DOCSLIB.ORG

Orphan Works and Mass Digitization Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Orphan Works and Mass Digitization Report united states copyright office Orphan Works and Mass Digitization a report of the register of copyrights june 2015 united states copyright office Orphan Works and Mass Digitization a report of the register of copyrights june 2015 U.S. Copyright Office Orphan Works and Mass Digitization ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This Report reflects the dedication and expertise of the Office of Policy and International Affairs at the U.S. Copyright Office. Karyn Temple Claggett, Associate Register of Copyrights and Director of Policy and International Affairs, managed the overall study process, including coordination of the public comments and roundtable hearings, analysis, drafting, and recommendations. I am also extremely grateful to Senior Counsel Kevin Amer and Attorney- Advisor Chris Weston (Office of the General Counsel), who served as the principal authors of the Report and made numerous important contributions throughout the study process. Senior Advisor to the Register Catie Rowland and Attorney-Advisor Frank Muller played a significant role during the early stages of the study, providing research, drafting, and coordination of the public roundtable discussions. In addition, Ms. Rowland and Maria Strong, Deputy Director of Policy and International Affairs, reviewed a draft of the Report and provided important insights. Barbara A. Ringer Fellows Michelle Choe and Donald Stevens provided helpful research and analysis for several sections of the Report. Senior Counsel Kimberley Isbell, Counsels Brad Greenberg and Aurelia Schultz, Attorney-Advisors Katie Alvarez and Aaron Watson, and Law Clerk Konstantia Katsouli contributed valuable research and citation assistance. Finally, I would like to thank the many interested parties who participated in the public roundtables and submitted written comments to the Office. The wide range of perspectives and thoughtful analyses we received during the public comment period were an essential part of the development of our final recommendations. Maria A. Pallante Register of Copyrights and Director U.S. Copyright Office U.S. Copyright Office Orphan Works and Mass Digitization TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................1 I. OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND ..............................................................................8 A. Prior Orphan Works Study and Proposed Legislation .........................................9 1. 2006 Report on Orphan Works ..........................................................................9 2. 2006 and 2008 Proposed Legislation ...............................................................11 B. Subsequent Legal Developments ...........................................................................13 1. Google Books Litigation ...................................................................................13 2. HathiTrust Litigation ........................................................................................17 C. International Experiences .......................................................................................18 1. The Nordic Model: Extended Collective Licensing ......................................18 2. European Union: Two-Pronged Approach ....................................................19 a. Orphan Works Directive ............................................................................19 b. Memorandum of Understanding ..............................................................22 3. Hungary ..............................................................................................................23 4. France ..................................................................................................................25 5. Germany .............................................................................................................27 6. United Kingdom ................................................................................................28 7. Canada ................................................................................................................30 8. Japan ....................................................................................................................31 9. Korea ...................................................................................................................32 D. Updated Copyright Office Review ........................................................................33 1. Mass Digitization Discussion Document .......................................................33 2. Current Study .....................................................................................................34 II. ORPHAN WORKS .........................................................................................................34 A. Consequences of Orphan Works ..........................................................................34 B. Solutions to the Orphan Works Problem ..............................................................39 1. No Legislative Change ......................................................................................40 a. Role of Fair Use ...........................................................................................40 b. Best Practices................................................................................................44 2. Exception-Based Model ....................................................................................47 3. Government License Model and Small Claims .............................................48 4. Extended Collective Licensing .........................................................................49 5. LȷȻȷɂȯɂȷȽȼ Ƚȼ LȷȯȰȷȺȷɂɇ MȽȲȳȺʖ Tȶȳ CȽȾɇɀȷȵȶɂ OȴȴȷȱȳȂɁ Recommendation .............................................................................................50 a. Applicability to All Categories of Works ................................................51 i U.S. Copyright Office Orphan Works and Mass Digitization b. Applicability to All Types of Uses and Users .........................................54 c. Eligibility for Limitations on Remedies ...................................................56 i. Conditions ..........................................................................................56 ii. Good Faith Diligent Search ..............................................................56 1) Qualifying Searches ....................................................................56 2) Judicial Consideration of Qualified Foreign Searches ...........58 3) Recommended Practices ............................................................59 4) Qualifying Third-Party Databases ...........................................60 iii. Notice of Use ......................................................................................60 iv. Notice of Claim of Infringement .....................................................62 d. Limitation on Remedies .............................................................................63 i. MȽȼȳɂȯɀɇ RȳȺȷȳȴʖ ȃRȳȯɁȽȼȯȰȺȳ CȽȻȾȳȼɁȯɂȷȽȼȄ.............................63 ii. ȃSȯȴȳ HȯɀȰȽɀȄ ȴȽɀ Cȳɀɂȯȷȼ NȽȼȾɀȽȴȷɂ IȼɁɂȷɂɃɂȷȽȼɁ and Uses .......64 iii. Effect of Registration on Monetary Damages ...............................66 iv. Injunctive Relief .................................................................................67 v. Injunctive Relief: Limitations Regarding State Actors .................69 e. Relationship to Other Provisions of Title 17 ...........................................70 i. Fair Use Savings Clause ...................................................................70 ii. Preservation of Statutory Licenses ..................................................71 iii. Copyright for Derivative Works and Compilations.....................71 f. Report to Congress ......................................................................................71 III. MASS DIGITIZATION ..................................................................................................72 A. Overview ...................................................................................................................72 B. Non-Legislative Solutions .......................................................................................76 1. Mass Digitization as Fair Use ..........................................................................76 2. Voluntary Agreements .....................................................................................79 C. Extended Collective Licensing ...............................................................................82 1. Types of Works and Publication Status ..........................................................84 a. Literary Works .............................................................................................85 b. Embedded Pictorial or Graphic Works ....................................................87 c. Photographs .................................................................................................88 2. Types of Users and Uses ...................................................................................89 3. CMO Authorization Requirements .................................................................90 4. Opt-Out Provisions ...........................................................................................93 5. Determination of License Terms .....................................................................94 6. Security Measures ..............................................................................................98
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 8. Putting Artists and Guardians of Indigenous Works First
    8 Putting Artists and Guardians of Indigenous Works First: Towards a Restricted Scope of Freedom of Panorama in the Asian Pacific Region Jonathan Barrett1 1 Introduction ‘Freedom of panorama’2 permits use of certain copyright-protected works on public display; for example, anyone may publish and sell postcards of a public sculpture.3 The British heritage version of freedom of panorama, which is followed by many jurisdictions in the Asian Pacific region,4 applies 1 Copyright © 2018 Jonathan Barrett. Senior Lecturer, School of Accounting and Commercial Law, Victoria University of Wellington. 2 The term ‘freedom of panorama’ recently came into common usage in English. It appears to be derived from the Swiss German ‘Panoramafreiheit’, which itself has only been used since the 1990s, despite the exemption existing in German law for 170 years. See Mélanie Dulong de Rosnay and Pierre-Carl Langlais ‘Public artworks and the freedom of panorama controversy: a case of Wikimedia influence’ (2017) 6(1) Internet Policy Review. 3 Incidental copying of copyright works is not considered to be a feature of freedom of panorama. See Copyright Act 1994 (NZ), s 41. 4 Asian Pacific countries are those west of the International Date Line (IDL), as defined for the purposes of the Asian Pacific Copyright Association (APCA) in Brian Fitzgerald and Benedict Atkinson (eds) Copyright Future Copyright Freedom: Marking the 40 Year Anniversary of the Commencement of Australia’s Copyright Act 1968 (Sydney University Press, Sydney, 2011) at 236. 229 MAkING COPyRIGHT WORk FOR THE ASIAN PACIFIC? to buildings, sculptures and works of artistic craftsmanship on permanent display in a public place or premises open to the public.5 These objects may be copied in two dimensions, such as photographs.
    [Show full text]
  • Reexamining Copyright's Incentives--Access Paradigm
    Texas A&M University School of Law Texas A&M Law Scholarship Faculty Scholarship 4-1996 Reexamining Copyright's Incentives--Access Paradigm Glynn S. Lunney Jr Texas A&M University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Glynn S. Lunney Jr, Reexamining Copyright's Incentives--Access Paradigm, 49 Vand. L. Rev. 483 (1996). Available at: https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar/530 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Texas A&M Law Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Texas A&M Law Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. VANDERBILT LAW REVIEW VOLUME 49 APRIL 1996 NUMBER 3 Reexamining Copyright's Incentives- Access Paradigm Glynn S. Lunney, Jr.* I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................... 485 II. THE INCENTIVES-ACCESS PARADIGM INTRODUCED ...........492 III. THE PARADIGM EXPLORED: THE ELEMENTS OF COPYRIGHT 499 A. Defining a Work's Unprotected Aspects ................. 504 1. Elements Left Unprotected to Ensure the Creation of Future Works .......................... 509 2. Aspects Left Unprotected to Avoid Undue M onopolization ........................................... 517 3. Summary: Access, Ideas, and Expression 525 B. Defining the Similarity Necessary to Establish Infringem ent ........................................................... 526 1. The Degree of Similarity Necessary to Establish an Infringement ......................... 526 2. The Type of Similarity Required to Establish an Infringing Appropriation ......533 C. Defining Fair Uses ................................................. 546 D. Summary of the Incentives-Access Paradigm........ 552 IV. AN INTERNAL CRITIQUE OF THE INCENTIVES-ACCESS PARADIGM .......................................................................... 554 A. Paradox: Incentive and Deadweight Loss............
    [Show full text]
  • Orphan Works, Mass Rights Clearance, and Online Libraries
    Ringnalda.qxd 1 Orphan Works, Mass Rights Clearance, and Allard Ringnalda Online Libraries: The Flaws of the Draft Orphan Works Directive and Extended Collective Licensing as a Solution 1. Introduction European lawmakers have recently shown a profound interest in copyright law as an obstacle to the creation of Allard Ringnalda, Project researcher, Centre for online digital libraries. Unfortunately, a new directive that is Intellectual Property Law, Molengraaff Institute soon to be proposed to remove these obstacles suggests for Private Law, Utrecht University; PhD resear- that they have focused on the wrong problem. It provides a cher, Willem Pompe Institute for Criminal Law solution for the problem of orphan works: the many copy- and Criminology and the Department of legal righted works whose rightsholders are unknown or unloca- theory, Utrecht University. table. These orphan works cannot be used in a manner that The author would like to thank Rebecka Zinser and requires the rightsholder’s consent.1) With a new Orphan Willem Grosheide for their comments on earlier drafts. Works Directive, the Commission aims to facilitate the ex- The usual disclaimer applies. pansion of Europeana, the non-profit online library that should disseminate the digitised collections of all European national libraries. The problem of orphan works obviously stands in the way of a successful online library: if copyrights cannot be cleared, copyrighted works cannot be digitised and made available online. However, in this article, I shall propose and defend two claims. First, that the issue of orphan works is not the main hurdle on the way to a successful Europeana. Instead, the orphan works problem is only a symptom of a much larger issue: the inability to clear copyrights for the mass digitization and online dissemination of entire library collections.
    [Show full text]
  • The Freedom to Copy: Copyright, Creation, and Context
    The Freedom to Copy: Copyright, Creation, and Context Olufunmilayo B. Arewa* Although much separates them musically, George Harrison and Michael Bolton share a common legal fate. Both have been held liable in copyright infringement cases in which a court articulated theories of liability based on subconscious infringement. This Article discusses how decisions in the Bolton, Harrison, and other copyright infringement cases reflect a common failing. Such decisions highlight the incomplete nature of the theories of creativity and creation processes in copyright doctrine. After discussing current approaches to questions of creation, this Article suggests ways in which copyright theory can better incorporate a contextualized understanding of creativity and creation processes. Creativity in copyright is frequently characterized as not involving copying, which is typically thought to be antithetical to both originality and creativity. This stigmatization of copying, however, means that copyright theory cannot adequately account for the reality of not infrequent similarities between works that are a result of copying both ideas and expression in the creation of new works. This missing theoretical link has significant implications for copyright in practice. The lack of legal analysis of the full range of creativity and processes of creation is also a major reason why copyright theory often has such difficulty delineating what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate copying of existing works. * Associate Professor, Northwestern University School of Law. A.B. Harvard College; M.A. Anthropology, Ph.D. Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley; A.M. Applied Economics, University of Michigan; J.D., Harvard Law School. For their helpful comments and suggestions on earlier drafts, I am indebted to Margaret Chon, Julie Cohen, Paul Heald, Kevin Jon Heller, Andrew Koppelman, Roberta Rosenthal Kwall, Jacqueline Lipton, Andrew P.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright System in Japan
    Copyright System in Japan by Japan Copyright Office (JCO), Agency for Cultural Affairs, Government of Japan, October 2015 Edition Published by Copyright Research and Information Center (CRIC) Table of contents Ⅰ. COPYRIGHT AUTHORITIES OF THE GOVERNMENT Ⅱ. HISTORY OF COPYRIGHT SYSTEMS IN JAPAN (1) Establishment of the Modern Copyright System (2) Development of the Copyright System (3) Enactment of the New Copyright Law (4) Accession to International Conventions (5) Recent Developments in Relevant Legislations (6) Enactment of the Law on Management Business of Copyright and Neighboring Rights Ⅲ. DEVELOPMENT OF COPYRIGHT PROTECTION POLICIES FOR ADVANCED INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION NETWORKS [Background] [Strategic Actions] (1) Streamlining Laws and Regulations (2) Promoting Smooth Distribution Systems (3) Dealing with International Issues (4) Reinforcing Education for Copyright Ⅳ. AUTHOR'S RIGHT AND NEIGHBORING RIGHTS IN THE JAPANESE COPYRIGHT LAW 1. Author's Right (1) Definition/Classification of "Works" (2) Protected Works (3) "Author" and "Copyright Owner" (4) Rights of Authors 2. Neighboring Rights (1) Neighboring Rights Owners and the Scope of Protection (2) Neighboring Rights Granted by the Copyright Law 3. Term of Protection (1) Author's Right (2) Neighboring Rights 4. Limitation on Rights Ⅴ. MEASURES AGAINST INFRINGEMENT 1. Civil Remedies (1) General Provisions for Civil Remedies (Civil Code) (2) Special Provisions for Copyright (Copyright Law) 2. Criminal Remedies (1) Copyright Law (2) Penal Code and other Criminal Legislations 3. Acts Considered as Infringements (Copyright Law) 4. Border Measures and other Preventive Measures (1) Border Measures (Customs Tariff Law) (2) Preventive Measures Ⅵ. DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION PROGRAMS (1) APACE Program (1993~) (2) Asian Copyright Experts Invitation Program (1996~) (3) Asia-Pacific Copyright and Neighboring Rights Seminar (1997~) (4) JICA Group Training Course (1999~) Ⅶ.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright Transfer Rule
    The Institute of Image Information and Television Engineers Copyright Transfer Rule 1 This rule describes fundamental issues on the copyrights of the works that are edited or published by the Institute of Image Information and Television Engineers (hereinafter referred to as “the ITE”). 2 Supplementary definitions of terms for this rule are as follows: Copyright: copyright rights provided in the Japanese Copyright Law Articles 21 through 28, Work: work provided in the Japanese Copyright Law Article 2.1.1, and Author: author or authors provided in the Japanese Copyright Law Article 2.1.2. 3 Unless otherwise negotiated between the ITE and the author, copyrights of works that are to be edited or published by the ITE shall be transferred from the author to the ITE. 4.1 Copyright transfer to the ITE is accomplished by submitting the complete ITE copyright transfer form to the ITE. 4.2 If the work described in the said copyright transfer form is not to be published or edited by the ITE, the said copyright transfer form shall be void and sent back to the author. 4.3 If it is not possible to apply the above condition due to special circumstances, the Institute will hold a discussion on the matter upon the Author’s request. 4.4 The special circumstances mentioned above include the case where the copyright transfer is difficult because the copyright belongs to the organization the Author is affiliated with and the case where the Institute has issued a special request to the Author. 5.1 The author can use the transferred work provided that an advance permission is granted by the ITE in the case the said work is beyond the range of limitations on exclusive rights that are provided in the Japanese Copyright Law Articles 30 through 43.
    [Show full text]
  • Computer Software Derivative Works: the Calm Before the Storm
    COMPUTER SOFTWARE DERIVATIVE WORKS: THE CALM BEFORE THE STORM Natalie Heineman* Cite as 8 J. HIGH TECH. L. 235 (2008) I. Introduction Every generation believes they live in the most exciting times of continued social and technological advancement. Since the advent of computers and the internet, however, the present is a time in which progress seems unrivaled. While the law races to catch up with technology, the area of law requiring the fastest runners may be that of computer software derivative works under current copyright law. An author’s exclusive right to prepare derivative works is particularly challenged in the software environment where innovation often involves references to and incorporation of other preexisting works. Without definitive cases on point or specifically tailored legislation to guide the analysis, however, the scope of this note is simply to help define the issues presented, thereby drawing attention to what looks to be the calm before the impending storm. This note considers the challenge posed by computer software derivative works. The note first discusses the definition of derivative works under the current Copyright Act, and analyzes how the courts have interpreted derivative works in analogous contexts. Because defining a derivative work necessarily considers whether it has infringed the underlying work, the note then discusses how the courts make infringement analyses. The infringement analysis focuses primarily on the abstraction-filtration method as it has developed in computer software cases. Finally, the note considers trends in cases and legislation that suggest an increasingly broad interpretation of derivative rights. This section emphasizes the Open Source movement which will no doubt have a significant impact on the future of computer software derivative works.
    [Show full text]
  • COPYRIGHT FORMALITIES in the INTERNET AGE: FILTERS of PROTECTION OR FACILITATORS of LICENSING Stef Van Gompel †
    COPYRIGHT FORMALITIES IN THE INTERNET AGE: FILTERS OF PROTECTION OR FACILITATORS OF LICENSING Stef van Gompel † I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1426 II. MAPPING THE OBJECTIVES ................................................................. 1430 A. HIERARCHY OF OBJECTIVES................................................................. 1430 B. LEGAL CERTAINTY THROUGH FACILITATION OF RIGHTS CLEARANCE AND ENLARGEMENT OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN ........ 1431 III. THE DIFFERENT FLAVORS OF COPYRIGHT FORMALITIES ................................................................................................ 1435 A. TYPES OF FORMALITIES ......................................................................... 1435 B. VOLUNTARY VERSUS MANDATORY FORMALITIES .......................... 1437 C. LEGAL EFFECTS OF FORMALITIES ...................................................... 1438 IV. ENLARGING THE PUBLIC DOMAIN ................................................ 1440 A. MAKING COPYRIGHT CONDITIONAL ON MANDATORY FORMALITIES ........................................................................................... 1441 B. MANDATORY REGISTRATION AFTER LIFE-PLUS-FIFTY YEARS ........................................................................................................ 1444 C. ENCOURAGING THE VOLUNTARY ABANDONMENT OF COPYRIGHT .............................................................................................. 1445 V. FACILITATING THE CLEARANCE OF RIGHTS .........................
    [Show full text]
  • 'Orphan Works'? Law360, New York (September 29, 2015, 8:06 PM ET) -- on Sept
    Portfolio Media. Inc. | 860 Broadway, 6th Floor | New York, NY 10003 | www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 | Fax: +1 646 783 7161 | [email protected] What Shall We Do About 'Orphan Works'? Law360, New York (September 29, 2015, 8:06 PM ET) -- On Sept. 22, a California federal judge ruled that Warner/Chappell Music Inc. does not own a valid copyright on "Happy Birthday To You," thereby adding one of the most recognizable English language songs to the millions of "orphan works." What should be done to more fairly enable the use of orphan works? Naomi Jane Gray, Harvey Siskind LLP The orphan works problem plagues many would-be users of works who cannot identify or locate the owners of works they may wish to license. This introduces uncertainty and risk into the creative process and can chill expression. There have been many calls for a legislative fix of this problem, including creation of a small-claims-type tribunal, excepting orphan works from liability for infringement if the user has conducted a diligent search, government-based licensing and collective licensing. Others argue that the existing fair use defense should be sufficient to protect users’ interests. The Copyright Office has endorsed a “notice and use” proposal, whereby users would be eligible for limitations on remedies for infringement if they file a notice with the Copyright Office of their intent to use works and conduct a “good faith diligent search” for the owner. Remedies for infringement would then be limited to “reasonable compensation,” envisioned to be comparable to a reasonable license fee.
    [Show full text]
  • Orphan Works in the United States and Copyright Issues
    1 Orphan Works In The United States And Copyright Issues Dear Karyn Temple Claggett/Catherine Rowland This is the research work of Perry4Law1 in which we are sharing our views about the orphan work related problems in US. The crux of our discussion is that there should be a balance between copyright protection of orphan works and their suitable publications. For any further informatin or clarification, kindly contact us at [email protected]. I. The Background-Orphan Works Copyright protection is made available the moment a copyrightable work is brought into force. There is no statutory requirement to get a copyrighted work registered at the copyright office of the respective Nation, including United States. This is also the main reason that copyright protection shares an invese relationship with copyright infringement. Despite much copyright awareness campaigns, many copyright infringers still believe that copyright protection is available only if the work is registerd with the copyright office. This is definitely a misconception and a sure receipe for facing a copyright infringement suit. However, many times a copyrighted work is published and is made available to public without it being registered. In some exceptional cases the authors of such copyrighted work do not provide relevant details about themselves. In such a situation it becomes very difficult to contact such author to do commercial negotiations about such copyrighted work. Such work becomes an orphan work in which though copyright subsists yet it becomes very difficult to contact the author to seek his/her/its permission to reproduce the work. Nevertheless, using such copyrighted work amounts to copyright violation and in many cases results in a legal suit.
    [Show full text]
  • Gillian Rodríguez June 2015
    The Potential Manifestation of Place as a Brand Component of Regional Meat: The Cases of Cumbrian Salt Marsh Lamb and Herdwick Lamb Gillian Rodríguez School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development Newcastle University Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy June 2015 School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development Newcastle University The Potential Manifestation of Place as a Brand Component of Regional Meat: The Cases of Cumbrian Salt Marsh Lamb and Herdwick Lamb Gillian Rodríguez Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy ii Abstract Purpose – the purpose of this research is to explore respondents’ knowledge of regional foods including the pre-product stage i.e. in the landscape. Herdwick lamb and Cumbrian salt marsh lamb are both highly visible in the landscape and form part of the ‘lifescape’ of local residents. Design/method/approach – taking a phenomenological stance the research examines the experiential claims of respondents; means-end chain analysis was selected to gather customer values relating to this broader product concept. Ladder maps were drawn up for each of two sets of twenty respondents residing in the production region of either lamb. Hierarchical value maps are produced to reveal salient connections. Findings – show that respondents hold a very wide range of perceptions, experiences and associations with the ‘pre-products’, which influences their judgement about the freshness, flavour, quality of the meat. The ability to fulfil other functions by buying regional meat became apparent, in particular the need to make a contribution to the local economy, to support the ecology, and to know the place through community interaction.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright Infringement on Music, Movie and Software in the Internet (Illegal File Sharing and Fair Use Practices in Indonesia, Japan and United States of America)
    Copyright Infringement on Music, Movie and Software in the Internet (Illegal File Sharing and Fair Use Practices in Indonesia, Japan and United States of America) A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor Philosophy in Law Bayu Sujadmiko 1221072013 Kanazawa University Graduate School of Human and Socio-Environmental Studies 2015/2016 要旨 インターネット技術は、インドネシア、日本、米国を含む世界中で広く利用され ている。発展につれて、それら応用技術は人類の福祉にとって不法な行為を誘発 する「両刃の剣」となった。デジタル化可能なほとんどの著作物は、インターネ ットを介した複製及び物理的侵害の蓋然性にさらされることとなった。違法ダウ ンロード、アップロード、ファイル共有が市民の間に広がったが、インドネシア の立法は、インターネット技術の進歩への反応が鈍かった。その結果、著作権産 業がフラッシュ・ドライバ、スマートフォン、タブレットなどの高度モバイル技 術というデジタル著作権侵害の新しい成長の問題に直面しているのにもかかわら ず、対策は、違法コンテンツや海賊製品の普及に対してのみ行われている。いく つかの国では、これらのデバイスは、それらが販売される前から違法なコンテン ツをインストールされている。政府によれば、彼らは物理的及びオンラインの海 賊行為を停止するための解決法を探している。本論文は、日本、米国、インドネ シアにおける著作権法のシステムを比較する。また、国際的な規制が、刑事罰と 罰金の執行においてこれら各国にどのような影響を与えるかを説明する。著作権 法に関する立法のみではインターネット上の課題には答えられないことを示す点 でも有益である。技術的、手続的、社会的、制度的に効率的な執行システムの具 体的な調和が必要とされている。 Abstract The utilization of Internet technology is widely practiced by the entire population of the globe, including Indonesia, Japan and United States. During its development, applied technology became a “double-edged sword”, in addition to the mankind welfare; it is used for unlawful acts. Most copyrighted works that can be reformed to digitize have big probability to duplicate over the Internet and physical piracy. Illegal downloading, uploading and file sharing became common activities among the citizenry. Indonesian legislation was low respond to follow the advance of Internet technology. Consequently, legal enforcement is performed only among the spread of illegal contents and pirate products. While, copyright industries face new growing problems with digital piracy; flash drivers, smartphones, tablets and other high mobile technologies. In some countries, these devices are preloaded with illegal content even before they are sold. Accompanied by the government, they try to find the solutions to stop the physical and online piracy.
    [Show full text]