Considering Fair Use: DMCA’s Take Down & Repeat Infringers Policies

Courts have recently clarified some aspects of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act safe harbor system, yet other aspects remain hazy. In this haze, ISPs are incentivized to over-block content, and copyright holders are allowed to give a narrow, subjective reading of a user’s fair use. Subjectively, copyright holders can, in good faith, hold objectively unreasonable views about fair use. The asymmetry between copyright holders’ rights and remedies and users’ rights and remedies threatens socially valuable speech and creates a chilling effect. And the risk of extra-judicial termination of Internet access under a vague and variable repeat infringers policies threatens fundamental First Amendment interests. Policy changes are proposed to harness fair use considerations to protect First Amendment interests in the digital sphere. The calculus and consequence for sending takedown notices should be recalibrated. By curbing copyright overreach and minimizing the chilling effect, the potential for robust exchanges over new communication technologies can be realized.     

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。     

An analysis of the fundamental tensions between copyright and social media: the legal implications of sharing images on Instagram

ABSTRACT

Copyright is inherently intertwined with the development of technology and none more so than the advent of the Internet and sharing technologies. More recently, social media platforms have become the latest challenge for copyright law and policy. This article builds on the literature that recognises the underlying conflict between copyright and social networking sites (SNSs); namely that the basic implication of copyright is the restriction of copying, whereas the ethos of social networking is the promotion of sharing. In particular, this article focuses on the disparity between the restricted acts of copying and communication to the public under copyright law and the encouragement of sharing on SNS Instagram. In doing so, it contextualises the debate surrounding copyright and social media and provides an understanding of the legal implications of using Instagram. As such this paper analyses (1) the infringement of copyright protected work on Instagram, and (2) the user-agreement and licensing of copyright material on Instagram. This study concludes that the disparity between the principles of copyright and social media lead to confusion and vulnerability of users. Therefore, it is suggested that Instagram should better inform its users of the implications of sharing third-party content as well as the terms of its user agreement. This could be done by implementing a copyright strategy, which includes a notice and takedown system as well as investing in producing educational content for users. Perhaps SNSs, such as Instagram might be more motivated to take steps to recognise intellectual property rights if they were considered Internet Services Provides such as YouTube.     

论著作权法的重要修改与积极影响

经过十年的努力和打磨,《著作权法》第三次修订工作终于尘埃落定。新修订的《著作权法》于2020年11月11日获得通过,并将于2021年6月1日起实施,其内容有重大革新,可谓十年磨一剑。新修订的《著作权法》充实和扩张了著作权的权利客体,赋予了作品以法律定义,承认了视听作品的概念,规定了作品的开放兜底条款,完善了作品排除规则,扩张了广播权的内容与范围;革新和完善了著作权归属和利用规则,新增了演员职务表演权利归属规则,革新了合作作品权利授权和行使规则,作品登记制度正式入法;强化了著作权保护制度和侵权损害赔偿制度,将实际损失与侵权获利并列为第一位的损害赔偿确定方式,确立了基于著作权使用费标准的损害赔偿方式,大幅提高了法定损害赔偿标准,明定了著作权侵权惩罚性赔偿制度。以上多处重要修改和迭代革新,必将对我国经济社会产生积极而重大的影响。     

Fair use and copyright protection: a price theory explanation

Copyright scholars suggest that computer technology has reduced transaction costs associated with copyright transfer, allegedly eliminating the need for the fair-use doctrines that were developed to allow limited use of copyrighted material in situations where the transaction costs of securing authorized use would be prohibitive. According to this emerging view, in an ideal world with no contracting costs, third party use of copyrighted material could realistically only take place with the express consent of the copyright holder. This would give the author absolute power to dispose of his work, including the right to veto uses, without the possibility of a fair use “override” of any sort.This paper shows the limits of such transaction cost-based arguments. If transaction costs provide the dominant economic justification of “fair-use” doctrines, an exogenous reduction of such transaction costs would limit the scope and application of the defense of fair use. Nevertheless, in this paper we suggest that, when viewed in light of the anticommons theory, fair-use doctrines retain a valid efficiency justification even in a zero transaction-cost environment. Fair-use defenses are justifiable, and in fact instrumental, in minimizing the welfare losses prompted by the strategic behavior of the copyright holders. Even if copyright licenses can be transferred at no cost (for instance, in a “click and pay” frictionless computer world), the strategic behavior of the copyright holders would still create possible deadweight losses.In this context, we identify a number of critical variables that should guide and constrain the application of fair-use doctrines. These variables include (a) the number of copyright holders; (b) the degree of complementarity between the copyrighted inputs; (c) the degree of independence between the various copyright holders in the pricing of their licenses; and (d) ability to price discriminate.     

欧盟版权指令第15条之评价与反思:以超链接规制为视角

欧盟现有法律对于超链接的侵权管制过于严格,这种做法没有平衡公共利益和著作权人的利益,造成了对著作权的过度保护.虽然最终通过的《数字化单一市场著作权指令》第15条规定新闻出版媒体的邻接权规则不适用于超链接行为,但是这并未从根本上解决对超链接的著作权规制过严问题.为了促进互联网上信息的自由流通以及用户的表达自由,法官应当对超链接提供者与网络平台的侵权责任进行区分,并且仅在超链接导致侵权结果时对链接提供者进行追责.     

Plays,Performances and Power Struggles – Examining Copyright's ‘Integrity’ in the Field of Theatre

This article explores the notion of ‘integrity’ under copyright law by analysing examples of 'integrity‐based objections' in the field of theatre. These objections typically involve playwrights objecting to changes being made to their copyright works by other parties, such as directors and actors. This analysis is deepened by the use of two concepts from the field of art theory – ‘aura’, as put forward by Walter Benjamin, and ‘trajectory’, as outlined by Bruno Latour and Adam Lowe. Finally, to shed further light on the issues raised, the work of Pierre Bourdieu is used to present new empirical research recently undertaken by the author in the field of UK theatre. This research demonstrates that ‘power struggles’ are a common feature of theatrical collaboration; that copyright is deeply implicated in the way such power struggles are conceived; and moreover, that resolving these power struggles successfully – including taking account of ‘integrity‐based objections’ – is crucial to theatrical practice.     

All talk and no bite: Copyright infringement and piracy trends in India

The Copyright Act 1957 presents the face of modern copyright protection afforded to different intellectual works and is a key statement of intellectual property rights (IPR) in the Indian legislation governing this domain, as well as being compliant to the TRIPS Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. This Act has been acceptably referred to on many occasions on global platforms, on account of its being one of the most elaborate and well-structured pieces of legislation in the field of intellectual property law. However, this well encompassing, highly creditable and widely acknowledged legislation seems to fall down in its practical implementation rendering its theoretical purpose partly futile. The situation so stands, that India continues to project major piracy rates with little regression in the trend despite the fact that this law is still very much in force. The reasons which deny effective copyright protection in India, for works of miscellaneous categories, have much to do with the lack of an equally strong enforcement mechanism. This paper provides an insight into the inadequacies of the Indian legal and administrative systems which have ultimately diminished the effectiveness of the copyright regime contrary to that envisioned by the law.     

Software-as-a-service – Legal nature: Shifting the existing paradigm of copyright law

Today's business environment is no longer defined exclusively by bricks and mortar. Business models of software distribution are constantly evolving as new technologies develop. Traditional retail versions of software products are mostly replaced with digital distribution of copies of software products. However, these ways of software distribution are by no means exhaustive. Functionality of software is not necessarily tied with provision of the copy of the relevant program to the user. Instead he can receive access to it via the Internet without the need to install software onto his computer. This type of business model received the name “Software-as-a-Service” (SaaS) or, sometimes “Cloud Computing”. The legal nature of relations arising between the user and provider of distant access to such software is subject to considerable debate in Russia. The main problem is that at first glance it resembles the features of various types of contracts, recognized in the Civil Code of Russia, although not falling completely within any of them. At the same time the type of agreement chosen by the parties defines the legal framework, which governs relevant relations and relevant tax consequences. This article aims to analyze the nature of existing relations between the user and SaaS-provider and to define whether it can be characterized as a license, service, lease or some kind of sui generis contract. Based on the analysis the author comes to a conclusion that as delivery of copies of software becomes less and less relevant for the software industry, due to the new business models implemented by vendors, the rights to use the particular copy of software around which the traditional copyright regime has been built, become more and more superseded with the right to access such software. Thus traditional contractual models developed for IP distribution (license agreements, assignment agreements) and, more generally, the legal framework of existing copyright law that is centered on the core idea of the “use” of the copy, are no longer adequate regulators in the digital era where remote access to objects of copyright will soon start to dominate.     

The flip side of ISP’s liability regimes: The ambiguous protection of fundamental rights and liberties in private digital spaces

Since the inception of the Internet, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have been used to segment cyberspace and make it possible for national states to apply their local laws to conduct having effects within their borders. This is true in particular in the realm of intellectual property. When one looks at the national regulatory regimes supposedly framing the behavior of ISPs, there appear to be more similarities than differences at a first glance. Does this mean that the national or regional legal frameworks regulating the behavior of ISPs, which are increasingly considered to be the sword of public authorities, should be identical in all legal systems? Is it not true that the content of these national or regional legal frameworks regulating the behavior of ISPs should partly depend upon the local trade-offs among conflicting fundamental rights and liberties? Indeed, private power can jeopardize the exercise and the very core of individuals’ prerogatives as much as public power and priorities vary from one legal system to another. This paper therefore seeks to highlight the dependence of national regulatory modes framing the conduct of ISPs upon the strength of certain fundamental rights and liberties. More precisely, while the first part aims to explore the influence of certain fundamental rights and liberties upon the regulatory modes set up by national legislators, and in particular free speech, from the perspective of the user-to-user relationship, the second part of this article is devoted to the protection of these fundamental rights and liberties from the perspective of the intermediary-to-user relationship. It shows that at least within two legal systems the dependence described initially is in reality altered by the prevalence of the intermediary’s interests, even if the latter are in part affected by a recent trend towards more state interventionism. As a result, national solutions appear to be less innovative than foreseen.     

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.     

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998: A Proposed Amendment to Accommodate Free Speech

Title II of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 limits liability for copyright infringement for online service providers if they remove from their services material posted by users that copyright holders allege infringes on their rights. This article argues that the Title provides too much incentive to OSPs to remove the material, creating an imbalance in the "fair-use" tradition of copyright law and threatening freedom of speech. The article suggests that the law be amended to require that copyright holders prove infringement before OSPs are made liable for infringement.     

An evolutionary step in intellectual property rights – Artificial intelligence and intellectual property

This article addresses and analyses the issues concerning the ownership of computer generated works within patents and copyright, and concludes that the current regime is woefully inadequate to deal with the growing use of more and more intuitive artificial intelligence systems in the production of such works. It considers the respective claims of interested parties to such rights before moving on to a consideration of the creation of a new legal personality to which such rights could be granted to resolve the difficulties inherent in the current system.     

意思自治、交易秩序与利益平衡——南怀瑾作品著作权纠纷上诉案评析

知识产权案件的裁判,应当体现意思自治的民法基本原则、稳定交易秩序的司法导向、平衡相关方利益的价值取向。对于行为人的真实意思,应当通过行为外观探求其内心真意。著作权许可使用合同的法律性质应综合合同条款文义、著作权人之行为、代理人之权限、出版合同及其履约过程进行判断。对于代理人在著作权人授权范围之内签署的许可使用合同,其法律后果应直接归属于作为被代理人的著作权人,而不应认定为转委托。著作权人死亡后,在对其作品著作财产权归属发生争议的情况下,被许可人暂缓支付著作权许可使用费,不存在拒不支付之主观过错,因此不应认定其构成侵权。对于权利人通过合同关系行使处分权已经构建的稳定交易结构及交易秩序,应予以尊重。     

Copyright and live streaming of sports broadcasting

The inception of live streaming technology has rapidly changed the way in which sporting events are transmitted. The unauthorised retransmission of live sports telecasts over the Internet has become one of the main concerns in sports media, where broadcasters have lost billions of dollars’ worth of sports broadcasting contracts and sponsorship deals. The scale of this problem has caused serious harm, both to sports rights-holders and to broadcasters. Legislative reforms are required in order to balance the public’s ever-increasing desire for convenient ways to view digital materials against the legal rights of the owners of the material, while also aiming to maintain a forward-looking perspective in an attempt to foresee potential technological advancements that may pose considerable challenges to the traditional copyright law. This article analyses how the concept of live streaming of live sports has changed the legal landscape.     

'Dedicating' Copyright to the Public Domain

This article explores whether authors can dedicate their copyright to the public domain. Such dedications are becoming increasingly relevant as authors now see the expansion of the public domain as value in itself. This is facilitated by organisations providing pro forma documents for dedicating works to the public domain. However, there has been no real consideration of what, if any, legal effect a dedication to the public might have. This article suggests that such dedications are no more than copyright licences which, in English and US law at least, can be revoked at will. This means that users of such works must rely on estoppel alone to enforce any dedication to the public domain.     

Entry Bar as Surreptitious Deportation? Zapret na v'ezd in Russian Immigration Law and Practice: A Comparative Perspective

Since 2013, a three‐year entry bar (zapret na v'ezd) has been issued in Russia to migrants with a record of two or more administrative offenses. This article examines the sociolegal characteristics of zapret na v'ezd by situating it in a global, comparative perspective, vis‐à‐vis the legal developments in the areas of deportation and removal in the United States and the United Kingdom. This article argues that the Russian entry bar law experienced a shift, established by other migration‐receiving jurisdictions, from controlling the migration process to controlling the social conduct of migrants, toward an increased reliance on deportability as a form of post‐entry control of the migrant population. At a broader level, I aim to shed more light on the migration governance processes in Russia—the third largest destination of migrants worldwide—by moving away from the intellectually dead‐end explanations that consider Russia as a deviant exception.     

Russian PNR system: Data protection issues and global prospects

The usage of Passenger Name Record (PNR) for security purposes is growing worldwide. At least six countries have PNR systems; over thirty are planning to introduce them. On 1 December 2013, a Russian PNR system will be implemented. But enhanced collection of personal data leads to increased surveillance and privacy concerns. Russian authorities state that passengers' rights will be respected, but a closer look at the Russian regime reveals a number of critical points. From a global perspective, the Russian regime is only one of many PNR systems, including new ones to come in the future. Apparently, for the majority of them, similar challenges and problems will apply. At the same time, for the EU, with its strict data protection requirements, PNR requests by third countries (i.e. non-EU countries) create conflicts of laws. In order to resolve them, the EU concludes bilateral PNR agreements. However, the current deals, especially the one between the EU and the USA, involve a number of weaknesses. Accepting the latter, and having a pending proposal on the EU PNR system, the EU has weakened its position in negotiations with third countries. How will the EU deal with the Russian as well as with all the future requests for PNR? This paper provides legal analysis of the Russian PNR regime, pointing out common problems and giving prognosis on the global situation.     

侵害境外作品著作权纠纷案件中权属的认定——《托马斯&朋友》音像制品著作权纠纷案评析

著作权权属的认定是人民法院审理著作权纠纷案件的逻辑起点,也是人民法院判决的重要依据。原告的举证充分与否对权属的认定起着决定性作用。《最高人民法院关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》对域外证据的形式要件作出了明确规定,当原告所举之证不能满足域外证据的形式要件时,人民法院是严格地以此为由驳回原告诉讼请求,还是结合其他证据综合认定著作权权利归属;行政审批材料能否成为进口音像制品权属认定中的直接证据;如何评价非法出版物销售商的销售行为,这些问题都涉及法官对不同法益与法律价值之间的平衡与取舍,对当事人的权利、义务合理性配置具有指导意义。     

What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine too: Converging U.S. intellectual property exhaustion doctrines

With the increasing dispersion of intellectual property comes the intellectual property rights owner's continued desire to retain that part of the equation for which the bargain was struck. In terms of patents, the patentee strikes a deal to disclose the invention to the public in exchange for a monopoly over its use for a limited term. Copyright holders contribute their works to the intellectual pool receiving value by sale, lease or license. In 2012–13, the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with delineating the realms of two intellectual property exhaustion doctrines and answering the question of where to draw the line with regard to an IP owner's ability to control the protected invention or work via patent or copyright, respectively. In one case, the Court permitted the intellectual property owner to restrict a subsequent purchaser's use of the product subject to protection, while in the other case the Court rejected the intellectual property owner's attempt to control the downstream use or resale of the product. This article discusses the relevant intellectual property exhaustion doctrines, analyzes and reconciles the Court's decisions in these cases, and provides guidance for navigating restrictions on use of U.S. protected products and works around the globe.