Copyright, Day 1: Guiding Principles and the Special Case of Anti-Circumvention

From Technologies and Politics of Control
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Syllabus


April 7

The Internet has enabled individuals to become involved in the production of media and to distribute their contributions widely at a very low cost. The former bastion of the entertainment industry is opening up to what many are calling a democratization of culture. The copyright doctrine of fair use seemingly bolsters the right to recut, reframe, and recycle previous works, but the protection fair use gives to those re-purposing copyrighted material is notoriously uncertain. Over the next two classes, this course will take up the some of the issues related to copyright protection and enforcement online. This class will focus on the legal regime of copyright: what it protects, what it doesn’t protect, and how the doctrine has transformed in light of digital reproduction and distribution. It will also explore a subset of copyright law known as “anti-circumvention,” a very controversial solution to the problem of digital piracy.

Joining us this week will be Ana Enriquez, who work's on Berkman's CopyrightX project.

Download slides from this week's class.



Readings/Watchings

The mechanics of copyright law
Digital applications and new challenges
Copyright solutions
Case Study
Anti-Circumvention

Optional Readings


Videos Watched in Class

Links from class

prima facie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie

RAM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random-access_memory

Chuck Taylors: http://crossfitaliquid.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/converse-chuck-taylor-all-stars.jpg

Chart of duration: https://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm

Legal disputes over Harry Potter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_disputes_over_the_Harry_Potter_series

Photography in Sistine Chapel: http://mentalfloss.com/article/54641/reason-why-no-photography-allowed-sistine-chapel

Fake towns created to catch map copiers: http://gizmodo.com/the-fake-places-that-only-exist-to-catch-copycat-cartog-1695414770

Cake Wrecks: http://www.cakewrecks.com/

George Harrison My Sweet Lord: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Sweet_Lord#Copyright_infringement_suit

Oliver Wendell Homes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Wendell_Holmes,_Jr.

Tim Wu on Tolerated Uses: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1132247

Campbell v Acuff- Rose: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-Rose_Music,_Inc.

DRM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management

Blu Ray DRM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc#Digital_rights_management

Gliders: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glider_(bot)

Case involving gliders: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDY_Industries,_LLC_v._Blizzard_Entertainment,_Inc.

CSS Encryption: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_Scramble_System

Here's a link to Andy's 1201 exemption submission: http://copyright.gov/1201/2015/comments-020615/InitialComments_longform_Coalition_of_Medical_Device_Researchers_Class27.pdf

All the submissions for this round of comments: http://copyright.gov/1201/2015/comments-020615/

Background on notice and comment rulemaking: https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2011/01/the_rulemaking_process.pdf

Archimedes Center: http://secure-medicine.org

Class Discussion

REMINDER
Your comments must be submitted before 4:00PM ET on the Tuesday we hold class in order to count for participation credit. Please see the participation policy for more information.


Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (~~~~) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: Andy 15:12, 7 November 2013 (EST)

Pharrell Williams - Marvin Gaye - Copyright Kerkuffle. In a court decision last week in Los Angeles, musicians=producers Robin Thicke and Pharell williams were ordered to pay 7.3 million dollars for copyright infringement to the family of Marvin Gaye for the publication of the song "Blurred Lines". It alleges that Williams/Thike plagarized Marvin Gayes 1970's hit "Got to Give it Up", (awesome groove)and the previous standard of 30 bars of identical notes and rythm was pretty much blown out. http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/robin-thicke-and-pharrell-lose-blurred-lines-lawsuit-20150310

Apparently the lawyers for the musicians did a terrible job, beginning with the jury selection Did the people sitting on that jury have any idea of where rap came from? Or that the blues is made of eight basic drumbeats? Or that the essence of folk art is repetition, imitation and variations on a theme. https://onpoint.wbur.org/2015/03/17/blurred-lines-copyright-robin-thicke-marvin-gaye-pharell

Pharell/Thicke should appeal the ruling and set the record straight. Likeness is not plagiarism. It has to be an exact copy. Besides, has any one heard the two songs, back to back, (Blurred lines, Give it Up) they may have the same drum groove, bu there is no way they are the same song. The bass line is totally different for starters.

Of course, it didn't help Mr. Thicke and Mr. Williams, admitting that they were drunk and on drugs in the studio when they were recording the song and didn't remember exactly how the song was composed. But the repercussions for copyright law, if this ruling goes unchallenged,is that pretty much any one can sue another person for copyright infringement in the music biz.

I'm with the camp that the ruling stifles creativity and will swamp the industry with lawsuits. I'm not so interested in the big acts, but more in the independent musician/DJ/producer who can be blindsided with a law suit from someone he has never heard of. What do you all think?

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/mar/20/pharrell-blurred-lines-copyright-lawsuit-stifle-creativity

Hromero (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2015 (EDT)

Hromero here, wanted to add some assigned reading references to the issue of copyright in music. The Pharrell Williams-Margin Gaye copyright issue also affects royalties. When it comes to sampling bits of songs and other sound recordings, the current system is too complex, too burdensome and more work that is really worth. For example, Pnadora pays performance royalties to new artists on the range of .007 cents per play, meaning a song has to be played 700 times to earn 70 cents. What's the point? Exposure? Artist can get half the exposure on another medium and make three times more money. Re: Internet Policy Task force. Just the outlines of those regulations in regards to original and derivative work, performance and broadcast royalties can be mind numbing. It doesn't need to be that complex. I agree with Maria Pallante that there needs to be a new copyright law that fits better with the internet. It was fine in the old days when you could follow a paper trail and the speed of the transactions was relatively slow. That is not the case today.

Also, about creativity being stiffled, that is not a huge deal. Artists are coming up against limitations day in and day out and they produce art no matter what. For some the limitation may be money, for other it may be time. Notice that the only one who have a hard time producing work, (writers block, spending one month recording a song) are those artists with unlimited resources and time. Hromero (talk) 08:41, 7 April 2015 (EDT)


Copyright law is complex. It protects the inventor or creator but can sometimes be negative for the audience or society as a whole. Copyright law has become more and more important and plays a much greater part now than it has done in the past, which is a result of the evolution of technology.

Copyright law is essential when it comes to protecting the creators. Without the law, others would be able to make money on other people´s work, which in my opinion isn´t fair. However, as with almost every other law, it isn´t perfect. One example is when it comes to inventions that could be improved but isn´t because of obstacles created by copyright law. Also, we have the example of Creative Commons, a forum for creators to legally share their work since they see copyright law as an obstacle to do that in other ways.

I would say that I nowadays mostly hear about copyright law when it comes to piracy, eg. sharing and accessing copyright protected material online. One of the texts in the readings of this week talks about Pirate Parties, parties that are pro free information. The first Pirate Party was founded in 2006, and since then has this type of party been established in several countries across the globe. The reason for why I bring this up is that I see it as a sign of how much the significance and effect of copyright law has changed in recent years. Just a decade ago, we weren´t able to access and spread for example music the way we are today. If you wanted to hear a specific song, you either bought the CD, you listened to it in the (physical) store, or you waited for it to be played on the radio. As we all know, that is not what we do today. If I want to hear a song, I listen to spotify. And if it isn´t accessible there, I search for it on youtube. This has changed the whole entertainment industry (along with several other creative industries) and that is why an improved copyright law (if that means greater or weaker protection for the creator can be debated) is of great importance.

JosefinS (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2015 (EDT)

I have always been interested in how technology affects art and visa versa. For example, as a movie geek, it’s fascinating to observe how an entire new art form was born based on technologic innovations in the late 19th century, and how subsequent innovations have shaped it. I have also been interested in the way the Internet has shaped movies, tv shows, and even home videos. However, it wasn’t until this week’s readings that I thought about how much copyright around these works plays a part in my consumption on online media and how it even shapes the production of the content itself.

Terry Hart’s idea “mark piracy harder, make legal options easier” resonated with me, since in my personal experience, I often to defer to consuming media through the easiest legal option. Much like the example he outlined, I am often willing to pay for content on Amazon.com because of how easy it is to access. Amazon has an extremely diverse library, it is a trusted source, and it even stores my payment information, which improves ease of use. On the other hand, certain pieces of content (older episodes of Saturday Night Live come to mind) take great pains to keep themselves off of sites like YouTube, but also are not accessible on Amazon.com. In this case, they seem to be making legal options as difficult as possible, and I would imagine it leads to increased piracy of this content.

This reminds me of a related debate currently happening around music content and streaming services. The recent press event promoting the Tidal music streaming service was interesting to me for this reason. It is hard to disagree with the artist claims that they deserve more money from their music than services like Spotify provide. But it also seems like Tidal is asking people to do the “right” thing, rather than the “easy” thing, especially because it costs almost twice as much as its competitors. Recently, artists have started releasing “Tidal exclusives” which seems like a step in the right direction if it wants to get people on board, but I’m still dubious about how much the service can prove it is the easiest option.

Beccalew (talk) 10:24, 7 April 2015 (EDT)

Beccalew, you bring up some interesting points. Asking people to do the right thing is not the most efficient marketing tool, that's almost like asking customers to 'pay what you can'. The better model would be to make music recordings as accessible as amazon.com is for books. But here we run into another problem. Music has been brought into the copyright protection the same way that books by authors were. The difference is that while music can be replicated and performed limitless times, books can't be performed by others, as easily as music is. Maria Pallante in the 'The next great copyright act" brings up this point that musicians are at a distinct disadvantage in current copyright law, because no one pays for performance rights. But even if there was a law to enforce payments on performance of music, it would be unenforceable because people perform others music in countless of ways at bars, living rooms, country fairs and such without ever paying any performance royalties.

Another point on Maria Pallante's article that sticks out is that the only venue available for authors of creative content to enforce copyright infringement is a Federal Court. That is way too intimidating for a new or unknown artist to bring up a complaint, and the stakes are too high for both sides, so if you don't have the money to hire a lawyer, you're at a disadvantage.

There ought to be a streamlined process to deal with copyright infringement in claims of less than $ 500 because a new or unknown artist should be able to hold on to his or her copyright, the reason being that the protected work may be profitable many years afterward. Hromero10 (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2015 (EDT)

Michael Smith essentially argues that it is the market that will ultimately eliminate the problem of piracy – not only that, other non-market factors will also help resolve key issues in anti-piracy legislation; ease of access, variety, pricing, reliability, quality… that the general public, if a product is cheap enough and easier to get by legal means vs. free, illegal, and cumbersome to attain, the value of “free” becomes significantly diminished and obeying the law is very common-sensibly incentivized.

That said, there will always be that group, that slice in society that on principle alone, will continue to cumbersomely work around the laws in order to undermine the system. It is a lifestyle for some, an identity for others, and, from Coleman’s video from last week on Anonymous, an image and persona that is increasingly glamorized and on the edges of the novel.

Boston’s own history is somewhat of a testament to the allegory that pure economics can sometimes fail… Consider the parallel of the Sugar Act: American smugglers found it eminently more profitable to smuggle sugar by bypassing the taxes demanded by Mother England; consumers bought cheaper, smuggled sugar. No one stopped it. The law was weakly enforced; but when this weak-enforcement suddenly changed and taxes were being collected by British tax collectors and smuggling was clamped down, the smugglers upped their game; they made even greater profits. England, realizing a losing battle, changed everything again, through the market by adjusting the tax so that the LEGAL means was even cheaper than the SMUGGLER’S means. So the American people were expected to follow the law just under the sheer principle of pricing – legal sugar was cheaper sugar. The backlash from the smugglers ultimately resulted in societal upendings and a fundamental shift in the political landscape. Americans bought from Americans out of sheer principle. The details of this particular history are far more fascinating than I can surmise in this comment box, and certainly there are details overlooked. But the spirit of the thing is the very same spirit we face with this discussion of market based incentives for fighting piracy.

For the most part, I agree with the Smith line of arguing. Make the product cheaper, more reliable, more accessible, and just all around easier to use, and the basic incentive to gymnastically seek out the illegal means to attain low quality digital media for free are quite effectively tampered out. But the other side, the “whack a mole” perspective about Internet piracy are also right. Just not to the extent that they think that legal/market resolutions are impracticable; they are right to the extent that the CULTURE of piracy is never going to quite go away. Diminished, disempowered, waysided, but, not annihilated. For, humanity will always have a sliver of its kind who possess perverse and inseparable attractions to rebelling societal norms.

Chanel Rion (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2015 (EDT)

Beccalew, when I came across the readings this week, I immediately thought about the new streaming service, Tidal. For those who are not aware, here is an article that give an overview on how this service is different from others: http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/apr/05/tidal-10-things-you-need-to-know-jay-z-madonna-music-streaming


Approximately a decade ago, I wanted began to study law in England because I was interested in international intellectual property; more specifically, the rights of athletes’ image in the domestic US and abroad. Historically, the NCAA required all athletes to sign releases, which would allow for their images to be managed in order to endorse NCAA events. For about over a decade the NCAA has made millions of dollars on the images of college athletes through television broadcasting, merchandising and advertising. The legality regarding the licensing of their images gained traction as athletes began to question copyright entitlements and initiated a lawsuit against the NCAA.

Here is a wonderful timeline about the NCAA lawsuit: http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/press-releases/student-athlete-likeness-lawsuit-timeline. As stated in the timeline, athletes wanted the NCAA and institutions to allow athletes the opportunity to profit from the revenue. Due to recent lawsuits, the NCAA dropped the requirement of athletes signing image releases; although at the conference level (SEC, PAC 12, BIG 12 etc) athletes are often still required to sign waivers that give up their publicity rights without compensation. Where my main position of advocacy for athletes is for the gaps in college expenses and funding. If you think across all three divisions, very few athletes are fortunate to receive full funding that cover tuition, fees, books, room and board. Given their practice and schedules, most athletes would like to work in a manner that optimizes their income with very little time required; but NCAA athletes did not have the ability to use their image for gain, this includes modeling, public speaking or having a funded blog.

In August 2014, Federal Judge Claudia Wilken concluded that the NCAA could not prohibit schools from giving football and men’s basketball players a share of licensing revenue; but it would have to manifest in the form of a stipend that reimburses expenses not covered by scholarships and a $5,000 a year trust fund once students graduate. Here is a link that outlines the full ruling: https://ia601404.us.archive.org/35/items/gov.uscourts.cand.218079/gov.uscourts.cand.218079.291.0.pdf. Although the court made a remedy addressing the antitrust breaches by eliminating some practices, it still does not address the copyright issues pertaining to the monopoly over college athlete images. How does this ruling benefit athletes outside of large revenue generating football and men’s basketball athletic programs of Division I schools? How does this ruling benefit the gymnasts, track and field athletes, and women’s basketball players with established financial need?

Tasha (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2015 (EDT)

The Copyright in Internet seams to be the Pandora’s box. Everyone, starting from Lawrence Lessig in his beautiful lecture, seams to agree that copyright today “touches everyone and everything”, quoting Jessica Litman. It is very much true that because of the platform we use to access creations we can not escape the collision with the copyright law. Exactly because of this what should be better developed both in the legislation and in the practical use should be the “fair use” as well as the “customised copyright” the Creative Commons is offering. What is done by CC team is a simple and easy way to express your own opinion about how you want your work to be treated. I truly believe that if more people were aware of the CC idea and principle and mostly of the fact that by using CC license they would not “give up” their rights , more people would use it. The possibility given to authors and creators by CC to choose between different options and “levels” of protection, I think is the key to its success.

The article written by Terry Hart is a very interesting analyses and the perfect prove why copyright is truly a Pandora’s box issue. His article could be perfectly synthesised by the phrase “make piracy harder, make legal options easier”. The solution can not be making half of the population (even more maybe) criminals and skyrocketing sentences and penalties for copyright infringement. I believe users and mostly Internet users, who are particularly freedom-loving, should be convinced not to make copyright infringement. Тhey should be led and guided to the right choice of not doing this. Exactly like Terry Hart says: “Make piracy harder, make legal options easier”. On the other hand I dare to disagree with him saying that it is “insane” to think that copyright protection legal measures could lead to too much surveillance and personal freedom restrictions. I consider this a real danger , which should be taken into consideration.

I really enjoyed reading about the “Cake Wrecks” case. In a situation when a customer buys, a cake , pays for it and than makes a photo, could the case be regulated under the provisions of Section 101 of the copyright law defines a “work made for hire” (U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 1: Copyright Basics)? And last but not least , I think that when we talk about copyright, people are mostly associating it with movie and musical industries but there are a lot of other types of “original works of authorship” which should be considered as well. In the U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 1: Copyright Basics I did not saw how are treated mathematical theorems, for example. Such kind of a work was not situated neither in the “What Works Are Protected?” Section, nor in the “What Is Not Protected by Copyright” Section?

(Gia (talk))

How Can a Dissertaion Paper Be Hazardous Material?

This week’s readings hit home with me more than most of those past. The point is made in several of the works presented: in the past copyright was not a matter for daily life, but now, as Lessig notes, copyright “touches everyone and everything” and just about all digital uses are copies. Couple this fact with the narrow limitations of fair use, and the anti-circumvention laws, and I see my daily work, particularly researching a paper for class as a hazard rather than an opportunity.

Recently I downloaded an MIT Masters Candidates’ paper (Trepte, Kai and Narayanaswarmy. “Forecasting Consumer Products Using Prediction Markets” MIT. Jun 2009.) through Harvard Library. When I opened the PDF file and began reading in Adobe Acrobat®, I discovered that I could not highlight text. So, I thought I would just select text and copy it to my notes; I could not copy text either. Okay, I decided to print it out, all 106 pages, mark it with a highlighter and write my notes in the margins; I could not print it. I also could not add my own comments to the document or change the document in any way.

Using the tools available in Acrobat, I looked at the document’s security properties and found that it was password protected. Just about everything was restricted: “printing, changing the document, document assembly, content copying, page extraction, commenting….” So, even though I could access the document, and could not use it in a normal and reasonable way as I had expected to be able to do.

This weekend I read on the DMLP website that if I were to download a program (a circumvention tool) and use it to remove the password, thereby circumventing both copy and perhaps some level of access protection, I could be violating federal copyright laws, i.e., 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1), and the owners of the website that sell the program would also be violating the law by offering and providing the tools to me.

Even though I just want to highlight some of the text to make finding relevant portions more accessible, or copy an excerpt to fairly use in my paper, I find that doing so could be a federal crime, a felony, with a possible fine of $500,000 and five years in a federal prison, or a $1 million fine and ten years if I wanted to highlight another dissertation. “Fair use,” I say. Fair use is not a defense says the law.

So, is it homework or hazard to do research? I ask you.

Gary Brown (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2015 (EDT)

This copyright issue is pretty interesting. I’d start off by talking about the video by Lessig. It gives a nice summary about what copyright is and how it was in the past compared with now. Thanks to the internet, everything we touch now is going to be related to copyright. (Ref 1) Whether we like it or not, there will likely be some connection. Prior to the internet, we had unregulated and regulated issues; such as the example of books having different uses and whether it touches upon copyright issues due to it being part of the unregulated or regulated area. This becomes increasingly tricky with the internet. This platform creates – as the video says – a “copy” of everything that it transmits. This touches all parts of the unregulated vs. regulated issue. How exactly do we define copyright then? Does it violate copyright? I think these are all interesting issues. (Ref 1) This is probably a good starting point to explain why the internet has experienced so many copyright issues since its birth. Perhaps next we can use a quote from reference 2 – copyright green paper – below.

“Some would argue that copyright protection and the free flow of information are inextricably at odds”

Is that statement /quote valid above? Does copyright protection and free flow of information always at odds with one another? The internet created a platform for transferring data and information between multiple parties. It would inevitably create versions of each product. This is just the nature of the internet. If we look back at the unregulated vs. regulated laws of copyright, then it would seem that the existence of the internet is to be at odds with copyright. If the purpose and function of the internet is the “free flow of information”, as it dramatically excels; then copyright is precisely limiting this ability of the internet. So there are some truths to copyright and the internet being at odds. I shall talk further about creative commons below. (I do find it an interesting direction of where copyright should go) Let me first continue by quoting another part of the reading as well.

The ultimate goal is to find, as then-Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke explained, “the sweet spot on Internet policy – one that ensures the Internet remains an engine of creativity and innovation; and a place where we do a better job protecting against piracy of copyrighted works.” – Ref 2

This is what Locke truly believes in. He believes that a “sweet spot” could be achieved on the internet. As of now, to be honest, I do not know if it exists. As long as our definition of copyright is built upon those unregulated vs. regulated issues as mentioned above, I do not see it working. Though there is a plausibility that if the definition of copyright is different, such as the duration of holding said material. Or better yet, have a way to know when these materials are used or downloaded by the client, and charge them for it. Reference 3 gets exactly into this. We have cheaper alternatives, but most people would end up going back to Amazon, or big websites. Copyright is limiting the reach and reliability of those websites that breach copyright. Plus in my personal opinion, I believe people like convenience. If convenience is not an issue, then we would gladly fork out a couple of dollars for whatever the product is. We just like neatly organized things presented to us. So along this train of thought, it seems that copyright needs to be redefined, and reevaluated for it to suit the internet. The internet is a new platform, and its existence is a violation of the old copyright laws. (Ref 4) I shall once again quote two more quotes below.

“the next great copyright act must be forward thinking but flexible, and, no matter what, it must serve the public interest.” – Ref 5

“Thus, Congress has a central equation to consider today: what does and does not belong under a copyright owner’s control?” – Ref 5

The first quote lets us know that many understand that “something” needs to be done. Something that is “forward thinking but flexible”, which is exactly what I said above. We need something new to define copyright, not the old stuff that is old of sync with current matters. So we could say, people understand something needs to be done, but we don’t know “what” needs to be done. Or “how” it must be done. This is definitely a hard one as the physical world could simplify and assist our logic of how copyright would be infringed upon. Digital society makes it a lot harder. Are we to base upon possession of things like the physical world? But wait, if we do it that way, it isn’t right because that’s not even how to digital world runs; it runs in binary, and it inevitably will create a copy of it. It’s just how the machines are run. So if we have laws to regulate the physical world, why are we trying to regulate the digital world based upon the laws of the physical world? Should we in fact make something “new”? I understand all of this is just talk, but it is extremely hard to pinpoint that “new” thing that should be created. If I knew exactly what to do, I won’t be here.

I guess what my thought process is, is to lead towards the direction of creative commons. It is… an interesting concept. Though I am not sure if that tackles the issue entirely. My pain concern does come with why we should govern the digital world with physical world’s laws. The underlying issue and formation isn’t even the same. We need to evaluate how the digital world operates in order for the correct copyright laws to be passed. My thinking goes a bit like this; if the physical world – being constrained by geography, and the inability for a product (say a book) be at two places at once – is confined by the rules of physics, the act of infringement upon copyright would depend on the regulated laws mentioned in Lessig’s video. This makes sense because we can relate to it and picture it rationally of how interactions occur in real life. Digital world on the other hand are bits being passed through tubes from one side of the world to another. Let’s ignore the fact that they are far away geographically, but simply that it is an exchange of information. By it’s world’s rules, it creates a copy of the product before sending. After all, even if this product is “de-referenced” – meaning that the pointer no longer remembers the location of where it saved the information, thus assumes it as being deleted – it can theoretically be found again if some algorithm was created. Therefore we need laws that either…

1. Regulate the transfer of these “data” in a systematic way. The downside though would be surveillance.

2. Automatically assume people would share it, and charge some universal fee for the data before hand. This is plausible because with economies of scale, and the scalability of the internet, it may only cost each user a very small amount.

Personally I am not sure where creative commons is going, but it appears that they have the understanding that regulation means suppressing creativity. If they could sort out copyright somehow, it would give people less fear and more power to use their creativity to generate more masterpieces. Personally I am more inclined for my 2nd suggested solution. Not sure if it’ll work, but I guess it’s a start. I look at how a lot of subscription websites operate, it seems very plausible. People get loads of songs on Spotify, or a lot of movies from Netflix, etc, etc. It appears that this efficiency and speed of the internet may be the way copyright could evolve for the internet.


References:

Ref 1 - http://blip.tv/lessig/it-is-about-time-getting-our-values-around-copyright-2847688

Ref 2 - http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/news/publications/copyrightgreenpaper.pdf

Ref 3 - http://www.copyhype.com/2012/08/there-is-no-magic-bullet/

Ref 4 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause

Ref 5 - http://www.copyright.gov/docs/next_great_copyright_act.pdf

Ref 6 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DKm96Ftfko

Ref 7 - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107


Caelum (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2015 (EDT)

Retrieved from "http://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Copyright,_Day_1:_Guiding_Principles_and_the_Special_Case_of_Anti-Circumvention&oldid=4204"