Content Regulation:
Protecting Copyright in the Online
Environment
Gavin Sutter
CCLS, Queen Mary, University of London
ICCL @ CCLS.edu
Copyright in the Online
Environment
Protection of Copyright on the web

Copyright online – the key issues
– Copyright in online content

Online infringement
– Linking, framing, peer to peer

Technological Protection of Copyright works
– Technologies available
– Regulation of those technologies

Is the internet the end of copyright?

Alternatives to copyright
ICCL @ CCLS.edu
Copyright Online

Copyright
– What rights does copyright confer?
– Right to control copying subject to certain restrictions

Application of copyright to online content
– Copyright in text, code, artwork, sound files

Criminal Law
– Copyright and alternative laws

Webpage as a compilation of IP Rights
– Copyright, TM, databases…
– Sui Generis database protection, e.g. web page

EU Directive 96/9/EC on the legal protection of databases
ICCL @ CCLS.edu
Protection of Copyright Online

Interests in protection
– Rightsholders
– Commercial assets in digital form

Internet: threat to copyright

Licensing and rights of use

Protection in the Courts
– Civil enforcement: litigation
– Criminal copyright infringement

Technical protection of copyright works
ICCL @ CCLS.edu
Online Infringement

Ease of online infringements
– Primary and secondary infringement

Prevailing internet culture
– Shareware, freeware, opensource
– Perception online copying is ‘ok’

Nature of computer / online technology
– Copying an integral part of use



E.g. storage  memory
E.g. email user  user
E.g. accessing web pages online and system caching
ICCL @ CCLS.edu
International Legislative
Response

World Intellectual Property Organisation Treaties (1996)
– Copyright Treaty and the Performances and Phonograms
Treaty

US: Digital Millennium Copyright Act (1998)

EU: Directive on Copyright in the Information Society
– rights of creators & producers


making available to the public (art. 3)
no exhaustion for on-line services (recital 29)
– exemptions & limitations (art. 5)

“for the private use of natural person”
ICCL @ CCLS.edu
Licensing Issues

Express Licensing
– Distribution online

E.g. New York Times v Tasini (2001)
– ‘click-wrap’ licensing

Valid and enforceable?
– Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (1999), s.
210 - ‘Massmarket transaction’
– e.g. Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, Inc., (2000) &
Register.com vVerio (2000)

statutory limitations on licence terms
– ‘open source’ licensing

E.g. GNU General Public Licence (GPL)
ICCL @ CCLS.edu
Licensing Issues II

Implied Licence
– Nature of the medium

Web, Usenet…
– Scope of licence

E.g. Trumpet Software Pty Ltd. v. OzEmail Pty Ltd [1996]
– not to adapt
– not to remove notification of ownership & licence terms
– ‘spidering’



creating derivative works
Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, Inc., (2000), eBay v Bidders
Edge (2000)
tort of trespass to goods?
ICCL @ CCLS.edu
Usage Rights

Notification of Ownership
– Required formalities
– Evidential presumptions

E.g. CDPA 1988, s.104
– Public Domain


www.creativecommons.org
Permitted Acts
– E.g. fair dealing / fair use


Types of activity, e.g. private study
Types of defendant, e.g. library
ICCL @ CCLS.edu
Peer to Peer Networks &
Copyright Infringement

Online file-sharing of copyright works
– What is a “peer to peer” (p2p) network?

MP3s & infringement
– What is an mp3?
– Scale of the problem:
– Google.com search for “mp3”:






30/01/02: 17.1 million hits
15/01/03: 30.3 million hits
28/01/04: 49.3 million hits
08/12/04: 200 million hits
19/01/06: 235 million hits
22/11/06: 741 million hits
ICCL @ CCLS.edu

Peer to Peer Networks
Centralised (e.g. Napster)

Decentralised (e.g. Gnutella)
Index Server
Client/Servers
Client/Servers
ICCL @ CCLS.edu
P2P in the courts

A&M Records, Inc & ors v Napster, Inc (2001)
– contributory copyright infringement
•
•
•
receives knowledge of specific infringing files
knows that such files are available on the system
fails to act to prevent distribution
– vicarious copyright infringement
•
“has the right and ability to supervise the infringing activity
and also has a direct financial interest in such activities.”
– Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S.
417 (1984): the ‘Betamax’ case
•
‘space-shifting’ or ‘time-shifting’
ICCL @ CCLS.edu
P2P in the Courts II

Vereniging Buma & Stichting Stemra –vKaZaA B.V.
– Amsterdam Court of Appeal 28 March 2002
– Decentralised p2p network
– Minimal centralised service
– ‘notice & take-down’ and ability to terminate
accounts
– Distinction KaZaA & Napster systems
ICCL @ CCLS.edu
P2P in the courts III

US cases on decentralised p2p, e.g.:
– US: MGM v Grokster 2003




2003 – RIAA sues individual infringers
–
–
–
–

US District Ct for Central District of California, April 2003
“Grokster…[is] not significantly different from companies that sell home videos
or copy machines, both of which can be and are used to infringe copyrights.”
Morpheus & KaZaA
382 individuals subject of RIAA suits by December 2003
Late 2003 – BPI indicates it is considering same policy
January 26th 2004 – IFPI announces its support for this approach
By July 2006 RIAA has sued “over 20,000” (EFF.org)
October 2004: BPI announces legal action against 28 UK File Sharers
– Using KaZaA, Imesh, Grokster, Bearshare and WinMX networks.
– Coincides with IFPI Announcement of of 457 new legal actions against
illegal file sharers across six European countries
– BPI’s parental awareness campaign

http://www.childnet-int.org/music/
ICCL @ CCLS.edu
MGM v Grokster

MGM v Grokster in US Supreme Court
– Case No. 04-480, 27 June 2005
– Distributors of P2P system liable for copyright
infringement
– A radical departure from general trend?
– Reference to DRMS

UK: Play Louder MSP
– http://www.playloudermsp.com
– Broadband subscription to include ‘licence fee’ for
sharing music
– Future of this business model?
ICCL @ CCLS.edu
Linking & Web Pages

Uniform Resource Locators (URLs)
– e.g. http://www.ccls.edu/itlaw
– ‘inline link’ for images: <IMG SRC...>

Linking to infringing works
– authorising infringement


Universal City Studios, Inc and others v Corley and others SD
Cal., August 17, 2000
Links as protected items
– Shetland Times v Wills [1997] FSR 604


as a literary work, as a compilation
as an item in a cable programme service
ICCL @ CCLS.edu
Linking & Web Pages II

‘Deep links’
– SNC Havas Numerique & SA Cadres On Line v SA Kelijob
(2000)

copyright and database infringement
– StepStone v Ofir (2001)

database protection
– Perfect 10 v Google – “stolen content sites”

Creating associations
– frames

Washington Post Co. v. Total News Inc (1997)
– Meta-tags & ‘wordstuffing’

Road Tech Computer Systems Ltd. v Mandata (May 2000)
ICCL @ CCLS.edu
Linking Agreements

Copyright & trademark protection
– define “prohibited uses”

Validity & enforceability of contract
– contract formation issues

Uniform Computer Information Transactions
Act
– s. 611 re: access contracts
ICCL @ CCLS.edu


Criminal Copyright I
UK
– CDPA, s. 107, for making or dealing with infringing articles
 Copyright, etc. and Trade Marks (Offences and Enforcement)
Act 2002
 Marks & Spencer v Craig Cottrell & ors (2001)
US
– United States v LaMaccia 871 F. Supp. 535 (D. Mass. 1994)
– No Electronic Theft Act 1997
 18 U.S.C § 2319: 5 years imprisonment, $250,000
– Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998
 e.g. Dmitry Sklyarov
ICCL @ CCLS.edu


Criminal Copyright II
Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime (2001)
– Article 10
 “..where such acts are committed wilfully, on a commercial
scale and by means of a computer system.”
EU Directive on Copyright in the Information Society
– acts of circumvention
– circumvention devices
 art. 6(4) making available “the means of benefiting from that
exception or limitation”
 DMCA (17 U.S.C. § 1201)
– e.g. non-profit libraries, archives, educational institutions, law
enforcement, encryption research, filter software
ICCL @ CCLS.edu
Copyright in the online world…
…a spent force?

Conceptual difficulties

Scale of online violations

Challenge of detecting and ending violations

How to protect copyright online?
– Traditional litigation proceedings….
– …or technological copy-protection mechanisms?
ICCL @ CCLS.edu
Traditional legal protection: the
drawbacks

Litigation can be a s-l-o-w process
– c/f speed of change in the online world

Reactive, not proactive
– ‘Prevention is better than cure’?

Effectiveness of traditional remedies online questionable
–
–
–
–
Mirror sites
The ‘Paul & Karla’ effect
Yahoo! before the French & US Courts
Time and Expense
ICCL @ CCLS.edu
Copy Protection

NOT the same thing as copy-prevention
– UK European Directive on Copyright
(Computer Programs) Regulations 1992
– Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988, as
amended
Section 50A(1)
 Section 296A(1)(b)

– CDPA General ‘Fair Use’ provisions

Private study, criticism & review, etc..
ICCL @ CCLS.edu
Copy Protection Technologies
Dongles
ICCL @ CCLS.edu
Copy Protection Technologies
Smartcards
ICCL @ CCLS.edu
Copy-protection Technologies
Smartcards
ICCL @ CCLS.edu
Copy-protection Technologies
Smartcards
ICCL @ CCLS.edu
Copy-protection Technologies
Serial Copy Management System (SCMS)
ICCL @ CCLS.edu
Copy-protection Technologies

Limitation of hardware systems

Password & Serial Number
Protection
– Very common online
– Flexible
– Simple – but insecure?
ICCL @ CCLS.edu
Copy-protection Technologies
Labelling Techniques

Digital Watermarking:
– NOT a means of controlling
copying
– The ‘evidential gap’ in copyright
law
– Provides evidence of authorship /
origin
– Can be used to prove integrity of
whole work
ICCL @ CCLS.edu
Copy-protection Technologies
Steganography

‘Hides’ data within a work

Similar to watermarking but
imperceptible

Can be used to provide evidence of:
– Authorship
– Integrity of whole work
– Legitimate user
ICCL @ CCLS.edu
Copy-protection Technologies
Can be employed to ‘keep
tabs’ on licensee

www.digimarc.com :
the MarcSpider
ICCL @ CCLS.edu
Copyright-protection
Technologies
Can be used to provide evidence of
purchaser…and trace infringement
– www.twintone.com
ICCL @ CCLS.edu
Copy-protection Technologies
Watermarking & Steganography

Do NOT restrict or control copying

Evidential use only

Potential deterrent to infringers?
ICCL @ CCLS.edu
Copy-protection Technologies
Encryption

“Secure” transmission of a copyright work to the
intended recipient

DVDs & ‘Copy-Scramble System’

Not unbreakable: makes infringement impractical,
not impossible

Policy question: should such use of encryption
properly be governed by copyright or encryption
legislation?
ICCL @ CCLS.edu
Copy-protection Technologies
Digital Rights Management systems

Anticipated increase in flow of IP online

How to best protect IPR?

None of technologies already discussed offers complete
online protection

What are DRMs?
– Wikipaedia definition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Rights_Management
– Windows Media DRM
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/drm/
– Authena open source DRM
http://authena.org/
ICCL @ CCLS.edu
Forthcoming Attractions

The Copyright Directive
– Article 6: Legal protections for copyright-protection
technologies
– Artilce 7: Obligations concerning rights-management
information
– UK Implementation of the Copyright Directive

Consequences of Breach of Copyright

Copyright –v- Freedom of Expression?

Alternative approaches to copyright
ICCL @ CCLS.edu
Concluding Remarks

Applying & amending the law
– over extending protection?
Economic rights & consequences
 Legal agreements & liability for
infringement
 Enforcement, dispute resolution &
technology protection
