Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Comprehensive Regulatory Model

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

  • 287 Accesses

Abstract

Digital rights management could be thought of as the “dot” in Lawrence Lessig’s “Four Modalities of the Regulation” theory, if decisions regarding digital rights management regulatory models had been promoted by ever-changing digital technologies. Examples of social behaviour in cyberspace described in Lessig’s book more emphasize how to integrate each modality and how these modalities interact with each other.

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.

    The Colllingridge Dilemma The Social Control of Technology and also see Liebert and Schmidt [1], pp. 55–71.

  2. 2.

    Lessig [2], p. 501.

  3. 3.

    Lessig [3], pp. 122–123.

  4. 4.

    Ibid.

  5. 5.

    Lessig [3], pp. 122–123.

  6. 6.

    See Chapter I, 3.1.2.4.

  7. 7.

    Ibid 402.

  8. 8.

    Ludens [4].

  9. 9.

    Lessig [3], p. 77.

  10. 10.

    Ibid, p. 23.

  11. 11.

    PPT (LEC).

  12. 12.

    Weber et al. [5].

  13. 13.

    Ibid 402.

  14. 14.

    Ibid 256.

  15. 15.

    Ibid 402.

  16. 16.

    Wolfgang [6], pp. 9–29.

  17. 17.

    Negroponte [7], p. 229.

  18. 18.

    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.

  19. 19.

    《中华人民共和国信息网络传播权保护条例》.

  20. 20.

    《中华人民共和国信息网络传播权保护条例》释义.

  21. 21.

    Aretz [8], p. 1357.

  22. 22.

    Sinnreich and Aufderheide [9].

  23. 23.

    Birnhack [10], pp. 264–284.

  24. 24.

    Ibid.

  25. 25.

    Loren [11], p. 685.

  26. 26.

    Ibid.

  27. 27.

    Ibid.

  28. 28.

    Ibid.

  29. 29.

    Aufderheide et al. [12].

  30. 30.

    Martin [13].

  31. 31.

    Netanel [14].

  32. 32.

    Ibid.

  33. 33.

    Lloyd and Mayeda [15], p. 59.

  34. 34.

    Lloyd and Mayeda [15].

  35. 35.

    Ibid.

  36. 36.

    Ibid.

  37. 37.

    The Personal Information Protection Act (Law No. 57 of 2003) (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) http://mondaq-business.vlex.com/vid/personal-information-protection-law-japan-56695004, access date: 26/09/2015.

  38. 38.

    《中国人民共和国消费者权益保护法》.

  39. 39.

    Sinnreich and Aufderheide [9].

  40. 40.

    Cohen and Murphy [16].

  41. 41.

    Ibid.

  42. 42.

    Clinton [17].

  43. 43.

    《个人信息保护法》(草案).

  44. 44.

    Armstrong [18], p. 49.

  45. 45.

    Gitton [19].

  46. 46.

    Handke and Towse [20], pp. 937–957.

  47. 47.

    《中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法》.

  48. 48.

    Yu [21], pp. 13–77.

  49. 49.

    Ibid 442.

  50. 50.

    Wilson [22], pp. 2–7.

  51. 51.

    Bird and Jain [23].

  52. 52.

    Ibid.

  53. 53.

    Weber et al. [5].

  54. 54.

    Ibid 449.

  55. 55.

    Ibid 449.

  56. 56.

    Kleinsteuber [24], pp. 61–75.

  57. 57.

    Ibid.

  58. 58.

    Ibid.

  59. 59.

    Nwogugu [25].

  60. 60.

    Lessig [3], pp. 122–123.

  61. 61.

    Ibid.

  62. 62.

    Carbado and Mitu Gulati [26], pp. 1757–1828.

  63. 63.

    “We Need to Talk About Aereo: Copyright-Avoiding Business Models, Cloud Storage and a Principled Reading of the ‘Transmit’ Clause” (Columbia Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper, 1 June 2014, p. 43).

  64. 64.

    Soghoian [27], p. 370.

  65. 65.

    Xiao and Zhengcao [28], p. 26.

  66. 66.

    On internet trade platforms, many users put their cloud storage space up for sale, and typically, there are huge amounts of copyrighted materials stored in these accounts, available at http://www.cs.com.cn/xwzx/201704/t20170427_5261009.html (visited 5 December 2018).

  67. 67.

    In recent five years, the National Copyright Administration of China (NCAC) has shut down 3908 pirate websites involving infringement cases, available at http://news.sina.com.cn/sf/news/fzrd/2018-02-26/doc-ifyrvspi1857037.shtml (visited 26 February 2019).

  68. 68.

    Ibid.

  69. 69.

    Ibid 299.

  70. 70.

    Ibid.

  71. 71.

    Cunningham [29].

  72. 72.

    Ibid 162.

  73. 73.

    Ibid 163.

  74. 74.

    Ibid 162.

  75. 75.

    Välimäki and Oksanen [30].

  76. 76.

    Ibid.

  77. 77.

    Copyright Law and Consumer Protection ECLG/035/05 – February 2005, Policy conclusions of the European Consumer Law Group (ECLG) based on a study carried out by Dr. Lucie Guibault and Ms Natali Helberger, academic researchers at the Institute for Information Law, University of Amsterdam. Available at: https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/copyrightlawconsumerprotection.pdf. Access date: 17th/07/2018.

  78. 78.

    Griffiths [31].

  79. 79.

    Tang [32], pp. 852–871.

  80. 80.

    According to a 2004 study by Jessica Reif-Cohen, media and entertainment Research Analyst at Merrill Lynch.

  81. 81.

    Ibid.

  82. 82.

    Lunney [33], p. 975.

  83. 83.

    《最高人民法院关于贯彻执行<中华人民共和国民法通则>若干问题的意见(试行)》第一百四十八条, 1988年4月2日.

  84. 84.

    《最高人民法院关于审理涉及计算机网络著作权纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的解释》第一条, 2000年11月22日.

  85. 85.

    Perry and Casey [34].

  86. 86.

    Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes, 111 F. Supp. 2d 294 (2000).

  87. 87.

    Ibid.

  88. 88.

    Iwahashi [35], p. 491.

  89. 89.

    Lessig [2], p. 501.

  90. 90.

    2003年12月23日最高人民法院审判委员会第1302 次会议《关于修改〈最高人民法院关于审理涉及计算机网络著作权纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的解释〉的决定》修正).

  91. 91.

    《中华人民共和国人民法院组织法》第十八条, 2018年10月26日.

  92. 92.

    Bovens and Schillemans [36], p. 228.

  93. 93.

    Ibid. and Baldwin et al. [37], p. 349.

  94. 94.

    Ivo and François [38], pp. 1–13.

  95. 95.

    Ibid.

  96. 96.

    Reed et al. [39].

  97. 97.

    Gilles [40], pp. 1291, 1295.

  98. 98.

    See Reed et al. [39].

  99. 99.

    Ibid.

  100. 100.

    Audiencia Provincial Barcelona Promusicae v X (2013) 470/2013.

  101. 101.

    Husovec [41], p. 10.

  102. 102.

    Ibid.

  103. 103.

    See Baldwin et al. [37], p. 361.

  104. 104.

    Husovec [41], p. 10.

  105. 105.

    Ibid.

  106. 106.

    Ibid, p. 12.

  107. 107.

    § 830 BGB Mittäter und Beteiligte(1) Haben mehrere durch eine gemeinschaftlich begangene unerlaubte Handlung einen Schaden verursacht, so ist jeder für den Schaden verantwortlich. Das Gleiche gilt, wenn sich nicht ermitteln lässt, wer von mehreren Beteiligten den Schaden durch seine Handlung verursacht hat.(2) Anstifter und Gehilfen stehen Mittätern gleich.

  108. 108.

    The German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) prescribed policing of external websites such as special search engines. In this regard, the notification burden related to external websites was shifted from right holders to search engines and it was obligated for those intermediaries to subsidize the enforcement expenses of right holders with no time or condition limit. See OLG Düsseldorf-I-20 U 59/10 – Entscheidung vom Urteil vom 21. Dezember 2010 Karlsruhe, den, 13. Juli 2012.

  109. 109.

    Cooter [42], pp. 523, 536.

  110. 110.

    Futao [43].

  111. 111.

    In the process of writing this article, the author asked the teachers and students about the issue of “personal information protection”. Many academics believe that the issue of personal information protection or privacy protection is a problem in the scope of civil law and therefore should not be discussed in the field of copyright law. To respond to doubts, this article explains the exception rules to the personal information protection exception rules for copyright technology measures.

  112. 112.

    Samuelson [44], pp. 5–6.

  113. 113.

    Liming [45].

  114. 114.

    Himma and Tavani [46], pp. 135–156.

  115. 115.

    Article 15, LOI n° 2006-961 du 1er août 2006 relative au droit d’auteur et aux droits voisins dans la société de l’information.

  116. 116.

    Szuskin et al. [47], pp. 157–158.

  117. 117.

    Lili [48], pp. 125–130.

  118. 118.

    Art.2(1), The Marrakesh Treaty.

  119. 119.

    Art.2(2), The Marrakesh Treaty.

  120. 120.

    Art.3, The Marrakesh Treaty.

  121. 121.

    Agreed statement of Art.2(3), The Marrakesh Treaty.

  122. 122.

    Hongyi [49].

  123. 123.

    International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A.Res.2200A(XXI), U.N.GAOR, 21st Sess, Supp. No. 16, U.N. Doc. A/6316, at 16 (Dec. 16, 1966).

  124. 124.

    Li [50].

  125. 125.

    Ibid.

  126. 126.

    Hu [51].

  127. 127.

    Jingwen [52], p. 140.

  128. 128.

    Zhiguo [53].

  129. 129.

    Ibid.

  130. 130.

    Jianbang [54].

  131. 131.

    Li [55], p. 147.

  132. 132.

    Ibid, p. 149.

  133. 133.

    Ibid.

  134. 134.

    Jehoram [56], p. 364.

  135. 135.

    The fair use and three-step test are two sets of theoretical and institutional systems are sometimes independent, but sometimes overlap. Although the original intention of both theories is to balance the private interests of the right holders and the private interests of the users, there is a significant difference between the two in terms of specific norms. According to the existing theoretical theory in China, many scholars do not understand the difference and connection between the three-step test method and the fair use, and then misunderstanding and confusion when discussing relevant theoretical content.

  136. 136.

    Chenguo [57].

References

  1. Liebert W, Schmidt JC (2010) Collingridge’s dilemma and technoscience: an attempt to provide a clarification from the perspective of the philosophy of science. Poiesis Prax 7:55–71, Springer, 24/03/2010. https://www.axelarnbak.nl/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Liebert-2010-Collingridge%E2%80%99s-dilemma-and-technoscience.pdf

  2. Lessig L (1999) The law of the horse: what cyberlaw might teach. Harv Law Rev 113:501. http://www.yalelawtech.org/wp-content/uploads/lessig-horse.pdf

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Lessig L (1999) Code and other laws of cyberspace. Basic Books, New York, pp 122–123

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ludens P (2012) Digital architecture and online behavior: a study in Pinterest, June 28, 2012. https://puellaludens.wordpress.com/tag/lessigs-modalities/

  5. Weber RH, Grosz M, Weber R (2010) Shaping internet governance: regulatory challenges. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. Wolfgang K (2008) Multi-stakeholder internet governance: the governments. In: Benedek, Bauer, Kettemann (eds) Internet governance and society. Utrecht, pp 9–29

    Google Scholar 

  7. Negroponte N (1996) Being digital. Hodder & Stoughton, p 229

    Google Scholar 

  8. Aretz YL (2015) The subtle incentive theory of copyright licensing. Brooklyn Law Rev 80(4):1357

    Google Scholar 

  9. Sinnreich A, Aufderheide P (2015) Communication scholars and fair use: the case for discipline-wide education and institutional reform. Int J Commun 9

    Google Scholar 

  10. Birnhack M (2015) Judicial snapshots and fair use theory. Queen Marry J Intellect Prop 5(3):264–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Loren LP (2015) Fair use: an affirmative defense? Wash Law Rev 90:685. Lewis & Clark Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2015-12

    Google Scholar 

  12. Aufderheide P, Milosevic T, Bello B (2015) The impact of copyright permissions culture on the U.S. visual arts community: the consequences of fear of fair use. New Media & Society, Online First, March 10, 2015

    Google Scholar 

  13. Martin KE (2015) Understanding privacy online: development of a social contract approach to privacy. J Bus Ethics, April 25, 2015

    Google Scholar 

  14. Netanel NW (1996) Copyright and a democratic civil society. Yale Law J:106

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lloyd FW, Mayeda DM (1986–1987) Copyright fair use, the first amendment, and new communications technologies: the impact of Betamax. Fed Common Law J 38:59

    Google Scholar 

  16. Cohen M, Murphy J (eds) (2001) Exploring sustainable consumption: environmental policy and the social sciences. Pergamon (Elsevier Science Ltd), Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  17. Clinton H (2013) Internet rights and wrongs: choices & challenges in a networked world. http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2011/02/156619.htm. 15 February 2013

  18. 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 

  19. Gitton A. Analyse du projet de loi français sur « le droit d’auteur et les droits voisins dans la société de l’information » (y compris les créations des agents publics). http://www.droit-technologie.org/upload/dossier/doc/106-1.pdf. Accessed 26 Sep 2015

  20. Handke C, Towse R (2007) Economics of copyright collecting societies. Int Rev Intellect Prop Compet Law 38(8):937–957

    Google Scholar 

  21. Yu PK (2006) Anticircumvention and anti-anticircumvention. Denver Univ Law Rev 84:13–77. MSU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 04-05

    Google Scholar 

  22. Wilson A (2010) Digital rights management-an overview. Legal Journals Index, Bus Law Rev 31(1):2–7

    Google Scholar 

  23. Bird RC, Jain SC (eds) (2009) Reviewed by John A. Tessensohn, The global challenge of intellectual property rights European Intellectual Property. Edward Elgar Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kleinsteuber HJ (2004) The internet between regulation and governance. In: Möller, Amouroux (eds) OSCE representative on freedom of the media. The Media Freedom Internet Cookbook, Vienna, pp 61–75

    Google Scholar 

  25. Nwogugu M (2008) Economics of digital content: new digital content control and P2P control systems/methods. Comput Telecommun Law Rev. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1134407. Accessed 14 Sep 2015

  26. Carbado DW, Mitu Gulati G (2003) The law and economics of critical race theory. Yale Law J 112(7):1757–1828

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Soghoian C (2010) Caught in the cloud: privacy, encryption, and government back doors in the Web 2.0 Era. J Telecommun High Technol Law 8:370

    Google Scholar 

  28. Xiao S, Zhengcao L (2015) Copyright infringement regulatory countermeasures on network cloud drive. China Copyright 6:26

    Google Scholar 

  29. Cunningham M (2014) Next generation privacy: the internet of things, data exhaust, and reforming regulation by risk of harm. Groningen J Int Law 2, Ed. 2

    Google Scholar 

  30. Välimäki M, Oksanen V (2006) DRM interoperability and intellectual property policy in Europe. SSRN Electron J

    Google Scholar 

  31. Griffiths J (2009) The ‘Three-Step Test’ in European Copyright Law - problems and solutions. Queen Mary University of London, School of Law, Legal Studies Research Paper No. 31/2009. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1476968. Accessed 17 July 2018

  32. Tang P (2005) Digital copyright and the “new” controversy: is the law moulding technology and innovation? Res Policy 34(6):852–871

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lunney GS Jr (2002) Fair use and market failure: Sony revisited. Boston Univ Law Rev 82:975. Available at: https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar/504. Accessed 18 June 2018

    Google Scholar 

  34. Perry M, Casey MC (2000) Copyright and anti-circumvention: growing pains in a digital millennium. N Z Intellect Prop J

    Google Scholar 

  35. Iwahashi R (2011) How to circumvent technological protection measures without violating the DMCA: an examination of technological protection measures under current legal standards. Berkeley Technol Law J 26:491

    Google Scholar 

  36. Bovens M, Schillemans T (2008) Does public accountability work? An assessment tool. Pubic Adm 86:228

    Google Scholar 

  37. Baldwin R, Cave M, Lodge M (eds) (2010) The Oxford handbook of regulation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 349

    Google Scholar 

  38. Ivo G, François K (2014) Editorial – liability, responsibility and accountability: crossing borders. Utrecht Law Rev 10:1–13

    Google Scholar 

  39. Reed C, Kennedy E, Silva SN (2016) Responsibility, autonomy and accountability: legal liability for machine learning. Legal Studies Research Paper No 243/2016

    Google Scholar 

  40. Gilles SG (1992) Negligence, strict liability, and the cheapest cost-avoider. Va Law Rev 78:1291, 1295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Husovec M (2016) Accountable, not liable: injunctions against intermediaries. Tilburg Law and Economic Center Discussion Paper, 2 May 2016, p 10

    Google Scholar 

  42. Cooter R (1987) Torts as the union of liberty and efficiency: an essay on causation. Berkeley Law Scholarsh Repos 63(523):536

    Google Scholar 

  43. Futao S (2017) Analysis of privacy infringement risk of copyright technological measures in the era of big data. China Publ J

    Google Scholar 

  44. Samuelson P (2000) Towards more sensible anti-circumvention regulations, 5 NO. 5 Cyberspace Law 2:5–6

    Google Scholar 

  45. Liming W (2012) Redefining the concept of privacy. Jurist (Chinese Version), vol 1

    Google Scholar 

  46. Himma KE, Tavani HT (2008) The handbook of information and computer ethics. Wiley, New Jersey, pp 135–156

    Book  Google Scholar 

  47. Szuskin L, Szczygiel J, Kevin C et al (2008) When information security meets intellectual property in France and in the United States: requirement applicable to certain DRMs. Priv Data Secur Law J 2:157–158

    Google Scholar 

  48. Lili Z (2016) Research on information security compliance system of copyright technology protection measures. Wuhan University Press, pp 125–130

    Google Scholar 

  49. Hongyi G (2002) The position and function of legal principle in legal reasoning -- a comparative study. Legal Research (Chinese Version), vol 6

    Google Scholar 

  50. Li P (2014) The proof of knowledge acquisition right—from the perspective of due rights. The rule of law research (Chinese Version)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Hu K (2011) Perfect the principle of our broadcasting organization right system. Review of political science and law (Chinese Version), vol 5

    Google Scholar 

  52. Jingwen Z (2006) A country ruled by law under the condition of globalization. Ren Min University Press, p 140

    Google Scholar 

  53. Zhiguo S (2006) Analysis on the reasons of diminishing effect in the legal transplantation of intellectual property rights in China. Politics and Law (Chinese Version), vol 5

    Google Scholar 

  54. Jianbang Z (2011) On the formation and characteristics of MFN treatment system of intellectual property rights. J Int Econ Law 18(1)

    Google Scholar 

  55. Li Z (2011) The boundary of copyright—research on the limitation and exception of copyright in information society. Peking University Press, p 147

    Google Scholar 

  56. Jehoram HC (2005) Restrictions on copyright and their abuse. Eur Intellect Prop Rev:364

    Google Scholar 

  57. Chenguo Z (2016) Interpretation of “three-step test law” and “fair use” —research on Article 43 of copyright law (revised draft). Global Law Review (Chinese Version), vol 5

    Google Scholar 

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). A Comprehensive Regulatory Model. In: Regulatory Model for Digital Rights Management. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1995-6_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1995-6_8

  • 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