We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Legislations | SpringerLink
Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Legislations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Regulatory Model for Digital Rights Management

  • 254 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Burk [1], p. 537.

  2. 2.

    Article 11 of WPT.

  3. 3.

    1201 (a) (1) of DMCA.

  4. 4.

    Article 6 (1). 6(3) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European parliament and the Council of 22 May 2001 on the Harmonization of certain aspects of Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society.

  5. 5.

    Article 47 of Copyright Law of People’s Republic of China.

  6. 6.

    http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/chinesedmr08.pdf.

  7. 7.

    McCreevy [2].

  8. 8.

    Ibid.

  9. 9.

    Ibid 23.

  10. 10.

    Lessig [3].

  11. 11.

    ‘The Infringement Age: How Much Do You Infringe On A Daily Basis?’, https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071119/015956.shtml, access date: 14th/08/2015.

  12. 12.

    Gasser [4].

  13. 13.

    Armstrong [5], p. 49.

  14. 14.

    Gasser [6].

  15. 15.

    Petrick [7].

  16. 16.

    Reidenberg [8], pp. 1074–1095.

  17. 17.

    Ginsburg [9].

  18. 18.

    Ibid.

  19. 19.

    Dimitriou [10].

  20. 20.

    Cohen [11], pp. 575–617.

  21. 21.

    Day [12].

  22. 22.

    Slater et al. [13].

  23. 23.

    Kerr and Bailey [14].

  24. 24.

    Favale [15], pp. 1–25.

  25. 25.

    Favale and Derclaye [16].

  26. 26.

    Gunn [17].

  27. 27.

    Balboni and Partesotti [18], pp. 345–358.

  28. 28.

    Ibid.

  29. 29.

    Ibid.

  30. 30.

    Quintais [19].

  31. 31.

    Ibid.

  32. 32.

    Ibid.

  33. 33.

    Rothman [20], p. 1595.

  34. 34.

    Nicita and Rossi [21], pp. 17–40.

  35. 35.

    Maurushat et al. [22], p. 7.

  36. 36.

    Brousseau and Curien [23].

  37. 37.

    Solove [24].

  38. 38.

    Ibid 68.

  39. 39.

    Sander [25].

  40. 40.

    Doctorow [26].

  41. 41.

    Dongjun [27], p. 22.

  42. 42.

    Ibid.

  43. 43.

    Hovenkamp [28].

  44. 44.

    Ibid.

  45. 45.

    Ibid.

  46. 46.

    Council Directive of May 14, 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs (91/250/EEC).

  47. 47.

    Directive 98/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of November 20, 1998 on the legal protection of services based on, or consisting of, conditional access.

  48. 48.

    Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of May 22, 2001 on the harmonization of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society.

  49. 49.

    Article 12 (1) of WCT.

  50. 50.

    Ibid.

  51. 51.

    Ibid 335.

  52. 52.

    Ibid 335.

  53. 53.

    Travis [29].

  54. 54.

    Ibid.

  55. 55.

    Ibid.

  56. 56.

    Yen [30], pp. 649–698.

  57. 57.

    Directive 91/250/EEC, on the legal protection of computer programs, entered into force on May 14, 1991, http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31991L0250:EN:HTML, access date: 26/09/2015.

  58. 58.

    ‘The WIPO Treaties: Technological Measures’, March 2003, http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/wipo-treaties-technical-measures.pdf, access date: 26/09/2015.

  59. 59.

    Ibid.

  60. 60.

    European Commission Green Paper of 27 July 1995 on Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society COM(95) 382 final, http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l24152.htm, access date: 20/09/2015.

  61. 61.

    ‘The content of Commissions Green Paper on Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society26 considered how the information society ought to function, showing the importance of the information society for the European Community and which current issues relating to copyright and related rights should be looked at… The “voluntary measures” established by Article 6, paragraph 4 represent measures taken by the right holders to protect their rights’, da Motta Perin [31].

  62. 62.

    Commission Green Papers on encrypted services, Commercial Communications and the protection of minors in audio visual services, and the proposed Directive on a transparency mechanism.

  63. 63.

    Guibault et al. [32].

  64. 64.

    Little [33].

  65. 65.

    See Burk [34], p. 35.

  66. 66.

    Directive 98/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 1998 on the legal protection of services based on, or consisting of.

  67. 67.

    Ibid 356.

  68. 68.

    Directive 2001/29/EC, on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, entered into force on June 22, 2001. http://eurlex.europa.eu/pri/en/oj/dat/2001/l_167/l_16720010622en00100019.pdf. Access date: 26/09/2015.

  69. 69.

    Article 11 of the WCT.

  70. 70.

    Article 7(2), Directive 2001/29/EC.

  71. 71.

    The following acts are target by Article 7(1): (a) the removal or alteration of any electronic RMI; (b) the distribution, importation for distribution, broadcasting, communication or making available to the public of works or other subject-matter protected under this Directive and Directive 96/9/EC from which electronic RMI has been removed or altered without authority.

  72. 72.

    Plummer [35], p. 12.

  73. 73.

    Jackson [36], p. 608.

  74. 74.

    Christopher [37], p. 7.

  75. 75.

    Ganley [38], pp. 241–293.

References

  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. 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. Lessig L (2005) Free culture: the nature and future of creativity. Penguin Books

    Google Scholar 

  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. 2004-07

    Google Scholar 

  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. 07-10

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gasser U (2006) Legal frameworks and technological protection of digital content: moving forward towards a best practice model. Berkman Center Research Publication No. 2006-04

    Google Scholar 

  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. 2004-09

    Google Scholar 

  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. 1012504

    Google Scholar 

  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. 07-137

    Google Scholar 

  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. Cohen JE (2003) DRM and privacy. Berkeley Technol Law J 18:575–617. Georgetown Public Law Research Paper No. 372741

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 2005-01

    Google Scholar 

  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 Ltd

    Google Scholar 

  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):1–25

    Google Scholar 

  16. Favale M, Derclaye E (2010) ‘User contracts’ (demand side). J Intellect Prop Law 18(1)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gunn MA (2015) Peer-to-peer file sharing as user rights activism. West J Leg Stud 5(3)

    Google Scholar 

  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 345–358

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  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, Nomos

    Google Scholar 

  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. 2015-10

    Google Scholar 

  21. Nicita A, Rossi MA (2013) Spectrum crunch vs. spectrum sharing: exploring the ‘Authorised Shared Access’ model. Communications & Strategies, No. 90, 2nd Quarter, pp 17–40

    Google Scholar 

  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. Brousseau E, Curien N (2007) Internet and digital economics: principles, methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, June

    Google Scholar 

  24. Solove DJ (2004) Digital person: technology and privacy in the information age. Law, Technology and Society, December

    Google Scholar 

  25. Sander T (2002) Golden times for digital rights management? Financial Cryptography, Springer

    Google Scholar 

  26. Doctorow C (2004) Microsoft Research DRM Talk. June 17, 2004. Available at http://www.authorama.com/microsoft-research-drm-talk-1.html

  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 22

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 08-03

    Google Scholar 

  30. Yen AC (2003) What federal gun control can teach us about the DMCA’s anti-trafficking provisions. Wisconsin Law Rev:649–698

    Google Scholar 

  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 Center

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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. Burk DL (2004) Legal and technical standards in digital rights management technology, p 35

    Google Scholar 

  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. Jackson M (2001) Using technology to circumvent the law: the DMCA’s push to privatize copyright. Hastings Commerce Entertain Law J 23:608

    Google Scholar 

  37. Christopher (2000) A global political economy of intellectual property rights: the new enclosures? Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, May 2000, p 7

    Google Scholar 

  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

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Law School, Shanghai University, Shanghai, China

    Cong Xu

Authors
  1. Cong Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Xu, C. (2020). Legislations. In: Regulatory Model for Digital Rights Management. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1995-6_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1995-6_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-15-1994-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-15-1995-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation