DOCSLIB.ORG

"Recent Developments in Data Security Law in the United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
. as appeared in . A WorldTrade Executive Publication WTEWTE Global Intellectual Property Asset Management Report Covering e-commerce, corporate intellectual property management and related licensing June 2006 Formerly known as Global eCommerce Law & Business Report Volume 8, Number 6 View from Brussels: DADVSI and the Future of French Copyright Law BY JACQUELINE KLOSEK AND KENDRICK NGUYEN (GOODWIN PROCTER LLP) As an European Union (“EU”) Member State, France to DRM techniques and copyrighted digital content. When is required to implement EU Directive 2001/29/EC of the it was first introduced, the DADVSI was essentially a mere European Parliament and of the Council of May 22, 2001 on transposition of the DRM provisions contained in the the harmonization of certain aspects of copyright and related EUCD. However, as the proposed law moved through the rights in the information society, (commonly known as the legislative process, it has evolved to bear little resemblance “EUCD”). The EUCD, a controversial measure in its own to the EUCD. right, represents the EU’s implementation of the 1996 The draft of DADVSI that was up for consideration in WIPO Copyright Treaty. late 2005 would have mandated DRM technical protec- The vast majority of EU member states have already tion methods and criminalized the production of any soft- implemented the EUCD into national law. However, ware that could potentially facilitate the circumvention France, Spain and the Czech Republic have not yet done of copyright protections. In late December of 2005, the so. France’s attempts at enacting legislation to implement French National Assembly voted for the first time on the EUCD have been fraught with controversy. The DADVSI. Rather than voting on the proposed legislation, DADVSI, which stands for Droit d’Auteur et Droits Voisins dans la Societe de l’Information, or “Author’s Rights and Related Rights in the Information Society,” is a highly con- DADVSI aims to protect copyrighted content troversial proposed legislation that was originally pro- 1 online and digital rights management (“DRM”) posed in 2003 and came before the French legislature last mechanisms by criminalizing certain activities, year. It is designed to give legal effect to the EUCD under French national law. many of which are considered legitimate by Currently moving its way through the legislative pro- many people in France. cess and having been extensively amended,2 DADVSI aims to protect copyrighted content online and digital rights management (“DRM”) mechanisms by they passed an article that removed the DRM proposal criminalizing certain activities, many of which are con- from the draft law and instead opted for the equally con- sidered legitimate by many people in France. Because of troversial global license concept. The global licensing con- its potential impact on French society and the software cept attempts to halt peer-to-peer use by increasing industry, DADVSI has been heatedly debated by people monthly Internet access fees from two to six euros, while and organizations across the economic and political spec- allowing Internet users the freedom of unlimited peer-to- tra. peer downloading. The global license amendment was re- tracted from DADVSI in March of 2006, and the DRM pro- Background tection was put back in place. Among other notable provisions, the EUCD requires The National Assembly approved the amended all EU member states to give appropriate legal protection DADVSI on March 21, 2006.3 DADVSI was then sent to Reprinted from the June, 2006 edition of Global Intellectual Property Asset Management Report, with permission of the publisher, WorldTrade Executive, Inc. For more information on Global Intellectual Property Asset Management Report, or other WorldTrade Executive publications, contact WorldTrade Executive, Inc., P.O. Box 761, Concord, MA 01742 USA • Phone: (978) 287-0301 • Fax: (978) 287-0302 • Web: www.wtexecutive.com • E-mail: [email protected] View from Brussels the Senate, which adopted a modified version of the draft iii. Hardware Interoperability from the National Assembly on May 10. Next, DADVSI Another concern is DADVSI’s sweeping will go before the Mixed Parliamentary Commission, criminalization of circumvention, or facilitation of4 the which will consider both the Senate’s and the National circumvention, of copyright protections, along with the Assembly’s drafts and adopt some combination thereof. effects of such criminalization on techniques that enhance After that, DADVSI will need to face the Constitutional interoperability among software and devices. The prohi- Court, and then it will be sent for a final parliamentary bition of any software capable of facilitating copy protec- vote before submitted to the President for his signature. tion can put many important mainstream software appli- As such, there remains the possibility of additional cations in legal limbo, since any development tool or soft- changes. ware capable of reading encumbered formats can be said ADVSI and Its Controversies to facilitate DRM circumventions on some level. With One of the most controversial aspects of the DADVSI maximum penalties of up to 300,000 euros in fine and/or concerns the penalties that would be imposed under the 3 years in prison, this could have a chilling effect on the measure. Of specific concern have been the provisions of software industry in France. the measure that would criminalize: (i) the production of In response to concerns, the National Assembly software that could potentially facilitate the circumven- adopted the so-called “interoperability amendment” to DADVSI, which not only allowed to users to break DRM protections in order to make a work interoperable, but also One of the most controversial aspects of the allowed everyone who wants to make her software DADVSI concerns the penalties that would interoperable with something to demand the technical be imposed under the measure. documentation required to do this under certain condi- tions. This amendment has elicited strong reactions from DRM providers, especially U.S. companies doing business in France, for it would require digital content bought at any online store to be playable on any hardware. tion of copyright protections and (ii) peer-to-peer trans- In addition to the interoperability amendment, the ferring of copyrighted works. These provisions raise three National Assembly also adopted the following provisions major issues: (i) the practicality of prohibiting all peer-to- in March 2006: (i) allowing the decompilation of DRM peer transferring activities; (ii) the validity of the long- mechanisms for purposes of understanding how they standing French right to private copying; and (iii) the lack function; (ii) allowing users to bypass DRM mechanisms of interoperability, each as further discussed below: in order to use something in the way it is supposed to be used; (iii) allowing an artist the right to let his work be i. Peer-to-Peer Exchange of Copyrighted Digital Data distributed for free on peer-to-peer networks; (iv) allow- Opponents of the proposed criminalization of peer- ing libraries to copy works for non-commercial purposes; to-peer users have argued that because millions of people and (v) allowing DRM-circumvention software that is in France currently trade files on the Internet, it will be made for research or is designed for legal distribution of contrary to the commonly accepted culture, as well as plain work. impractical to enforce such provisions restricting peer-to- However, the Senate voted to limit the interoperability peer file trading. DADVSI does not make clear how the amendment in May of 2006, requiring DRM producers to government intends to enforce this prohibition against provide their security source code to service providers, millions of people, who view DRMs as intrusive and con- computer program publishers and software developers trary to accepted social practices. only, as opposed to everyone who requests. The Senate’s draft also creates a new regulatory authority that handles ii. The Right to Private Copying requests for access to DRM information. This new regula- In France, as in many other countries, there is a long tory authority can compel companies to license their ex- tradition of protecting the right to private copying of copy- clusive DMR mechanisms to rivals, but only if the protec- righted works for personal use. If DADVSI becomes law tion mechanisms are imposed by the companies without in its present form or a form similar thereto, then private the explicit authorization of the authors of the copyrighted copying, as the French presently know it, may no be pos- works. Under this provision, a company such as Apple sible. The amended draft adopted by the National Assem- could avoid being forced to license its exclusive file for- bly in March of 2006 established an exception to allow for mats if it obtained permission from the artists whose mu- the right to private copying. However, the Senate removed sic it sells. this exception in the draft adopted on May 10, 2006. News sources suggest that the Mixed Parliamentary Commission will likely approve a compromised text of 2 © WorldTrade Executive, Inc. 2006 June 2006 View from Brussels the interoperability amendment that includes a provision 1 A French version of the originally proposed measure is avail- allowing companies to avoid sharing DMR information able at the web site of the National Assembly at: <http:// by striking new deals with copyright holders. www.assemblee-nationale.fr/12/projets/pl1206.asp>. 2 Copies of the numerous and extensive amendments are avail- Conclusion able at:<http://recherche.assemblee-nationale.fr/ amendements/resultats.asp?NUM_INIT=1206>. If enacted in its present form, or a form similar thereto, 3 A copy of the version of DADVSI approved by the National DADVSI will have a significant impact on the French so- Assembly in March 2006 is available at: <http:// ciety and its economy. It remains to be seen how certain www.assemblee-nationale.fr/12/ta/ta0554.asp>.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Harmonizing Copyright's Internationalization With
    HARMONIZING COPYRIGHT’S INTERNATIONALIZATION WITH DOMESTIC CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS A quick glance through recent copyright legislation suggests that we are in the midst of a “second enclosure movement,” this time fenc- ing off the “intangible commons of the mind” instead of the physical commons of the land.1 In 1992 the Copyright Renewal Act2 (CRA) abolished the longstanding renewal requirement for nearly all works; in 1998 the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act3 (CTEA) ex- tended the term of copyright protection by twenty years and the Digi- tal Millennium Copyright Act4 (DMCA) heightened penalties for copy- right infringement on the Internet and provided copyright owners with an increased ability to control access to their copyrighted digital me- dia. These are simply a few examples drawn from the larger set of copyright legislation enacted within the past two decades, a set that taken as a whole provides worrisome evidence of a one-way ratcheting up of copyright protection. No surprise, then, that there is widespread feeling among many copyright scholars that Congress has unabashedly ceded to the lobby- ing pressures of the copyright industries and steadily cut into the heart of the public domain.5 Scholars have unleashed a flurry of articles in the past decade warning about the public harms of copyright exten- sions and, cognizant of the skewed political economy, calling for meas- ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 1 James Boyle, The Second Enclosure Movement and the Construction of the Public Domain, LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS., Winter/Spring 2003, at 33, 37 (internal quotation mark omitted). 2 Pub. L. No. 102-307, 106 Stat. 264 (1992).
    [Show full text]
  • On the Three-Step Test
    First WIPO Interregional Meeting on South -South Cooperation on Intellectual Property (IP) Governance; Genetic Resources, Tradit ional Knowledge and Folklore (GRTKF) and Copyright and Related Rights jointly organized by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the Government of Brazil Brasilia, August 8 to 10, 2012 Copyright, b alancing of interests , and developing countries Dr. Mihály Ficsor, Chairman, Central and Eastern European Copyright Alliance (CCECA) former Assistant Director General of WIPO I. RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL NORMS M. Ficsor, Brasilia, August 8-10, 2012 2 Three „layers” – and a half – of the international copyright and related rights norms First „layer”: Berne Convention orginially adopted in 1886, regularly revised ; for the last time in 1971 (administered by WIPO) and the Rome Convention adopted in 1961 (jointly administered by WIPO, UNESCO and ILO). Second „layer”: TRIPS Agreement adopted in 1994 (administered by WTO). Third „layer”: WIPO „Internet Treaties”: the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) adopted in 1996 and the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performences (BTAP) adopted in June 2012 The half layer: „guided development period” (1975 to 1988) M. Ficsor, Brasilia, August 8-10, 2012 3 Berne Convention (1) Specific exceptions and limitations: Access to information : free use official texts of a legislative, administrative and legal nature (Art. 2(4)), political speeches and speeches delivered in legal proceedings (Art. 2 bis (1)), and – for informatory purposes – lectures and addresses delivered in public; free re-use of articles and broadcast works on current economic, political or religious topics (Art. 10 bis (1)) and (Art.10 bis (2)). Freedom of speech, research and criticism : free quotation (Art.
    [Show full text]
  • National Policies As Platforms for Innovation: Reconciling a Flat
    NATIONAL POLICIES AS PLATFORMS FOR InnOVATION Reconciling a Flat World with Creative Cities FEBRUARY 2007 BY BRADEN COX And STEVE DELBIAncO THE ASSOCIATION FOR COMPETITIVE TECHNOLOGY (ACT) IS AN INTERNATIONAL ADVOCACY And EDUCATION ORGANIZATION REPRESENTING MORE THAN 3000 SMALL And MID-SIZE InfORMATION TECHNOLOGY FIRMS FROM AROUnd THE WORLD. ACT ADVOCATES FOR AN ENVIRONMENT THAT InsPIRES And REWARds InnOVATION, And PROVIDES RESOURCES LIKE THE InnOVATORS NETWORK TO HELP MEMBERS LEVERAGE THEIR INTELLECTUAL AssETS TO RAISE CAPITAL, CREATE JOBS, AND CONTINUE INNOVATING. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . 2 INTRODUCTION . 3 INNOVATION TAKES MANY FORMS, YET IS SINGULARLY IMPORTANT . 4 HOW SUCCESSFUL ECONOMIES DRIVE INNOVATION . 6 INNOVATION OCCURS IN ECOSYSTEMS . 12 NATIONAL POLICIES CULTIVATE INNOVATION ECOSYSTEMS . 16 CONCLUSION . 25 APPENDIX . 26 RECOncILING A FLAT WORLD WITH CREATIVE CITIES 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY nnovation is the “secret sauce” for the growth Friedman’s global view and Florida’s local and prosperity of economies. Countries perspective make valuable contributions to the I around the world are seeking to improve competitiveness literature. However, each is their competitiveness with strategies to spur incomplete. In a globally connected world where innovation. certain cities innovate above the rest, national Innovation occurs in many forms, including policies are vital. business models, products and services, and Certain national policies are essential to supply chains. Innovation flourishes in environ- enable a country’s participation in the global ments that allow easy immigration, flexible hiring economy and a city’s quest to be an innovation and firing of employees, and risk taking. center. In this regard, global and local innovation In addition, countries with an educated work- depend heavily on a favorable national legal and force, low taxes, strong intellectual property regulatory ecosystem.
    [Show full text]
  • The WIPO Internet Treaties
    WORLD General INTELLECTUAL In December 1996, two new treaties were PROPERTY concluded at the World Intellectual Property ORGANIZATION Organization (WIPO): the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT). Together, these WIPO is committed to working towards the treaties represent a milestone in modernizing the broadest possible adherence to the treaties international system of copyright and related around the world in order to safeguard global rights, ushering that system into the digital age. protection for creativity. This project is a key item on the WIPO Digital Agenda, approved by the Background Member States in September 1999. The WIPO Copyright law provides protection for literary and Informationwww.wipo.int on the current situation regarding the Internet artistic works, giving their creators the ability WCT and the WPPT is available on our website at to control certain uses of their works. The law of <http://www.wipo.int/treaties/ip/index.html>. related rights (that is, rights related to copyright) Treaties provides similar protection for the creative For more information contact the contributions of parties involved in presenting World Intellectual Property Organization at: works to the public, such as performers, Address: Telephone: phonogram producers, and broadcasters. 34, chemin des Colombettes +41 22 338 91 11 Copyright and related rights are provided by P.O. Box 18 Fax: CH-1211 Geneva 20 +41 22 733 54 28 national laws in individual countries. International Switzerland E-mail: treaties link the various national laws by ensuring [email protected] that at least a minimum level of rights will be or its New York Coordination Office at: www.wipo.int granted to creators under each national law.
    [Show full text]
  • The Challenges of Copyright in the EU
    Briefing June 2015 The challenges of copyright in the EU SUMMARY Despite over a century of international harmonisation, copyright law remains essentially national law, even though some fundamental copyright norms are gradually converging. Today, copyright is regulated at international level mainly through the Bern Convention, the Universal Copyright Convention, and a series of other treaties administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization. At present, national copyright laws are grounded in a handful of universal rules and principles. Exclusive rights are granted to creators for 'original' works which range from art (music, paintings) to information products (maps, databases). The rights conceded under copyright vary with national laws and legal traditions (civil law in continental Europe and common law in Anglo-American countries). However, as a minimum, exclusive rights encompass the rights to reproduce, distribute, rent, lend, or communicate a work to the public. All these rights can be transferred and/or collectively managed by specialist intermediaries (notably for music works). Most national laws also grant moral rights to protect the author's name and reputation. Other provisions – such as the term of copyright protection – differ widely on a global scale. To maintain a fair balance between the interests of users and rights-holders, legislators have foreseen a number of exceptions, allowing for limited free use of certain works. The main European Union instrument providing a legal framework for copyright is the 2001 Copyright Directive. In May 2015, the European Commission unveiled its plans to create a Digital Single Market, aiming in this respect to present legislative proposals reducing the differences between national copyright regimes and allowing for wider online access, including through further harmonisation measures.
    [Show full text]
  • Carrie Russell, Library Copyright Alliance
    BEFORE THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS IN THE MATTER OF THE FACILITATING ACCESS TO COPYRIGHTED WORKS FOR THE BLIND OR OTHER PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES Docket No. E9-24539 COMMENTS OF THE LIBRARY COPYRIGHT ALLIANCE, THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION AND THE CHIEF OFFICERS OF STATE LIBRARY AGENCIES Pursuant to the Notice of Inquiry (NOI) published by the Copyright Office in the Federal Register on October 13, 2009, the Library Copyright Alliance (LCA), the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Chief Officers of State Library Agencies (COSLA) submit the following comments on the topic of facilitating access to copyrighted works for the blind or other persons with disabilities. The Library Copyright Alliance consists of the American Library Association, the Association of College and Research Libraries, and the Association of Research Libraries. The American Library Association (ALA) is a nonprofit professional organization of more than 65,000 librarians, library trustees and other friends of libraries dedicated to providing and improving library services and promoting the public interest in a free and open information society. The Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), the largest division of ALA, is a professional association of academic and research library and information professionals to serve the information needs of the higher education community and to improve learning, teaching and research. 1 The Association of Research Libraries (ARL) is a nonprofit organization of 123 research libraries in North America. ARL’s members include university libraries, public libraries, government and national libraries. ARL influences the changing environment of scholarly communication and the public policies that affect research libraries and the diverse communities they serve.
    [Show full text]
  • Wipo Copyright Treaties Implementation and On-Line Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation
    WIPO COPYRIGHT TREATIES IMPLEMENTATION AND ON-LINE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LIABILITY LIMITATION WIPO COPYRIGHT TREATIES IMPLEMENTATION AND ON-LINE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LIABILITY LIMITATION MAY 22, 1998.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. COBLE, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H.R. 2281] [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 2281) to amend title 17, United States Code, to implement the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty and Performances and Phonograms Treaty, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass. TABLE OF CONTENTS The amendment is as follows: [2] Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following: TITLE I--WIPO COPYRIGHT TREATIES IMPLEMENTATION SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE. This title may be cited as the ''WIPO Copyright Treaties Implementation Act''. SEC. 102. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS. (a) DEFINITIONS.--Section 101 of title 17, United States Code, is amended-- (1) by striking the definition of ''Berne Convention work''; (2) in the definition of ''The 'country of origin' of a Berne Convention work''-- (A) by striking ''The 'country of origin' of a Berne Convention work, for purposes of section 411, is the United States if'' and inserting ''For purposes of section 411, a work is a 'United States work' only
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of WIPO-Administered Treaties on Copyright and Related Rights
    Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Copyright and Related Rights: Beijing and Marrakesh Treaties Overview of WIPO-Administered Treaties on Copyright and Related Rights WIPO in cooperation with the Copyright Directorate of the Ministry of Culture of Albania Tirana, March 6, 2018 Prof. Dr. Silke von Lewinski 1 Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition | Munich Overview I. Authors’ rights treaties 1. Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works 2. WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) II. Treaties on related rights 1. Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations 2. WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) 3. Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances III. Treaty on access to works by visually impaired people: Marrakesh VIP Treaty 2 Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition | Munich Overview I. Why do we need such treaties? 1. National copyright laws usually only apply to national situations 2. Works “travel”, are exploited beyond national borders 3. Without an international obligation in a treaty, such works often would not be protected beyond national borders II. Relation between treaties 3 Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition | Munich I. Authors‘ rights treaties 1. The Berne Convention a. History and objective - After initial network of various bilateral treaties on authors’ rights: need for one multilateral treaty - Entry into force: September 9, 1886 - Revisions since then: 5 (latest in Paris, 1971) - Number of member states: 175 - Objective: international system granting protection for works of authors in international situations 4 Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition | Munich I. Authors‘ rights treaties 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Wipo Intellectual Property Handbook Wipo Publication
    WIPO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY HANDBOOK WIPO PUBLICATION No. 489 (E) ISBN 978-92-805-1291-5 WIPO 2004 Second Edition Reprinted 2008 Detailed Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction The Concept of Intellectual Property 3 The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) 4 History 4 Mission and Activities 5 Structure 7 Administration 8 Membership 9 Constitutional Reform 9 Wider Consultation and Outreach 12 Chapter 2 Fields of Intellectual Property Protection Patents 17 Introduction 17 Conditions of Patentability 17 Drafting and Filing a Patent Application 22 Examination of a Patent Application 24 Infringement 27 Exploitation of the Patented Invention 33 Compulsory Licenses 34 Utility Models 40 ii WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook: Policy, Law and Use Copyright and Related Rights 40 Introduction 40 Copyright Protection 41 Subject Matter of Copyright Protection 42 Rights Comprised in Copyright 43 Related Rights 46 Ownership of Copyright 49 Limitations on Copyright Protection 50 Piracy and Infringement 51 Remedies 52 Intellectual Property and Traditional Cultural Expressions 56 Trends and Experiences in the Protection of TCEs 64 Conceptual and Policy Questions 66 Recent and Possible Future Developments 67 Trademarks 67 Introduction 67 Definitions 68 Signs Which May Serve as Trademarks 70 Criteria of Protectability 71 Protection of Trademark Rights 77 Use Requirements 77 Trademark Registration 79 Removal of the Trademark from the Register 82 Trademark Piracy, Counterfeiting and Imitation of Labels and Packaging 90 Change of Ownership 92 Trademark
    [Show full text]
  • 2004 Update: International Legal Protection for Software
    fenwick & west llp 2004 Update: International Legal Protection for Software This booklet can be found on our Web site at www.softwareprotection.com fenwick & west llp About the Firm Fenwick & West LLP provides comprehensive legal services to high-technology and biotechnology clients of national and international prominence. We have more than 240 attorneys and a network of correspondent firms in major cities throughout the world. We have offices in Mountain View and San Francisco, California and Boise, Idaho. Fenwick & West is committed to providing excellent, cost-effective and practical legal services and solutions that focus on global high-technology industries and issues. We believe that technology will continue to drive our national and global economies, and we look forward to partnering with our clients to create the products and services that help build great companies. We differentiate ourselves by having greater depth in our understanding of our clients’ technologies, industry environment and business needs than is typically expected of lawyers. Fenwick & West is a full service law firm with nationally ranked practice groups covering: n Corporate (emerging growth, financings, securities, mergers & acquisitions) n Intellectual Property (patent, copyright, licensing, trademark) n Litigation (commercial, IP litigation and alternative dispute-resolution) n Tax (domestic, international tax planning and litigation) Updates and questions concerning this report should be directed to Ralph Pais ([email protected]) of our Mountain View office or Michael Egger ([email protected]) of our San Francisco office. Additional copies are available upon request. Our Offices Silicon Valley Center Embarcadero Center West Boise Idaho Office 801 California Street 275 Battery Street 877 West Main Street, Suite 706 Mountain View, CA 94041 San Francisco, CA 94111 Boise, ID 83702 Tel: 650.988.8500 Tel: 415.875.2300 Tel: 208.331.0700 Fax: 650.938.5200 Fax: 415.281.1350 Fax: 208.331.7723 © 2004, 1992, Fenwick & West LLP.
    [Show full text]
  • Antitrust, Intellectual Property, and the Itunes Ecosystem
    533 ANTITRUST, INTELLECTU AL PROPERTY, AND THE ITUNES ECOSYSTEM: A STUDY OF THE ANTITRUST IMPLICATIONS OF APPLE’S FAIRPLAY TECHNOLOGY WITH A NOD TO THE PECULIARITIES OF • INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY WILLOW NOONAN* I. INTRODUCTION In December 2008, Apple’s iTunes online music store surpassed Wal- Mart as the largest music retailer in the world.1 In the closely related portable music player market, Apple’s iPod enjoys similar success.2 Undoubtedly, Ap- ple’s insight and innovation won much of this eminence. However, a close look at Apple’s business practices reveals some conduct that draws a suspicious eye from antitrust and intellectual property laws. The first part of this article traces the development of online music and the subsequent proliferation of copyright infringement. The next part outlines the technical details, benefits, and drawbacks of Apple’s iTunes ecosystem, a notable combination of Apple products and services. The third part undertakes a traditional antitrust analysis of Apple’s conduct and suggests the need for dee- per inquiry. The next part investigates how Apple’s conduct implicates intellec- tual property law. The fifth part reviews the doctrine of intellectual property misuse and how it might apply to Apple. The final part revisits the antitrust • 2009 IDEA Student Intellectual Property Writing Competition Winner. * Candidate for Juris Doctor, 2010, The George Washington University Law School. 1 Press Release, Apple, Inc., iTunes Store Top Music Retailer in the US (Apr. 3, 2008), http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/04/03itunes.html [hereinafter iTunes Store]. 2 Jessica Hodgson, Leap Year Trips Zune in Black Eye for Microsoft, WALL ST.
    [Show full text]
  • Itunes, INTEROPERABILITY, and FRANCE's Dadvsi LAW by Deanasobel
    A BITE OUT OF APPLE? iTUNES, INTEROPERABILITY, AND FRANCE'S DADvsI LAW By DeanaSobel In the nearly ten years since computer software companies and content owners lobbied Congress for statutory protection against digital piracy, leading to the enactment of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in the United States, the role of technical protection measures (TPMs) in protecting digital media has developed into a globally contested issue. Traditionally, content providers regarded TPMs as a fail-safe system for protecting digital content. Both the DMCA and the 2001 European Un- ion Copyright Directive (EUCD), which harmonizes digital copyright law in Europe, recognize the importance of anti-circumvention legislation in stimulating the global digital marketplace. 1 Their theory is that safeguard- ing TPMs cultivates the digital marketplace by creating an incentive for companies to develop new products. Yet the role of governments in limit- ing the reach of TPMs is inchoate. For this reason, companies have been given free reign to use TPMs that not only prevent digital piracy, but also restrict how consumers use their products. This restriction has created con- troversy in Europe and beyond. In August of 2006, in order to implement the EUCD, France passed the "Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights in the Information Socie- ty" known as Dadvsi.2 Under this law, individuals may now petition the government to compel the disclosure of TPM source code in order to per- mit product interoperability. Parallel to the enactment of Dadvsi, French, Scandinavian, German, and Dutch consumer groups have waged a cam- paign against Apple, creator of iTunes software and the iPod portable mu- sic player.
    [Show full text]