DOCSLIB.ORG

Copyright Infringement at the Digital

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Copyright Infringement at the Digital Copyright Enforcement in the Digital Environment Focus on the French System Valérie Laure Benabou Prof. Université Versailles-Paris-Saclay • I. Specificity of on-line infringement • II. French answers and their efficiency I. Specificity of on- line infringement Digital Analog International National S y Massive infringement (quantity Limited infringement s of works/ territorial scope) t e Amateurs (digital copy is Professional (reproduction was made m necessary to any act of by professional distributors) i consumption ) c Disruption Appearing business models Existing business models New intermediaries Known intermediaries Differences between Analog and Digital World • Dynamic • Fast-speed evolution of the framework Technology (P2P ; downloading/uploading ; streaming, linking, PVR/nPVR) Business (Itunes-Amazon/Deezer-Spotify/Youtub/Mega UpLoad-Pirate-Bay) Consumption habits (sharing/ advices/mobility-portability) Law (national answer/European/International ? Cooperation/competition ?) Why Online Copyright Infrigement is Specific ? Actors contributing to counterfeiting Content providers of users illegal goods Infringement «Normal infringement » Intermediaries Content providers of users illegal files or stream/users Infringement « On-line infringement » Until 2010 : online legal services for protected contents seemed unattractive in comparison with illegal services as regards : • price • breadth of titles and content offered, • ease and timeliness of access • restrictions (use of Digital Rights Management software). Since 2010 : Development of legal, cheaper, faster and more comprehensive services • Spotify and Deezer in music, Netflix, Blinkbox, Hula et al for film and TV, and Amazon for e-books. • Vast choice of legal online music services in European countries and English speaking countries. • Services are growing quickly (territorial scope & incomes) • Consumers’ satisfaction with the legal is improving (e.g. in France 64% of consumers consider the offer ‘satisfactory’) • (See Sandvine Global Internet Phenomena Report : https://www.sandvine.com/trends/global-internet-phenomena) Legal offer/Illegal offer Evolution Ex. Spotify • Diversity of situations / responses worlwide • Diverse developments of technology (broadband, mobile phone) • Diverse uses and habits of consumption • Despite its worldwide dimension, online enforcement of copyright has been characterised by a lack of shared approaches between countries, at the EU or WIPO level. Lack of International or European Solution • In Europe, insufficient legal framework as regards on line infringement : • D. 2004 Enforcement is not specific to digital • D. 2000 E-commerce does not address specifically copyright infringement and provides for a non-liability regime • D. 2001 Infosoc grants exclusive rights but poor answers as to enforcement (except art. 8) European Insufficient Legal Framework (see previous presentation) • Brazil (BR): Lei Azeredo (1999) and Lei Carolina Dickermann (2012) • Canada (CA): voluntary agreement from 2000, CMA (2012), formalised notice and notice regime to come into force in 2015. • Italy (IT): Agcom (Dec 2013) • South Korea (KR): key revisions of the South Korea Copyright Act (2006, 2009), revision of Telecommunications Business Act (2011) • The Netherlands (NL): voluntary Notice and take down Code of Conduct (2008) • Spain (SP): Ley Sinde (2009) and Ley Lassale (2011) • United Kingdom (UK): DEA (2010) but not implemented yet. First court injunction blocking infringing website under the 97A Copyright Designs and Patents Act in 2011. PIPCU established in 2013 and Creative Content UK established as alternative to DEkA (2015). • US: DMCA (1998), establishing safe harbours for service providers, CCI established the CAS, which includes graduated response notifications (implemented in February 2013) • France (FR): Act for Copyright and Neighbouring Rights in the Info Society (2006), Hadopi Laws (2) (2009) Implementation per country II. French answers and their efficiency • Measures against online copyright infringement can be either dedicated legislative programmes either feature as one part of a set of wider legislation responding to a range of copyright and internet-driven issues. IP-driven • Implementation of the 2001 Infosoc Directive : 2006 (DADVSI Act) • Implementation of the Enforcement Directive : 2007 Act (Not dedicated to mere copyright but all IP) • HADOPI laws (first invalidated, then a second) : 2009 (out of any implementation of EU text) Internet-driven • Protection of private data (and role of the CMS) : 2004 Act (implementation of the 1998 Directive) • Liability of intermediaries : 2004 LCEN (implementation of the e- commerce Directive) Origins of the measures Educative/preventative • Actions aimed at individual consumers and subscribers • ‘graduated response’ system developed by the HADOPI aimed at educating and preventing alongside with punishment • promoting legal online offers better by signposting to sites that are ‘clean’ and legal (HADOPI mission as to labels : failure) • Filtering (cooperation with ISPs or search engines) / Black-listing or degrade the ranking of the infringing sites Purposes of the solutions Mitigating and punitive • Some actions are designed more clearly to mitigate the effects of, and stop infringement: • ‘notice and takedown’ procedures that order the takedown of infringing material (Hosting providers LCEN) • Injunctions towards the ISP in order to block the access to the content/website or deletion of illegal copies (L. 336-2 CPI and injunctions ) • « follow the money » approaches that target advertising and financial intermediaries are all aimed at reducing the supply of such material (no specific measure) • Punitive sanctions • Criminal offences for on-line infringement (fines, prison) • Damages • Cutting off internet access altogether (Formerly in the HADOPI but finally withdrawn in the law) Purposes of the solutions First attempt to involve ISPs Beginning of the 2000’s Failure : DADVSI Vivendi provision (against File-Sharing Softwares) Second attempt to involve ISPs Mid 2000’s Failure : HADOPI Three Strikes/ Graduated response Third Attemp to involve intermediaries Search/ Paywal Follow the money approach (pending) Diversity of solutions : Voluntary measures or legal sanctions First attempt to involve ISPs Beginning of the 2000’s Failure : DADVSI Vivendi provision (against File-Sharing Softwares) What’s Second attempt to involve ISPs Mid 2000’s next ?? Failure : HADOPI Three Strikes/ Graduated response Third Attemp to involve intermediaries Search/ Paywal Follow the money approach (pending) Diversity of solutions : Voluntary measures or legal sanctions • Different strategies developed by the rightholders to fight against the phenomenon Historically, • First target : providers of file-sharing software (The ‘Napster’s age’) : “Vivendi” provision of the DADVSI, 2006 • Second target : Internet Service Providers (ISP) (the involvement of ISPs in counterfeiting struggle) HADOPI, 2009 • Third target : end-user (the graduate response) HADOPI, 2009 • Now : Involvement of the “new intermediaries”: search engines (Google), follow the money approach (Paypal, advertisers) : L. 336-2 CPI (HADOPI, 2009) History of a struggle • Supply-side actions that target mainly companies providing or facilitating access to infringing content focus upon: • Extra judicial processes • Take down and blocking of sites : YES • ‘Follow the money’ approaches– targeting intermediaries who either knowingly or not knowingly are involved in monetising online content that infringes copyright (e.g. advertisers and financial intermediaries) : • Legal actions • Companies can be pursued through the courts, to take down and block sites but also to sue for damages and compensation. • Contributory infringement actions : NOT COMPLYING WITH FRENCH TORT LAW PRINCIPLES Supply-side actions • Demand-side sanctions target individual subscribers • Fines (all countries) and imprisonment (BR, KR) • traditional’ judicial measures to pursue persistent infringers. • Graduated response letters (US, FR, KR, UK) • warning letters of increasing severity sent to subscribers whose accounts have been linked to identified online copyright infringement, with the ultimate sanction of prosecution if infringement from the account being monitored does not cease; • Termination of access (KR, US) Formerly France but withdrawn • right to terminate the internet access for a given period for subscribers whose accounts have been linked to persistent infringement; • Other strategies • Throttling back’ (US) • slowing down the speed of the internet connection to accounts that have been linked to infringement if this behaviour persists; • Transactional Damages (Germany): Right holders collect the IP address with the ISP and send a letter enjoigning the internet user to pay damages in order to cease the proceedings (transaction) Demand-side sanctions • Several countries combine the largely punitive sanctions with a strong emphasis on educative and preventative measures: • Signposting the legal offer – some countries (IT, KR, NL) provide lists and directories of ‘clean sites’ to increase consumers' awareness of the legal offer in their countries; • Subsidies to consume the legal offer (FR) – France has experimented with providing subsidies to consume legal online content, in the form of the Youth Music Card, a scheme that ran between 2010 and 2012; and • Graduated response letters (FR, CA, US, UK) – government sponsors usually class this intervention as primarily educative rather
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • France Annual Report to the IFLA CLM Committee San Juan Puerto Rico 2011
    Country Report France Annual report to the IFLA CLM committee San Juan Puerto Rico 2011 Copyright Revision/changes in existing law or regulations New legislation Orphan works: A law proposal on orphan works has been drafted. The national Council for Intellectual property (Conseil supérieur de la propriété littéraire et artistique : CSPLA), which is working under the supervision of the Ministry of Culture, is currently analyzing the Directive project with all the French stakeholders. The draft will probably be amended in consideration of the European proposal. Mass digitization: 1) The national Loan (called “investments for the Future”) launched by the government at the end of 2009 promised 750 millions of Euros for digitization (140 millions for the Bibliotheque national de France (BnF) through public-private partnerships). A call for projects has been launched by the BnF, the General Committee for investment and the Ministry of culture. Private partners are invited to describe their project of digitization and valorisation on a selection of collections (12 areas are proposed: old books from 1470 to 1700, a corpus of 300 000 to 500 000 French books in the public domain, French Press from 1780 to 1940, 78 rpm and long-playing records, medieval or modern manuscripts, also photography and pictures before WW2). The deadline for replies runs out October 12, 2011. 2) Out of print works : “proposition de loi sur les livres indisponibles” A Framework agreement has been signed in February 2011 between the Ministry of Culture, the BnF, the General Committee for investment, the French Publishers and a collective society representing authors. This agreement aims at facilitating the digitization of 500.000 out-of-print books of the XXth Century.
    [Show full text]
  • Monsieur Dominique De VILLEPIN Premier Ministre 57, Rue De Varenne 75007 Paris
    FSF France 12, bd Magenta 75010 Paris Monsieur Dominique de VILLEPIN Premier ministre 57, rue de Varenne 75007 Paris Paris, le 23 mai 2006 Objet: demande d'entretien entre le Premier ministre et Richard Stallman, président de la Fondation pour le Logiciel libre (Free Software Foundation) Monsieur le Premier ministre, La Fondation pour le Logiciel Libre vient de lancer à Seattle sa campagne internationale anti- DRM intitulée «DefectiveByDesign.org» («Défectueux à dessein»). A cette occasion, nous sollicitons de votre part un entretien avec Richard Stallman, président de la Fondation pour le Logiciel Libre. Richard Stallman sera en effet présent à Paris début juin 2006 pour diverses actions publiques autour des DRM et du projet de loi relatif au droit d'auteur et droits voisins dans la société de l'information (DADVSI). Le terme DRM s'entendait à l'origine comme «gestion de droits numériques», mais aujourd'hui il désigne surtout des dispositifs qui contrôlent les actes des utilisateurs dans la sphère privée (Dispositif de Contrôle d'Usage). L'objectif de la campagne «DefectiveByDesign.org» est de sensibiliser les utilisateurs d'ordinateurs sur les risques associés aux DRM et de mettre en garde les fabricants contre la mise à disposition de produits équipés de DRM. En France, le coeur du projet de loi DADVSI est le verouillage juridique des DRM, or les dispositifs de contrôle d'usage donnent un droit de contrôle inacceptable aux constructeurs de matériels et de logiciels sur les ordinateurs personnels. Ce verrouillage a été dénoncé notamment par le député Pierre Lasbordes (UMP) dans son rapport sur la sécurité des systèmes d'information qu'il vous a remis le 13 janvier 2006.
    [Show full text]
  • Discours, Éditoriaux, Préfaces Et Tribunes De Renaud Donnedieu De Vabres, Ministre De La Culture Et De La Communication De 2004 À 2007
    Discours, éditoriaux, préfaces et tribunes de Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres, ministre de la Culture et de la communication de 2004 à 2007 Répertoire numérique détaillé n° 20160696 Isabelle Autin-Donsez, mission des archives du ministère de la Culture et de la communication Première édition électronique Archives nationales (France) Pierrefitte-sur-Seine 2016 1 https://www.siv.archives-nationales.culture.gouv.fr/siv/IR/FRAN_IR_055635 Cet instrument de recherche a été rédigé dans le système d'information archivistique des Archives nationales. Ce document est écrit en français. Conforme à la norme ISAD(G) et aux règles d'application de la DTD EAD (version 2002) aux Archives nationales. 2 Archives nationales (France) Sommaire Discours, éditoriaux, préfaces et tribunes de Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres, ministre 4 de la Culture et de la communication de 2004 à 2007 Discours 7 Editoriaux et préfaces 38 Tribunes 51 3 Archives nationales (France) INTRODUCTION Référence 20160696/1-20160696/77 Niveau de description série organique Intitulé Discours, éditoriaux, préfaces et tribunes de Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres, ministre de la Culture et de la communication de 2004 à 2007 Date(s) extrême(s) 2004-2007 Nom du producteur • Cabinet de Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres, ministre de la Culture et de la Communication Importance matérielle et support • 69 255 168 octets • 1398 fichiers • archives électroniques Localisation physique Pierrefitte-sur-Seine Conditions d'accès Communicable sur autorisation de M. Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres jusqu'en 2032, conformément au protocole signé entre lui et le ministère de la Culture et de la communication (direction des archives de France), représenté par Mme Martine de Boisdeffre.
    [Show full text]
  • American Exceptionalism, the French Exception, Intellectual Property Law, and Peer-To-Peer File Sharing on the Internet
    THE JOHNIMARSHALL REVIEW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM, THE FRENCH EXCEPTION, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, AND PEER-TO-PEER FILE SHARING ON THE INTERNET LYOMBE EKO, P.H.D ABSTRACT A fundamental problem confronting policy makers is how to apply intellectual property rules and regulations developed for tangible intellectual property assets in real space to intangible, dematerialized intellectual property in cyberspace. The United States and France are self-described exceptionalist countries. American exceptionalism refers to the historical tendency of the United States to emphasize its unique status as the beacon of liberty, while J'exception frangaise (the French exception) refers to the French ideological posture that emphasizes the specificity and superiority of French culture. American exceptionalism and J'exception frangaise are functionally equivalent theoretical constructs that describe and explain how the United States and France highlight their respective political and cultural specificities vis-a-vis the rest of the world. The copyright regime of the United States reflects American exceptionalism, while the French regime de droit d'auteur (author's right regime) reflects the French exception. The purpose of this article was to study the exceptional intellectual property regimes of the United States and France, using as a comparative case study application of intellectual property laws designed for the offline environment, to online peer-to-peer file sharing on the Internet. A comparative analysis of statutory and case law in the United States and France demonstrates that: 1) The American intellectual property regime has a presumption against the legality of peer-to-peer file-sharing networks that exchange copyrighted material without permission, and 2) the French intellectual property regime classifies peer-to-peer file-sharing on the Internet as piracy, a criminal offense.
    [Show full text]
  • Europe: Measures to Limit Online Copyright Infringement
    18 Global Media and Communications Quarterly Autumn Issue 2012 Europe: Measures to Limit Online Copyright Infringement The creative industries argue that piracy costs the other forms of computer memory. Consequently some industry £400m a year in lost revenue. However, argued that individual file sharing should be considered attempts to introduce a legal framework to reduce a form of private copying, covered by an exception to online copyright infringement (‘OCI’) have been copyright and remunerated via the private copy levy. highly controversial and governments are struggling Individual lawsuits against Internet users for file sharing to find the right balance between, on the one hand, in France were in some cases unsuccessful because the intellectual property rights of content owners and judges balked at applying harsh infringement sanctions on the other hand, both the rights of ISPs to freely to teenagers who download music for personal usage. operate their businesses and the fundamental rights It became clear that French copyright law was ill- of individuals. In June of this year, after some set- adapted to the problem of OCI, in part because France’s backs, OFCOM published its draft code governing penalties for copyright infringement were so severe. the obligations imposed on ISPs under the UK Digital Economy Act, which means the UK framework for Ultimately, the DADVSI did not create compulsory dealing with OCI will finally be set in motion. This licencing for private downloading. Instead, the law article focuses on some of the problems which have contained a provision stating that individual peer-to- arisen in Europe and outlines the current framework peer downloads would no longer be considered a crime for dealing with OCI in France, Spain and the UK.
    [Show full text]
  • La France V. Apple Who's the Dadvsi In
    Edinburgh Research Explorer La France v. Apple Citation for published version: Jondet, N 2006, 'La France v. Apple: Who's the Dadvsi in DRMs?', SCRIPTed: A Journal of Law, Technology and Society, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 473-484. Link: Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research Explorer Document Version: Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Published In: SCRIPTed: A Journal of Law, Technology and Society General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorer content complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 03. Oct. 2021 Volume 3, Issue 4, June 2006 La France v. Apple: who’s the dadvsi in DRMs? Nicolas Jondet * Abstract On August 1, 2006 the French Parliament passed the law on copyright and related rights, known as DADVSI (loi relative au Droit d'Auteur et aux Droits Voisins dans la Société de l'Information), which implements the European Copyright Directive of 2001. The main feature of the law is the legalisation of technical protection measures for copyrighted works (also known as TPMs or DRMs) and the introduction of legal mechanisms to protect and enforce these technical measures.
    [Show full text]
  • La France V. Apple: Who's the Dadvsi in Drms? Nicolas Jondet
    La France v. Apple: who’s the dadvsi in DRMs? Nicolas Jondet Research Student, School of Law, University of Edinburgh Email: [email protected] Abstract On August 1, 2006 the French Parliament passed the law on copyright and related rights, known as DADVSI (loi relative au Droit d'Auteur et aux Droits Voisins dans la Société de l'Information), which implements the European Copyright Directive of 2001. The main feature of the law is the legalisation of technical protection measures for copyrighted works (also known as TPMs or DRMs) and the introduction of legal mechanisms to protect and enforce these technical measures. Such steps, aimed at combating digital piracy, should have been welcomed unreservedly by all involved in the media industry, from artists and producers to distributors, especially online content distributors such as Apple and Sony. However, the legalisation and protection of technical measures came with a few twists from French lawmakers. These twists have unnerved Apple, the market leader in music media players and online content distribution with its iPod player and iTunes distribution platform respectively. The DADVSI law introduces the requirement of interoperability for technical measures meaning that all DRM-protected music file must be playable on any device, irrespective of its brand or of the software used to read it. Such requirement of compatibility between competing DRMs threatens Apple’s exclusive DRM technology. In doing so, the law threatens the umbilical cord between the iPod player and the music sold on iTunes, and thus Apple’s dominance in both markets. This paper will describe how French lawmakers have managed to put in place an original and, so far, unique legal framework based around a new independent body in charge of implementing DRM interoperability and of ensuring that technical measures do not upset the balance between the interests of the rightholders and those of the consumers.
    [Show full text]
  • International Media Pirates: Are They Making the Entertainment Industry Walk the Plank?
    The Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship & the Law Volume 4 Issue 1 Article 3 11-20-2010 International Media Pirates: Are They Making the Entertainment Industry Walk the Plank? Lavonne Burke Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/jbel Part of the Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, and the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Lavonne Burke, International Media Pirates: Are They Making the Entertainment Industry Walk the Plank?, 4 J. Bus. Entrepreneurship & L. Iss. 1 (2010) Available at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/jbel/vol4/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Caruso School of Law at Pepperdine Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship & the Law by an authorized editor of Pepperdine Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. INTERNATIONAL MEDIA PIRATES: ARE THEY MAKING THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY WALK THE PLANK? LAVONNE BURKE , MS* I. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 67 II. Background Information .................................................................................... 69 A. International Intellectual Property Organization ................................... 69 1. The World Intellectual Property Organization and the Berne Convention ...................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Article Surveillance and Regulating Code: an Analysis of Graduated
    Surveillance and Regulating Code: Article An Analysis of Graduated Response in France Trisha Meyer Institute for European Studies and Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium. [email protected] Leo Van Audenhove IBBT-SMIT and Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Abstract This paper analyzes a recent policy initiative in France to deter copyright infringement. In 2009, France passed two laws aimed at fighting online piracy through graduated response, a warning and sanction system. Graduated response depends on surveillance of Internet uses and encourages technological regulation (code), such as Internet filtering and blocking. We analyze the rationales advocated for copyright and the Internet and the argumentation for surveillance and technical protection measures. In the French debate on graduated response, much attention was given to the policy goal, reducing piracy, while the means of reaching the policy goal, surveillance and code, were rarely discussed. Graduated response deals with much more than copyright. It promotes informational control by copyright holders and contributes to the normalization of surveillance and to an increase of centralized control on the Internet. Keywords: Surveillance, Internet regulation, Graduated response, Copyright, France, Policy analysis _____________________________________________________________________________________ Introduction In 2009, France passed two laws aimed at fighting online piracy through graduated
    [Show full text]