks' use of cloud services, including how the regulation of outsourcing applies to banks' use of cloud services. Part 3 will look at the key contractual issues that arise between banks and cloud service providers, including data protection requirements, termination, service changes, and liability.All three parts of the paper can be accessed via Computer Law and Security Review's page on ScienceDirect at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02673649?sdc=2. The full list of sources is available via the same link and will be printed alongside the third part of the paper.     

Taking a sledgehammer to crack the nut: The EU Enforcement Directive

In April 2004 the EU passed the Directive on Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights amidst charges of “conflicting interest” and heavy-handed influence of the American entertainment industry. The Directive has received widespread condemnation from various sectors of the society for supporting private interest at the expense of public interest through the impositions of Mareva injunctions and Anton Piller Orders, even in instances of accidental and non-commercial infringements of the intellectual property right [Meller P. EU backs deal on copyright piracy. International Herald Tribune, NY; 2004]. This paper will examine the provisions of the Directive and determine its implications, in particular, as to whether they balance or not the rights of the right holders and public interest.     

版权法上的公共领域研究

Public domain is a core rule of copyright law, under which various creative materials are available for an author to use without charge or liability for infringement, hence ensuring the effective implementation of copyright law. Public domain is characterized by openness, public ownership, irrevocability and formality. Based on the premise that the author’s work will not be interfered, public domain ultimately aims at the enlargement of its own universe and prosperity of the culture of human society. Its introduction into copyright law satisfies both historical and logical demands. Without its acknowledgement, copyright cannot be justified. In that sense, public domain and copyright can be deemed as twins. Public domain is not only an existing institution, but also an ideological tendency or a methodology. It has evaluative and inspective values towards copyright. It is an important precondition of copy-rights, and what is more, an important measure for controlling the expansion and realizing the purpose of copyright. Huang Hui, Ph.D, is a lecturer of civil law at Southwest University of Political Science and Law. Till now, he has released over 20 research articles in academic journals in China, such as Modern Law Science, Legal Forum, Academic Forum, etc. His magnum opus includes: Legal Philosophy Exposition of Unreasonable Outstretch in Intellectual Property Rights, Interpretation & Transfer: An exposition of de-intelligence of intellectual property rights, research on the protection of works in public domain, etc.     

Sui generis database protection: a new start for the UK and Ireland?

LEGAL CONTEXT: The decisions of the ECJ in William Hill and Fixtures Marketingconstitute setbacks for rightholders seeking to protect thecontent of databases from unauthorised use by others. This developmentis keenly felt in Ireland and the UK because of the absenceof any overlapping protection in the form of unfair competitionrelief against parasitical activities by competitors. Ironically,post-Feist US copyright law, in the form of the Montgomery CountyRealtor case (1995), when contrasted with the recent Dutch ZAHdecision (2006), shows that US copyright law affords a greaterlevel of protection than is available in the EU under the DatabaseDirective. The ZAH decision also builds upon earlier Germancase law, virtually eliminating liability for linking to websitematerial made available to the public. KEY POINTS: In ZAH, the Dutch Court's interpretation of the Directive andcriteria to be met before content may be copyright protectedwas very restrictive, in stark contrast to the approach of mostCommon Law judges. The result is a very different one to thatintended by the drafters of the Directive, a point reinforcedby the European Commission's own 2005 assessment of the Directive. PRACTICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The Directive has been a disaster from every perspective. Lawmakersin the UK and Ireland may feel that the time is right to consideradopting national measures to produce a more balanced protectivemeasure in respect of commercial databases and an effectivemeans of stimulating investment by following unfair competitionprinciples, rather than the quasi-copyright model of the suigeneris right. ZAH demonstrates that until the European Commissiontackles the critical issue of a common originality standard(which is very unlikely) national differences will be inevitablewithin EU copyright law.     

Banking in the cloud: Part 2 – regulation of cloud as ‘outsourcing’

This paper looks at EU banks' use of public cloud computing services. It is based primarily on anonymised interviews with banks, cloud providers, advisers, and financial services regulators. The findings are presented in three parts. Part 1 explored the extent to which banks operating in the EU, including global banks, use public cloud computing services.Part 2 of this paper covers the main legal and regulatory issues that may affect banks' use of cloud services. It sets out how EU banking regulators have approached banks' use of cloud services and considers regulators' lack of cloud computing knowledge. The paper further considers how the regulation of outsourcing applies to banks' use of cloud services, including whether cloud computing constitutes “outsourcing”. It analyses the contentious issue of contractual audit rights for regulators as well as legal and practical issues around risk assessments, security, business continuity, concentration risk, bank resolution, and banking secrecy laws.Part 3 looks at the key contractual issues that arise between banks and cloud service providers, including data protection requirements, termination, service changes, and liability.All three parts of the paper can be accessed via Computer Law and Security Review's page on ScienceDirect at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02673649?sdc=2. The full list of sources is available via the same link and will be printed alongside the third part of the article.     

To share is fair: The changing face of China's fair use doctrine in the sharing economy and beyond

Copyrighted works are greatly entwined with the concept of the sharing economy because of their status as informational public goods. Unlike commercial sharing models that address tangible goods such as bikes and houses, the sharing of which is limited by their physical nature, sharing models for intangible copyrighted works such as Google Books and live game webcasting must account for the comparatively unfettered ability for these to be shared. Accordingly, these models are more focused on exploiting such works to their full commercial potential. However, these sharing models are to a large extent based on the unauthorised exploitation of copyrighted works and will be unworkable if the related copyright issues cannot be solved. The interest that copyright owners have in exclusivity must thus be balanced with the public's interest in further exploitation of copyrighted works. Article 22 of the Copyright Law of China outlines an exhaustive list of copyright exceptions; such a restrictive list is incompatible with the sharing economy. The Chinese courts have realised this problem and have gone beyond the law in their judgments, taking a cue from their US counterparts. However, many of these decisions appear to be inconsistent with one another.To address the aforementioned problems, this paper examines the latest proposed amendment to the Copyright Law of China and proposes several legislative and judicial actions that could help promote the sharing economy. At the legislative level, enacting legislation based on a refined open-ended fair use model is necessary to promote the development of the sharing economy. At the judicial level, Chinese courts should employ the concept of transformative use to correctly interpret legislation based on the proposed open-ended model. With transformative use as the cornerstone of copyright policy, the public gains the freedom to share others’ works, participate in the innovation process, and create works with new value. Moreover, authors would retain an incentive to create works under such a legal regime because market substitution will not occur if a work is used for a different expressive purpose than that for which the work was originally created. Thus, a balance can be achieved between promoting the sharing economy and protecting the exclusivity of copyright in China.     

Part II of David Bainbridge's study of the copyright (computer software) amendment act 1985

The considerable amount of piracy of computer programs which has taken place recently has shaken the software industry's confidence in legal methods of protecting their products. If nothing more, the new Act should restore some of this confidence, but the industry must be prepared to take the legal measures now available. The stronger criminal sanctions provided for by section 3 of the Act emphasise the criminality of software piracy and it is hoped that the police will also begin to take software theft seriously. But there are some grey areas in copyright law as amended by the new Act; the precise scope of ‘material form’ and ‘adaptation’ are unclear - will the making of a duplicate of a program stored on magnetic cassette tape infringe copyright? A wide definition of ‘material form’ could have put protection beyond doubt whilst allowing for future developments in computer storage media. The new Act is seen as an interim measure pending a comprehensive review of copyright law (per Lord) Lucas of Chilworth, Hansard House of Lords, 10 May 1985 p. 873; he said that the Government hoped to bring forward a comprehensive Copyright Bill no later than the 1986/7 session). Furthermore, the whole area of computer storage of more traditional works of copyright such as literary and musical works, is not specifically mentioned in the new Act. Other questions such as the ownership of works including computer programs produced by or with the aid of a programmed grammed computer (first identified as being a likely problem as early as 1977 by the Whitford Committee) are not dealt with all by the Act. Lord Macmilland of Ovenden recently called for new legislation to deal with the copyright problems caused by new technology (The Times 18th September 1985 p.3), and it is hoped that full consideration will be given to the effect of computers on all forms of intellectual property when copyright law is rationalised and re-codified.     

Is linking communicating?

File-sharing sites such as the Pirate Bay which provide an index of searchable bit torrent files or some type of list or catalogue of links to massively copyright infringing content (whether for streaming or downloading) have raised the question whether the providers of these links are infringing the “communication to the public” right. In these cases there are two potential infringers 1) the person who has uploaded the work without the authorisation of the copyright owner (and the uploading is likely to infringe the reproduction right) and 2) the person who sets the link to the uploaded work. This article is concerned with the liability of the person setting the link.     

Proving liability for highly and fully automated vehicle accidents in Australia

This article considers how liability questions will be resolved under current Australian laws for automated vehicle (‘AV’) accidents. In terms of the parties that are likely to be held responsible, I argue that whether the human driver remains liable depends on the degree to which the relevant AV is automated, and the degree of control the human driver had over the events leading up to the particular accident. Assuming therefore that human drivers would not be held liable for the majority of highly and fully automated vehicle accidents, plaintiffs will have to establish liability on part of those who manufacture, maintain or contribute to the operation of AVs, under the claims available in Australia's product liability regime.This article then turns to the problems of proof that plaintiffs are likely to face in establishing AV manufacturer liability in negligence, or in a defective goods claim under Part 3–5 of the Australian Consumer Law (‘ACL’). Firstly, it may be difficult to determine the cause of the AV accident, due to the technical complexity of AVs and due to ongoing concerns as to the explainability of AI-decision making. Secondly, plaintiffs may struggle to prove fault in a negligence claim, or that the vehicle was defective for the purposes of Part 3–5 of the ACL. Essentially, under both actions, manufacturers will be held to a duty to undertake reasonable testing of their AVs. Given that it is currently impracticable to completely test for, and eliminate all AV errors, and due to the broader social utility the technology is likely to offer, plaintiffs may face evidentiary challenges in proving that the manufacturer's testing was unreasonable.     

版权法上的公共领域研究

公共领域是版权法的核心,它是保证作者得以有效运用各种创作素材从而使版权的其余部分得以良好运转的工具。公共领域具有开放性、有主性、不可撤销性和程序性等特征,它以保证作者的创作为前提,但却最终以自身的不断扩大和人类社会的文化繁衍为依归。公共领域在版权法上的生成既是历史的,更是逻辑的,没有公共领域的被承认,也就没有版权的正当性可言,因此公共领域和版权实际上是一同诞生的。公共领域不仅是一种制度存在物,它更是一种思想倾向和方法论,公共领域对版权具有评价和检视功能,它既是版权运行的重要前提,更是控制版权扩张和实现版权目的的重要手段。     

Jurisprudential Foundation of the Alogithmic Enforcement and Regulation of Law in an Intelligent Society: Taking the Automated Copyright Infringement Monitoring of the Online Content Sharing Platform as an Example

As cyber-space has become increasingly important for human activities, and intelligent algorithms are widely used in cyber-space, we are rapidly entering an intelligent society. Now, algorithmic enforcement and regulations of law have posed non-negligible issues. As algorithmic enforcement of copyright law was introduced earlier than that of other laws, it provides a helpful observation perspective. The worldwide practice of copyright enforcement has gradually departed from traditional “safe harbor provisions, ” and has emphasized prior examination of shared contents uploaded by Internet service providers’ (ISPs) users through the following three dimensions: automated infringement detection algorithms voluntarily used by the ISPs, heavier judicial liability of ISPs, and updated legislation principles. Thus, innovations and development have stimulated new mechanisms and regulations for enforcing copyright in cyberspace. Algorithmic enforcement of copyright law in an intelligent society is essential and meaningful. The copyright regulation mechanisms should be guided by jurisprudential principles and concepts featuring the principles of (a) legitimate and efficient flow of information, (b) balance between and among algorithmic power, public power and private rights, (c) boosting the sharing economy and the new gig economy, and (d) promoting social governance philosophy of “coconstruction, co-governance and sharing.” These principles are meaningful for creation of a new mechanism for balancing interests between ISPs and their users, and for introducing the pluralistic co-governance mechanism beyond simply practicing “filtering obligations.” In addition, these principles are significant for improving a certification with credibility of copyright status and ownership, and for advancing a mechanism for online collegiate-panel dispute resolution.     

“枪手代笔”的著作权问题与消费者利益保护

"枪手代笔"行为是否合法,关键看署名权的转移是否合法。实践中,当事方通常借助三种途径实现署名方式的转移:转让著作权、委托创作作品中的约定和署名权的行使。围绕着这三种行为的合法性,存在两种不同的观点:意思自治视角坚持可自由转移的立场,公共利益视角则反对这种转移。实际上,意思自治原则与公共利益理念结合起来才能够客观评判"枪手代笔"的合法性。更为重要的是,文化消费者的利益应该受到重视。署名权的转让、约定和行使,影响到文化消费者的知情权、选择权和公平交易权。为保障文化消费者的利益,建议著作权法规范署名方式,打击有损公共利益和消费者利益的"枪手代笔"行为。     

形象权转换性使用规则研究

未经许可借用他人形象制作虚拟人物角色和动漫表情包的现象越来越普遍,应该完全保护个人的肖像权还是为公众自由创作虚拟人物形象和表情包留出空间值得思考。形象权制度下的一系列判例借用版权合理使用制度中的转换性使用规则平衡形象权保护和公众的表达自由,能为如何平衡个人的肖像保护和公众的参与创作和表达带来借鉴。本文通过分析转换性使用规则在形象权案例中的运用,提出应调整转换性使用规则以增强适用该规则判定形象权案例的稳定性。