Wednesday, December 03, 2003
[FINAL PROJECT]
Title: International Jurisdiction over the Internet and Free Speech
Abstract:
The “borderless” nature of Internet communication makes the Internet the first truly international medium of communication, and, at the same time, the first truly troublesome medium of communication in terms of regulating speech across nations and jurisdictions. As various cases related to international jurisdiction on the Internet illustrate, this borderless nature of the Internet inevitably causes new and aggravated spillover effects among nations and exposes each nation to possible encroachments of sovereignty in the process of choosing and enforcing its public policy, while presenting the international community with potential discords and cultural tensions. This essay reviews the issue of international jurisdiction over the Internet and free speech. It first provides background on this issue by examining briefly several cases in which the issue of international jurisdiction over the Internet complicated matters and free speech were at stake. Next, it reviews scholarly discussions related to the issue and provides a critical analysis of the relevant literature.
Then, the essay argues that a careful examination of International jurisdiction over the Internet is a good starting point to create a networked environment that respects the rights of sovereign nations while promoting the unique nature of the Internet as a truly international medium. The exploration of the issue of personal jurisdiction throughout offline and online cases in the United States leads a judgment that the effects test can be an appropriate legal framework of international jurisdiction over the Internet when free speech is at stake. This essay concludes that the effects test mandates courts to examine whether foreign defendants engaged in intentional wrongs that they expressly aimed at and caused harm in the forum state. This requirement can guide courts, in cases related to international disputes over the Internet, to inquire the language used in Web sites and the substantial number of foreign audiences reached to measure the intent to cause harm and the extent of harmful effects.
Title: International Jurisdiction over the Internet and Free Speech
Abstract:
The “borderless” nature of Internet communication makes the Internet the first truly international medium of communication, and, at the same time, the first truly troublesome medium of communication in terms of regulating speech across nations and jurisdictions. As various cases related to international jurisdiction on the Internet illustrate, this borderless nature of the Internet inevitably causes new and aggravated spillover effects among nations and exposes each nation to possible encroachments of sovereignty in the process of choosing and enforcing its public policy, while presenting the international community with potential discords and cultural tensions. This essay reviews the issue of international jurisdiction over the Internet and free speech. It first provides background on this issue by examining briefly several cases in which the issue of international jurisdiction over the Internet complicated matters and free speech were at stake. Next, it reviews scholarly discussions related to the issue and provides a critical analysis of the relevant literature.
Then, the essay argues that a careful examination of International jurisdiction over the Internet is a good starting point to create a networked environment that respects the rights of sovereign nations while promoting the unique nature of the Internet as a truly international medium. The exploration of the issue of personal jurisdiction throughout offline and online cases in the United States leads a judgment that the effects test can be an appropriate legal framework of international jurisdiction over the Internet when free speech is at stake. This essay concludes that the effects test mandates courts to examine whether foreign defendants engaged in intentional wrongs that they expressly aimed at and caused harm in the forum state. This requirement can guide courts, in cases related to international disputes over the Internet, to inquire the language used in Web sites and the substantial number of foreign audiences reached to measure the intent to cause harm and the extent of harmful effects.
Monday, November 10, 2003
Treaty casts shadow on Webcast rights By Declan McCullagh
A United Nations committee on Wednesday approved the world's first
Webcasting treaty, which has drawn criticism that it limits the use of
works that are in the public domain.
A United Nations committee on Wednesday approved the world's first
Webcasting treaty, which has drawn criticism that it limits the use of
works that are in the public domain.
Saturday, November 08, 2003
[EOTO Project II-Responses to Other Projects]
[Response 1] “Digitization of Printed, Published or Written Materials” by Cynthia
I enjoyed reading Cynthia’s project a lot. Her introduction was insightful in that she sensed the potential of digitization as a tool providing resources to distance students. The rest part of her project was quite resourceful. I could familiarize myself with some of major digitization projects and problems associated with them.
As Cynthia suggested, copyright issue in digitized materials is problematic. I want to address the copyright issue in terms of the access control by copyright holders to the materials and its impact on libraries since Cynthia was especially interested in digitization as a tool providing resources to distance students. Laura N. Gasaway who is the director of the law library and professor of law at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill wrote a great article on the issue: The New Access Right and Its Impact on Libraries and Library Users (published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Law, Spring, 2003). She posits that digital materials will NOT be freely available in libraries. Before the digitalization of materials, “libraries acquired copyrighted books and materials and have traditionally made them available to library users” Once copyrighted materials are purchased by a library, the library is free to lend its copies of copyrighted materials to library users “without seeking permission or paying fees to the copyright holder.” This is called “first sale doctrine.” With the digitalization, however, this first sale doctrine does not seem to work as it used to. Professor Gasaway explains:
Access controls have the potential to disrupt traditional library service by converting access to materials to a pay-for-use system regardless of the purpose of the user who is accessing the work. Although libraries could fund access for all of its patrons, the reality of library budgets makes this highly unlikely. Thus, individual library users are likely to have to pay for their access or for various levels of access which will create a world of information haves and have nots. Additionally, access controls could eliminate the first sale doctrine, although it is arguable that the first sale doctrine may be meaningless, in any event, in a pay-for-use world.
It is ironical that digitalization of printed, published or written materials which seem promising in ensuring greater access to the materials to distance students may result in restricting access and widening the gap between information haves and have nots.
For the definition of “access right” see http://www.atis.org/tg2k/_access_right.html.
Jane C. Ginsburg’s article, From Having Copies to Experiencing Works: the Development of an Access Right in U.S. Copyright Law, Columbia Law School Public Law & Legal Theory Working Paper Group, Paper Number 8, 7 (2000), is another good article to look at.
[Response 2] “Terrorism and the Internet” by Wolfgang
Wolfgang’s topic casts highly interesting questions: How would terrorists use the Internet?; What are new kinds of terrorism which became available through the Internet?; and, after all, what should we do about it? Addressing these questions, Wolfgang provided a lot of useful online resources. Good job, Wolfgang! However, what made me confused about his project is that he did not really define what he meant by “terrorism.” By reading his introduction and concerns, I got the feeling that he used the term, “terrorism,” broadly covering all sorts of cyber-crime. One can certainly argue that all Internet security issues are related to terrorism on the Internet. But, I wished he could have narrowed down the topic and address problems with terrorism, which generally defined as “the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.” (from Merriam-Webster OnLine Dictionary)
And I concur with him in his third concern that “too much activism against potential Internet terrorism interferes with the freedom of expression.” Declan McCullagh's Politech provides good resources –recent updates and comments on them—on the issues of government censorship over “potentially dangerous” Web sites.
[Response 3] “Digital Divide” by Woojung
What I like about Woojung’s “digital divide” project is that she brought a broader perspective on the digital divide issue by conceptualizing it in terms of socio-political or economic disparities. I often wonder whether the “digital divide” is a really new thing caused by the new technology: A society itself has been divided into haves and have-nots and digital divide is just another example of the divisions.
Considering that Woojung is a PR major, I think it would be a fascinating research paper (or even mater’s thesis) if she explores how mass media, government, and NGOs have portrayed the digital divide issue. As Jeffrey R. Young suggested (see Woojung’s fifth Web source), discussions of the digital divide have focused on demographic data indicating that African Americans, for example, are less likely to be connected to the Internet than White Americans. And those discussions, seemingly benign, might imply that African Americans are lagging because they lack the desire to adopt new technologies on their own. If people who have been trying to “bridge” the gap have identified the gap as an isolated thing, without considering other factors associated with it, in their PR activities, we can cast some serious doubts whether these practices would really have had the positive impact on the bridging efforts.
Discussion of the digital divide at the global level was also interesting. One of initiatives aiming to bridge the digital divide that I found is INET 2000, annual International Networking (INET) conference hosted by the Internet Society. The Internet Society is a global clearinghouse for Internet information and education. It also facilitates Internet-related initiatives around the world. Its 2000 conference was devoted to “Global Distributed Intelligence for Everyone” and the Internet global summit was held in Yokohama, Japan attended by delegates from 150 countries. (See Rao, Madanmohan. "1,000 Ways to Close the Digital Divide," Inter Press service, Aug 18, 2000)
[Response 4] “SPAM” by Sandy
Sandy did a fine job on her SPAM project. (I am also impressed with the design of her blog). She first identified problems with SPAM (SurfControl’s white paper on the New Face of Spam was an especially interesting report) and then provides regulatory efforts in the United States as well as in other nations. It seems that many governments agree that they have to take initiatives regulating SPAM. I found some resources related to those initiatives in North Carolina and in South Korea.
Ronald P. Flynn provides “state-by-state index to SPAM laws” in his resourceful article, “SPAM: LITIGATION AND LEGISLATION AIMED AT DECREASING UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL E-MAIL MESSAGES,” which was published in Patents, Copyrights, Trademarks, and Literary Property Course Handbook Series by the Practising Law Institute in June, 2003. Also, "Alphabetical List of State Statutes dealing with Unsolicited Commercial Email" is available at the Internet.
The followings are, among others, North Carolina SPAM laws:
1. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-453(10) (2003): The statute addresses unsolicited commercial electronic mail. "Unsolicited" means not addressed to a recipient with whom the initiator has an existing business or personal relationship and not sent at the request of, or with the express consent of, the recipient.
2. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-458(a)(6) (2003): False and misleading prohibitions: Prohibits falsifying the sender's identity or other information with the intent to deceive or defraud the recipient in connection with unsolicited bulk commercial electronic mail.
3. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-458(b) (2003): Subjects violators to criminal penalties.
4. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-458(b) (2003): Creates a private cause of action and allows any person injured by violation of the section to recover damages sustained and costs of the suit.
Also, here are two news stories related to anti-spam legislation in South Korea.
1. http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/SITE/data/html_dir/2003/10/13/200310130077.asp
: Korea's Ministry of Information and Communication is considering new anti-spam rules that would require commercial organizations sending spam to place the "@"symbol in the subject line. Spammers who violate the proposed rule would face up to two years in jail or a fine
of 10 million won.
2. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/20/1066502122751.html
: Australia and South Korea have signed a memorandum of understanding designed to promote the regulation of spam. The purpose of the deal is to encourage cooperation between
agencies in both countries to minimize spam.
Finally, Joshua A. Marcus’ article, COMMERCIAL SPEECH ON THE INTERNET: SPAM AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT, suggests that SPAM regulation would be constitutional under the four part Central Hudson test.
[Response 5] “File-sharing” by Brittany
Brittany’s project on file sharing was especially interesting to me since my project topic was copyright issues on the Internet, particularly recent RIAA suits against individual users for music file sharing. I specially liked her six web resources in that they provided detail information about file-sharing.
However, I was a little bit confused with her explanation about the Napster case in her introduction. Brittany said:
While the Napster corporation itself was not at fault for distributing copyrighted material, the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) sought to shut down the intricate network as a quick and easy way to stop the swapping of files.
Legally speaking, there are two kinds of copyright infringement: the one is direct infringement; the other is contributory infringement. In other words, a person or a company can be liable for contributory infringement even though it did not directly infringe copyright. What Napster was allegedly responsible and was sued for was contributory infringement. It is true that the RIAA sought to shut down Napster “as a quick and easy way to stop the swapping of files.” However, the legal suit—making Napster itself responsible for engaging in contributory infringement—has far more reaching implications than stopping the swapping of files. For example, David R. Posteraro’s article “What Napster Means for Growth Companies” argues that “the Napster case is not just about free music on the Internet. The implications of the recent Federal appeals court ruling affects anyone doing business on the Internet.” As a similar token, Website provider liability is discussed in an article by Cooley Godward LLP: Website Provider Liability for User Content and Actions. The article discusses legal issues websites encounter when permitting user-generated content.
[Response 1] “Digitization of Printed, Published or Written Materials” by Cynthia
I enjoyed reading Cynthia’s project a lot. Her introduction was insightful in that she sensed the potential of digitization as a tool providing resources to distance students. The rest part of her project was quite resourceful. I could familiarize myself with some of major digitization projects and problems associated with them.
As Cynthia suggested, copyright issue in digitized materials is problematic. I want to address the copyright issue in terms of the access control by copyright holders to the materials and its impact on libraries since Cynthia was especially interested in digitization as a tool providing resources to distance students. Laura N. Gasaway who is the director of the law library and professor of law at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill wrote a great article on the issue: The New Access Right and Its Impact on Libraries and Library Users (published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Law, Spring, 2003). She posits that digital materials will NOT be freely available in libraries. Before the digitalization of materials, “libraries acquired copyrighted books and materials and have traditionally made them available to library users” Once copyrighted materials are purchased by a library, the library is free to lend its copies of copyrighted materials to library users “without seeking permission or paying fees to the copyright holder.” This is called “first sale doctrine.” With the digitalization, however, this first sale doctrine does not seem to work as it used to. Professor Gasaway explains:
Access controls have the potential to disrupt traditional library service by converting access to materials to a pay-for-use system regardless of the purpose of the user who is accessing the work. Although libraries could fund access for all of its patrons, the reality of library budgets makes this highly unlikely. Thus, individual library users are likely to have to pay for their access or for various levels of access which will create a world of information haves and have nots. Additionally, access controls could eliminate the first sale doctrine, although it is arguable that the first sale doctrine may be meaningless, in any event, in a pay-for-use world.
It is ironical that digitalization of printed, published or written materials which seem promising in ensuring greater access to the materials to distance students may result in restricting access and widening the gap between information haves and have nots.
For the definition of “access right” see http://www.atis.org/tg2k/_access_right.html.
Jane C. Ginsburg’s article, From Having Copies to Experiencing Works: the Development of an Access Right in U.S. Copyright Law, Columbia Law School Public Law & Legal Theory Working Paper Group, Paper Number 8, 7 (2000), is another good article to look at.
[Response 2] “Terrorism and the Internet” by Wolfgang
Wolfgang’s topic casts highly interesting questions: How would terrorists use the Internet?; What are new kinds of terrorism which became available through the Internet?; and, after all, what should we do about it? Addressing these questions, Wolfgang provided a lot of useful online resources. Good job, Wolfgang! However, what made me confused about his project is that he did not really define what he meant by “terrorism.” By reading his introduction and concerns, I got the feeling that he used the term, “terrorism,” broadly covering all sorts of cyber-crime. One can certainly argue that all Internet security issues are related to terrorism on the Internet. But, I wished he could have narrowed down the topic and address problems with terrorism, which generally defined as “the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.” (from Merriam-Webster OnLine Dictionary)
And I concur with him in his third concern that “too much activism against potential Internet terrorism interferes with the freedom of expression.” Declan McCullagh's Politech provides good resources –recent updates and comments on them—on the issues of government censorship over “potentially dangerous” Web sites.
[Response 3] “Digital Divide” by Woojung
What I like about Woojung’s “digital divide” project is that she brought a broader perspective on the digital divide issue by conceptualizing it in terms of socio-political or economic disparities. I often wonder whether the “digital divide” is a really new thing caused by the new technology: A society itself has been divided into haves and have-nots and digital divide is just another example of the divisions.
Considering that Woojung is a PR major, I think it would be a fascinating research paper (or even mater’s thesis) if she explores how mass media, government, and NGOs have portrayed the digital divide issue. As Jeffrey R. Young suggested (see Woojung’s fifth Web source), discussions of the digital divide have focused on demographic data indicating that African Americans, for example, are less likely to be connected to the Internet than White Americans. And those discussions, seemingly benign, might imply that African Americans are lagging because they lack the desire to adopt new technologies on their own. If people who have been trying to “bridge” the gap have identified the gap as an isolated thing, without considering other factors associated with it, in their PR activities, we can cast some serious doubts whether these practices would really have had the positive impact on the bridging efforts.
Discussion of the digital divide at the global level was also interesting. One of initiatives aiming to bridge the digital divide that I found is INET 2000, annual International Networking (INET) conference hosted by the Internet Society. The Internet Society is a global clearinghouse for Internet information and education. It also facilitates Internet-related initiatives around the world. Its 2000 conference was devoted to “Global Distributed Intelligence for Everyone” and the Internet global summit was held in Yokohama, Japan attended by delegates from 150 countries. (See Rao, Madanmohan. "1,000 Ways to Close the Digital Divide," Inter Press service, Aug 18, 2000)
[Response 4] “SPAM” by Sandy
Sandy did a fine job on her SPAM project. (I am also impressed with the design of her blog). She first identified problems with SPAM (SurfControl’s white paper on the New Face of Spam was an especially interesting report) and then provides regulatory efforts in the United States as well as in other nations. It seems that many governments agree that they have to take initiatives regulating SPAM. I found some resources related to those initiatives in North Carolina and in South Korea.
Ronald P. Flynn provides “state-by-state index to SPAM laws” in his resourceful article, “SPAM: LITIGATION AND LEGISLATION AIMED AT DECREASING UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL E-MAIL MESSAGES,” which was published in Patents, Copyrights, Trademarks, and Literary Property Course Handbook Series by the Practising Law Institute in June, 2003. Also, "Alphabetical List of State Statutes dealing with Unsolicited Commercial Email" is available at the Internet.
The followings are, among others, North Carolina SPAM laws:
1. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-453(10) (2003): The statute addresses unsolicited commercial electronic mail. "Unsolicited" means not addressed to a recipient with whom the initiator has an existing business or personal relationship and not sent at the request of, or with the express consent of, the recipient.
2. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-458(a)(6) (2003): False and misleading prohibitions: Prohibits falsifying the sender's identity or other information with the intent to deceive or defraud the recipient in connection with unsolicited bulk commercial electronic mail.
3. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-458(b) (2003): Subjects violators to criminal penalties.
4. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-458(b) (2003): Creates a private cause of action and allows any person injured by violation of the section to recover damages sustained and costs of the suit.
Also, here are two news stories related to anti-spam legislation in South Korea.
1. http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/SITE/data/html_dir/2003/10/13/200310130077.asp
: Korea's Ministry of Information and Communication is considering new anti-spam rules that would require commercial organizations sending spam to place the "@"symbol in the subject line. Spammers who violate the proposed rule would face up to two years in jail or a fine
of 10 million won.
2. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/20/1066502122751.html
: Australia and South Korea have signed a memorandum of understanding designed to promote the regulation of spam. The purpose of the deal is to encourage cooperation between
agencies in both countries to minimize spam.
Finally, Joshua A. Marcus’ article, COMMERCIAL SPEECH ON THE INTERNET: SPAM AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT, suggests that SPAM regulation would be constitutional under the four part Central Hudson test.
[Response 5] “File-sharing” by Brittany
Brittany’s project on file sharing was especially interesting to me since my project topic was copyright issues on the Internet, particularly recent RIAA suits against individual users for music file sharing. I specially liked her six web resources in that they provided detail information about file-sharing.
However, I was a little bit confused with her explanation about the Napster case in her introduction. Brittany said:
While the Napster corporation itself was not at fault for distributing copyrighted material, the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) sought to shut down the intricate network as a quick and easy way to stop the swapping of files.
Legally speaking, there are two kinds of copyright infringement: the one is direct infringement; the other is contributory infringement. In other words, a person or a company can be liable for contributory infringement even though it did not directly infringe copyright. What Napster was allegedly responsible and was sued for was contributory infringement. It is true that the RIAA sought to shut down Napster “as a quick and easy way to stop the swapping of files.” However, the legal suit—making Napster itself responsible for engaging in contributory infringement—has far more reaching implications than stopping the swapping of files. For example, David R. Posteraro’s article “What Napster Means for Growth Companies” argues that “the Napster case is not just about free music on the Internet. The implications of the recent Federal appeals court ruling affects anyone doing business on the Internet.” As a similar token, Website provider liability is discussed in an article by Cooley Godward LLP: Website Provider Liability for User Content and Actions. The article discusses legal issues websites encounter when permitting user-generated content.
Friday, November 07, 2003
What's Up? [Copyright--Webcasting--Int'l treaty]
WIPO AGREES TO MOVE FORWARD ON WEBCASTING TREATY
WIPO has agreed to develop a draft treaty on Webcasting by
next spring. The treaty, which was proposed by the Bush
Administration, would seek to extend to Webcasters the same
IP rights enjoyed by TV and radio broadcasters. Critics
fear that the proposed treaty could create additional
protection for works that are in the public domain.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-5103456.html
WIPO AGREES TO MOVE FORWARD ON WEBCASTING TREATY
WIPO has agreed to develop a draft treaty on Webcasting by
next spring. The treaty, which was proposed by the Bush
Administration, would seek to extend to Webcasters the same
IP rights enjoyed by TV and radio broadcasters. Critics
fear that the proposed treaty could create additional
protection for works that are in the public domain.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-5103456.html
Thursday, November 06, 2003
Friday, October 31, 2003
[EOTO Project I-My Project]
Sharing or Stealing?
: Copyright, Digital Technology, and the Internet
Digital technology and the Internet offer a great opportunity to disseminate contents with “almost nothing” reproduction and distribution cost. The same technology and the Internet, however, expose copyright holders to the potential danger of losing their control over copyrighted materials since digital technology and the Internet provides a great opportunity to reproduce unauthorized copies of copyrighted materials and to distribute them with “almost nothing” reproduction and distribution cost while preserving the same quality of original contents.
The potential damage that digital technology and the Internet bring to copyright holders is mainly monetary. In other words, the reproduction and distribution of unauthorized copies of copyrighted materials over the Internet result in undermining financial incentives to engage in original works of authorship. Copyright holders seem to consider this potential damage immediate and present danger, whereas “copyright infringers” may not be aware of the nature and the potential harm of their activities.
Sharing music files over the Internet exemplify the tension between copyright holders and copyright infringers. While copyright holders blame music file-sharing for pirates or stealing, “copyright infringers” often share music files without knowing their activities constitute copyright infringement or without acknowledging wrongs in their activities. The first generation of this tension led the famous Napster case. The Ninth Circuit issued a preliminary injunction against Napster, a centralized service that facilitated the exchange of copyrighted materials. The second generation of this tension is brought by peer-to-peer technology enabling individual users to share music files without the use of a centralized service: now, copyright holders are after the individual users.
Recently, the recording industry in the United States (the RIAA) launched legal suits at a large-scale against individual users for direct copyright infringement. This aggressive approach has some problems. Section 512 (h) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act grants copyright owners the authority to request a court to issue a subpoena on a service provider seeking the identity of a subscriber who is allegedly using the provider’s network to infringe the owner’s copyright. It has been criticized that the RIAA is trying to rely on the section 512 (h) without even filing a complaint against the subscriber. This practice violates due process of the law and infringes privacy of the subscriber.
Five biggest Fears
1. Copyright infringements happen at a large-scale worldwide through the Internet.
2. Confronting the present situation, copyright holders consider the Internet copyright “hell” whereas individual users consider the Internet copyright “heaven.”
3. The gap in understanding between copyright holders and copyright infringers impede cooperation to find sensible and reasonable solutions.
4. Aggressive legal suits launched by the RIAA may infringe individuals’ constitutional rights in the expedited legal process.
5. Legislation such as the DMCA and the Copyright Term Extension Act) and courts may overprotect the rights of copyright holders.
Six Web Resources
1. “Copyright” law section from findlaw.com
Findlaw.com is an extensive Web resource for cases, legal news, legal bulletin boards and legal help. Its library section provides enormous articles categorized by subject matter of the law. The copyright law section enables users to access over 100 legal articles regarding copyright law and recent articles at the site discusses copyright law in the digital age. This is one of the best Web sources which will make you to be familiar with copyright law.
2. Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)
Whether you loathe the position of RIAA or agree with it, it is worthwhile to know what the RIAA has to say and what the RIAA has to do. “Research and data” section presents facts and figures about the current state of copyright infringement. Be aware that the figures presented in the reports are not neutral numbers but figures claimed by the industry.
3. Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
After hearing what the RIAA has to say, it is only fair to listen to what the EFF has to say. “File-sharing” can be reached from a list of hot topics on the right menu bar. The EFF argues that the RIAA lawsuits “make criminals out of music lovers.” Find out how that happens. You can also sign a petition to congress at the Web site.
4. Creative Commons
Creative Commons, founded in 2001, is one of alternatives which provides fresh ideas and new ways to protection copyright. The mission and activities of Creative Commons are explained in “About Us”:
"Too often the debate over creative control tends to the extremes. At one pole is a vision of total control — a world in which every last use of a work is regulated and in which 'all rights reserved' (and then some) is the norm. At the other end is a vision of anarchy — a world in which creators enjoy a wide range of freedom but are left vulnerable to exploitation. Balance, compromise, and moderation — once the driving forces of a copyright system that valued innovation and protection equally — have become endangered species.
Creative Commons is working to revive them. We use private rights to create public goods: creative works set free for certain uses. Like the free software and open-source movements, our ends are cooperative and community-minded, but our means are voluntary and libertarian. We work to offer creators a best-of-both-worlds way to protect their works while encouraging certain uses of them — to declare 'some rights reserved.'"
Learn more about Creative Commons from its Web site and read some of weblogs from it. Creative Commons is one of my favorite social movements.
5. Brad King, “Can the World Be Copyrighted?,” Wired News
This article put an international spin on copyright issues over the Internet. Two international treaties—the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performance and Phonograms Treaty—extended copyright protection to computer programs, movies and music worldwide. The article goes over the treaties and diagonizes problems with them. Issues to be contemplated are well covered in the article.
6. Cara Garretson, “Content, Tech Industries Debate Digital Copy Protection,” InfoWorld
Copyright holders and copyright infringers are not only main players in the debate over digital copy protection. There is the technology industry! This article explores the disagreement between the technology industry and the content industry over “who is responsible for safeguarding digital works.” Highly interesting and insightful article!
Three Recommendations for Sensible Solutions
1. Enhancing public awareness over copyright issues and copyright law through education
: New and shifting differences in legal standards created confusion among the public and many people do not believe they are doing something morally or legally wrong when they downloads music files. Enhancing public awareness copyright issues and copyright law through education should be a starting point for solving the problem.
2. Creating a new business model
: There must be alternative ways in which the music industry can adjust its business models to better compete in the digital age. A meaningful market attempt to sell digital music at a reasonable price will the best responses to “music stealing” activities.
3. Rethinking Copyright
: The copyright protection was created “to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8). It is worthwhile to think over whether the current legal framework serves these purposes in the digital age. Thousands of music artists make their music available at Web sites for free. It may be the human urge to create, not the strict copyright control, that promotes the progress of science and useful arts.
Sharing or Stealing?
: Copyright, Digital Technology, and the Internet
Digital technology and the Internet offer a great opportunity to disseminate contents with “almost nothing” reproduction and distribution cost. The same technology and the Internet, however, expose copyright holders to the potential danger of losing their control over copyrighted materials since digital technology and the Internet provides a great opportunity to reproduce unauthorized copies of copyrighted materials and to distribute them with “almost nothing” reproduction and distribution cost while preserving the same quality of original contents.
The potential damage that digital technology and the Internet bring to copyright holders is mainly monetary. In other words, the reproduction and distribution of unauthorized copies of copyrighted materials over the Internet result in undermining financial incentives to engage in original works of authorship. Copyright holders seem to consider this potential damage immediate and present danger, whereas “copyright infringers” may not be aware of the nature and the potential harm of their activities.
Sharing music files over the Internet exemplify the tension between copyright holders and copyright infringers. While copyright holders blame music file-sharing for pirates or stealing, “copyright infringers” often share music files without knowing their activities constitute copyright infringement or without acknowledging wrongs in their activities. The first generation of this tension led the famous Napster case. The Ninth Circuit issued a preliminary injunction against Napster, a centralized service that facilitated the exchange of copyrighted materials. The second generation of this tension is brought by peer-to-peer technology enabling individual users to share music files without the use of a centralized service: now, copyright holders are after the individual users.
Recently, the recording industry in the United States (the RIAA) launched legal suits at a large-scale against individual users for direct copyright infringement. This aggressive approach has some problems. Section 512 (h) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act grants copyright owners the authority to request a court to issue a subpoena on a service provider seeking the identity of a subscriber who is allegedly using the provider’s network to infringe the owner’s copyright. It has been criticized that the RIAA is trying to rely on the section 512 (h) without even filing a complaint against the subscriber. This practice violates due process of the law and infringes privacy of the subscriber.
Five biggest Fears
1. Copyright infringements happen at a large-scale worldwide through the Internet.
2. Confronting the present situation, copyright holders consider the Internet copyright “hell” whereas individual users consider the Internet copyright “heaven.”
3. The gap in understanding between copyright holders and copyright infringers impede cooperation to find sensible and reasonable solutions.
4. Aggressive legal suits launched by the RIAA may infringe individuals’ constitutional rights in the expedited legal process.
5. Legislation such as the DMCA and the Copyright Term Extension Act) and courts may overprotect the rights of copyright holders.
Six Web Resources
1. “Copyright” law section from findlaw.com
Findlaw.com is an extensive Web resource for cases, legal news, legal bulletin boards and legal help. Its library section provides enormous articles categorized by subject matter of the law. The copyright law section enables users to access over 100 legal articles regarding copyright law and recent articles at the site discusses copyright law in the digital age. This is one of the best Web sources which will make you to be familiar with copyright law.
2. Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)
Whether you loathe the position of RIAA or agree with it, it is worthwhile to know what the RIAA has to say and what the RIAA has to do. “Research and data” section presents facts and figures about the current state of copyright infringement. Be aware that the figures presented in the reports are not neutral numbers but figures claimed by the industry.
3. Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
After hearing what the RIAA has to say, it is only fair to listen to what the EFF has to say. “File-sharing” can be reached from a list of hot topics on the right menu bar. The EFF argues that the RIAA lawsuits “make criminals out of music lovers.” Find out how that happens. You can also sign a petition to congress at the Web site.
4. Creative Commons
Creative Commons, founded in 2001, is one of alternatives which provides fresh ideas and new ways to protection copyright. The mission and activities of Creative Commons are explained in “About Us”:
"Too often the debate over creative control tends to the extremes. At one pole is a vision of total control — a world in which every last use of a work is regulated and in which 'all rights reserved' (and then some) is the norm. At the other end is a vision of anarchy — a world in which creators enjoy a wide range of freedom but are left vulnerable to exploitation. Balance, compromise, and moderation — once the driving forces of a copyright system that valued innovation and protection equally — have become endangered species.
Creative Commons is working to revive them. We use private rights to create public goods: creative works set free for certain uses. Like the free software and open-source movements, our ends are cooperative and community-minded, but our means are voluntary and libertarian. We work to offer creators a best-of-both-worlds way to protect their works while encouraging certain uses of them — to declare 'some rights reserved.'"
Learn more about Creative Commons from its Web site and read some of weblogs from it. Creative Commons is one of my favorite social movements.
5. Brad King, “Can the World Be Copyrighted?,” Wired News
This article put an international spin on copyright issues over the Internet. Two international treaties—the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performance and Phonograms Treaty—extended copyright protection to computer programs, movies and music worldwide. The article goes over the treaties and diagonizes problems with them. Issues to be contemplated are well covered in the article.
6. Cara Garretson, “Content, Tech Industries Debate Digital Copy Protection,” InfoWorld
Copyright holders and copyright infringers are not only main players in the debate over digital copy protection. There is the technology industry! This article explores the disagreement between the technology industry and the content industry over “who is responsible for safeguarding digital works.” Highly interesting and insightful article!
Three Recommendations for Sensible Solutions
1. Enhancing public awareness over copyright issues and copyright law through education
: New and shifting differences in legal standards created confusion among the public and many people do not believe they are doing something morally or legally wrong when they downloads music files. Enhancing public awareness copyright issues and copyright law through education should be a starting point for solving the problem.
2. Creating a new business model
: There must be alternative ways in which the music industry can adjust its business models to better compete in the digital age. A meaningful market attempt to sell digital music at a reasonable price will the best responses to “music stealing” activities.
3. Rethinking Copyright
: The copyright protection was created “to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8). It is worthwhile to think over whether the current legal framework serves these purposes in the digital age. Thousands of music artists make their music available at Web sites for free. It may be the human urge to create, not the strict copyright control, that promotes the progress of science and useful arts.
Friday, October 24, 2003
What's Up? [copyright - the U.S.]
MPAA PUTS ANTI-PIRACY MESSAGE IN SCHOOL
The MPAA has paid $100,000 to deliver its anti-piracy
message to 900,000 students in the U.S. in grades 5-9 over
the next two years. Civil libertarians object that the
movie industry is presenting a one-sided version of a
complex legal issue, while the country's largest teachers'
lobby is concerned about the incentives the program offers.
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/news/editorial/7085746.htm
MPAA PUTS ANTI-PIRACY MESSAGE IN SCHOOL
The MPAA has paid $100,000 to deliver its anti-piracy
message to 900,000 students in the U.S. in grades 5-9 over
the next two years. Civil libertarians object that the
movie industry is presenting a one-sided version of a
complex legal issue, while the country's largest teachers'
lobby is concerned about the incentives the program offers.
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/news/editorial/7085746.htm
