Advertisement

Legislations

Chapter
  • 3 Downloads

Abstract

The application condition of technological protection measures is not ideal because of the passive influences put forward above. These measures deviate from the track of technology neutrality, which will become tools for copyright holders to gain profits. Then, should we totally abandon technological protection measures? In this paper, technology acts as a psychical means that objectively exists with neutrality. Thus, how do these measures play its role can be determined by the attitude and approaches made by us, and the key point is to correctly recognize and properly use these measures.

References

  1. 1.
    Burk DL (2005–2006) Legal and technical standards in digital rights management technology. Fordham Law Rev 74:537. http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/flr74&div=27&id=&page=. Accessed 15 Aug 2015
  2. 2.
    McCreevy C (2018) Address to the EABC/BSA (European American Business Council/Business Software Alliance) Conference on Digital Rights’ Management. http://ec.europa.eu/commissionbarroso/mccreevy/docs/speeches/2005-10-12/euamen.pdf
  3. 3.
    Lessig L (2005) Free culture: the nature and future of creativity. Penguin BooksGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gasser U (2004) iTunes: how copyright, contract, and technology shape the business of digital media-a case study. Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School Research Publication No. 2004-07Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Armstrong TK (2006) Digital rights management and the process of fair use. Harv J Law Technol 20:49. University of Cincinnati Public Law Research Paper No. 07-10Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gasser U (2006) Legal frameworks and technological protection of digital content: moving forward towards a best practice model. Berkman Center Research Publication No. 2006-04Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Petrick P (2004) Why DRM should be cause for concern: an economic and legal analysis of the effect of digital technology on the music industry. Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School Research Publication No. 2004-09Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Reidenberg JR (2007) The rule of intellectual property law in the internet economy. Houston Law Rev 44(4):1074–1095. Fordham Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1012504Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ginsburg JC (2007) The Pros and Cons of strengthening intellectual property protection: technological protection measures and Section 1201 of the US Copyright Act. Columbia Public Law Research Paper No. 07-137Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dimitriou C (2015) Digital rights management systems and data privacy. March 1, 2015.  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2571859. Accessed 26 Sep 2015
  11. 11.
    Cohen JE (2003) DRM and privacy. Berkeley Technol Law J 18:575–617. Georgetown Public Law Research Paper No. 372741Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Day BR (2011) In defense of copyright: creativity, record labels, and the future of music. Seton Hall J Sports Entertain Law 21(1)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Slater D, Gasser U, Smith M, Bambauer DE, Palfrey JG Jr (2005) Content and control: assessing the impact of policy choices on potential online business models in the music and film industries. Berkman Publication Series Paper No. 2005-01Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kerr IR, Bailey J (2004) The implications of digital rights management for privacy and freedom of expression. J Inf Commun Ethics Soc 2. Troubador Publishing LtdGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Favale M (2012) The right of access in digital copyright: right of the owner or right of the user? J World Intellect Prop 15(1):1–25Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Favale M, Derclaye E (2010) ‘User contracts’ (demand side). J Intellect Prop Law 18(1)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gunn MA (2015) Peer-to-peer file sharing as user rights activism. West J Leg Stud 5(3)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Balboni P, Partesotti C (2014) Digital right management in the cloud. In: Li KC, Li Q, Shih TK (eds) Cloud computing and digital media: fundamentals, techniques, and applications. Chapman and Hall/CRC, London, pp 345–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Quintais JP (2012) On peers and copyright: why the EU should consider collective management of P2P. Munich Intellectual Property Law Center-MIPLC, Bd. 14, NomosGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rothman JE (2014) Copyright’s private ordering and the ‘Next Great Copyright Act’. Berkeley Technol Law J 29:1595. Loyola-LA Legal Studies Paper No. 2015-10Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nicita A, Rossi MA (2013) Spectrum crunch vs. spectrum sharing: exploring the ‘Authorised Shared Access’ model. Communications & Strategies, No. 90, 2nd Quarter, pp 17–40Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Maurushat A, Tacit CS, Kerr IR (2002–2003) Technical protection measures: tilting at copyright’s windmill. Ottawa Law Rev 34:7. Available at: http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/ottlr34&div=8&id=&page
  23. 23.
    Brousseau E, Curien N (2007) Internet and digital economics: principles, methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, JuneGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Solove DJ (2004) Digital person: technology and privacy in the information age. Law, Technology and Society, DecemberGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sander T (2002) Golden times for digital rights management? Financial Cryptography, SpringerGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Doctorow C (2004) Microsoft Research DRM Talk. June 17, 2004. Available at http://www.authorama.com/microsoft-research-drm-talk-1.html
  27. 27.
    Dongjun W (2011) Studies on problems of legal restrictions on digital rights management. China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) as Internet resource for database, p 22Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hovenkamp HJ (2013) Innovation and competition policy, Chapter 1: competition policy and the scope of intellectual property protection, 2nd edn. January 11, 2013.  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1937207. Accessed 26 Sep 2015
  29. 29.
    Travis H (2008) Opting out of the internet in the United States and the European Union: copyright, safe harbors, and international law. Notre Dame Law Rev 83(4). Florida International University Legal Studies Research Paper No. 08-03Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yen AC (2003) What federal gun control can teach us about the DMCA’s anti-trafficking provisions. Wisconsin Law Rev:649–698Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    da Motta Perin AC (2007) Technological measures for protection of copyright in the European Union, United States of America and Japan. Munich Intellectual Property Law CenterGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Guibault L et al (2007) Study on the implementation and effect in Member States’ Laws of Directive 2001/29/EC, on the Harmonisation of Certain Aspects of Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society. http://www.ivir.nl/publications/guibault/Infosoc_report_2007.pdf. Accessed 20 Sep 2015
  33. 33.
    Little V (2008) Audiovisual Media Services Directive: Europe’s modernization of broadcast services regulations. J Law Technol Policy 2008(1). http://www.jltp.uiuc.edu/recdevs/little.pdf. Accessed 26 Sep 2015
  34. 34.
    Burk DL (2004) Legal and technical standards in digital rights management technology, p 35Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Plummer J (2005) Expanding the market’s role in advancing intellectual property, March 29, 2005, p 12. Available at http://www.cei.org/pdf/4452.pdf
  36. 36.
    Jackson M (2001) Using technology to circumvent the law: the DMCA’s push to privatize copyright. Hastings Commerce Entertain Law J 23:608Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Christopher (2000) A global political economy of intellectual property rights: the new enclosures? Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, May 2000, p 7Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ganley P (2002) Access to the individual: digital rights management systems and the intersection of informational and decisional privacy interests, pp 241–293. Available at http://ijlit.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/10/3/241

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cong Xu
    • 1
  1. 1.Law SchoolShanghai UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations