Title: You must province the figure of words on your assignment.
Question: P2P ( file-sharing on the Internet ) is the most recent manifestation of how new engineering challenges bing right of first publication jurisprudence both in the US and Europe. Critically evaluate the extent to which ‘copyright jurisprudence ‘ has responded ( or ought to react ) to the issues raised by such technological developments.
This essay will look to efficaciously critically measure the extent to which ‘copyright jurisprudence ‘ has responded ( or ought to react ) to the issues raised by technological developments from the fact that ‘Peer-to-Peer’ ( ‘P2P’ ) file sharing on the Internet is the most recent manifestation of how new engineering challenges bing right of first publication jurisprudence both in the US and Europe. Therefore, with this in head, it is of import to get down by first looking to show the background to the development of right of first publication jurisprudence within this country. Then, following on from this, it is of import to see the current jurisprudence in this country and the manner that it has developed in Europe and the UK so as to be able to look to protect right of first publication holders and the alternate agencies for protection that have been recognised in this country, before looking to efficaciously reason upon this issue with a sum-up of this treatment here.
To get down with, it is interesting to observe the fact that the printing imperativeness was efficaciously looked upon as being the first measure in the effectual development of right of first publication jurisprudence and since so further technological inventions have led to fluctuations in right of first publication jurisprudence – including the debut of participant pianos through pierced axial rotations of music and the wireless [ 1 ] . As a consequence, this new engineering has allowed for greater entree to copyright stuff – although non all of it is authorised with photocopiers, compact phonograph record burners, and, most late, file sharing package to increase people’s ability to copy stuff without the owner’s consent [ 2 ] . But it is interesting to observe that right of first publication proprietors in Europe and the US have long been involved in an on-going struggle with ‘End Users’ over the control of copyrighted work. This is possibly most efficaciously illustrated by the seminal determination in the instance ofSony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc[ 3 ] where the American Supreme Court held the sale and usage of VCRs to and by the populace could non be prohibited because consumers were simply engaged in time-shifting that was considered to be a allowable ‘fair use’ in the fortunes of the instance that arose here.
But it is besides to be recognised that the European Union Copyright Directive [ 4 ] has efficaciously served to set up an offense that could theoretically take to the captivity of ‘P2P’ users. This is efficaciously illustrated by the fact that whilst it is clearly a breach of right of first publication to ‘steal’ a vocal off of the Internet without paying for it [ 5 ] , the Copyright Directive has besides introduced a new offense whereby person“infringes a right of first publication in a work by pass oning the work to the populace… otherwise than in the class of concern to such an extent as to impact prejudicially the proprietor of the copyright”. Therefore, this offense is clearly brooding of the fact it is now boundlessly easier to copy original plants digitally [ 6 ] because the chief invention effected by the Internet has been to immensely increase the mean consumer’s entree to information. Consequently, a big figure of possible enforcement jobs have arisen including ( a ) placing those that infringe ; ( B ) easiness of entree to information ; ( degree Celsius ) the fact unprotected beginnings can be digitalised and circulated quickly ; ( vitamin D ) the prevalence of circumvention counter-technology ; and ( vitamin E ) cross-border legal jobs.
However, in malice of the myriad of enforcement jobs recognised around the universe, the degree of law is already constructing up rapidly [ 7 ] so that, whilst the costs of single claims are clearly rather disproportional to their benefits, the menace of judicial proceeding clearly serves as some signifier of hindrance. Furthermore, it is arguable that, in the hereafter, tribunals may look to enforce more utmost countenances than those outlined by the European Copyright Directive. This is because these steps amount to instead unpalatable rearguard efforts by right of first publication proprietors to do up for the law’s weaknesss by enforcing regulations to curtail violation, whilst still leting for the facilitation of thoughts and inventions [ 8 ] , because the judicial procedure does non truly function to efficaciously work out the job at its original beginning in the manner that it so clearly needs to be implemented.
Such a position is illustrated by he fact that, in Europe, it is of import to recognize that the deficiency of comparative sums of judicial proceeding is reflected in the UK with the determination inCBS Songs Ltd. v. Amstrad Consumer Electronics Plc[ 9 ] where CBS claimed Amstrad was empowering ‘End Users’ to conflict CBS’ right of first publication by fabrication, advertisement and offering systems that allowed for such violations [ 10 ] . The House of Lords dismissed CBS’ entreaty because of the fact that“ [ T ] he purchaser or other operator of the recording equipment determines whether he shall copy and what he shall copy. By selling the recording equipment Amstrad may ease copying in breach of right of first publication but do non empower it”. Furthermore, in the determination ofKabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. et al. v. Gaynor David Ball et Al.[ 11 ] , the tribunal considered the pertinence of Section 296Z of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act ( ‘CDPA’ ) 1988 where Sony adopted a security system as a transcript protection mechanism.
Therefore, the US is at the head for efficaciously facing the rise of the Internet and its impact upon authorised and unauthorized distribution of copyrighted plant. This is because whilst basic right of first publication protections contained in Section 106 of Copyright Act 1976 and the pertinence of the ‘fair use’ defense mechanism has been cast into uncertainty by the determinations inA & A ; M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc[ 12 ] andUniversal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley[ 13 ] , statute law in the US has adopted a pro-industry angle that has led to unfavorable judgment ; in malice of the fact that it once to a great extent based upon the English right of first publication system [ 14 ] . On this footing, at least in portion, the Copyright Directive was introduced to turn to the jobs presented by the US determination inA & A ; M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc[ 15 ] and besides served to let private, non-commercial usage – but merely where the right of first publication proprietor receives ‘fair compensation’ ( undefined by the Directive ) . However, it must be recognised that these commissariats are every bit near as the Directive really comes to turn toing ‘P2P’ services because the world is that most of the commissariats are aimed at giving protection to embattled right of first publication holders, endeavoring to protect their assets and supply the legal support for the practical steps that the industries themselves have had to take to protect their copyrighted assets.
This position is further supported, in the United States, by the determination inUMG Recordings, Inc. v. MP3.com, Inc[ 16 ] where the Court ruled MP3’s system of uploading vocals for ‘End Users’ violated the right of first publication proprietors rights, since this was“nothing more than a barefaced claim that [ MP3.com ] should be able to embezzle the belongings merely because there is a consumer demand for it”[ 17 ] . Therefore, although right of first publication proprietors were defeated recently with the result inMetro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc, & A ; Others v. Grokster Ltd, & A ; Others[ 18 ] , they were encouraged by the Court’s statement ‘End Users’ on ‘P2P’ webs were straight apt for copyright violation [ 19 ] . But, on entreaty,Recording Industry Association of America Inc. v. Verizon Internet Services, Inc.[ 20 ] , the Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia reversed the District Court’s order to implement the subpoenas, under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ( ‘DMCA’ ) 1998, so the Recording Industry Association of America ( ‘RIAA’ ) could get down actions against ‘End Users’ straight in looking to convey the battle to the bow in the involvements of industry histrions.
With this in head, in looking to convey approximately effectual right of first publication protection in this country, the development and use of digital rights direction techniques or other engineering will go on to supply an excess degree of protection for right of first publication proprietors against ‘P2P’ file sharing. This is because it is widely recognised that this sort of engineering can be utilised to extinguish the most common happenings of file sharing in looking to theoretically cut down both legal and patroling costs [ 21 ] . Such a position is efficaciously illustrated by the fact that now, for illustration, commercial plants can be ‘encrypted’ so that any ‘End Users’ who want to entree something over the Internet must get a ‘digital key’ specifically from the right of first publication proprietor themselves [ 22 ] . Furthermore, ‘digital watermarking’ is besides deriving in significance in this country [ 23 ] . Therefore, with this in head, digital encoding and ‘watermarking’ serves to farther enhance right of first publication owners’ abilities to be able to command their work’s release [ 24 ] .
It is besides of import to observe that digital rights direction techniques engineering besides has strong international support, since all of the signers to the World Intellectual Property Organization ( ‘WIPO’ ) Copyright Treaty are obliged to vouch that equal protections are efficaciously implemented to be able to protect online copyrighted works [ 25 ] . This is besides in maintaining with the thought that there is still an all excessively evident demand for an international consensus in relation to the jurisprudence. Such a position emanates from the US because of the planetary nature of the Internet’s strictly national responses to the right of first publication jobs that have been considered mostly unequal [ 26 ] . This is because national jurisprudence and territorial sovereignty means that the current apprehension of the jurisprudence in this country is incapable of run intoing the demands of this new engineering [ 27 ] illustrated by the fact the TRIPs Agreement ( ‘Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights’ ) resulted in no consensus in the country of right of first publication and engineering [ 28 ] . Such a position has arisen because of the fact that issues environing right of first publication protection for electronic commercialism were non addressed explicitly in TRIPs, necessitating the dialogue in 1996 of the Copyright Treaty and the Performance and Phonograms Treaty under the protections of WIPO [ 29 ] .
However, it must be recognised that the TRIPs Agreement did look to efficaciously set up certain minimal criterions to be able to look to efficaciously protect the chief signifiers of rational belongings rights that serves to let its Members to be able to supply more extended protection of rational belongings. Member provinces are so free to look to be able to efficaciously find the appropriate method of implementing the commissariats of the Agreement within their ain legal system and pattern. Furthermore, it is besides to be appreciated that TRIPs includes a specific proviso that expressly requires member states to protect package, whether in beginning or object codification. This is because of the fact that it establishes merely minimal criterions for the protection of rational belongings rights, member states have the right to supply more extended protection within their national legal systems [ 30 ] .
On this footing, the demand for cosmopolitan ordinance of ‘P2P’ file sharing has clearly arisen mostly because the Internet is a planetary phenomenon where anything done by merely one person can hold branchings upon all other ‘End Users’ . Therefore, with this in head, it is arguable that ‘P2P’ package developers may be considered to be in the best possible place to be able to implement the necessary online technological controls to protect copyrighted digital plants whilst besides guaranting continued ‘End User’ entree [ 31 ] . Furthermore, it is besides of import to recognize that ‘P2P’ package developers may look to integrate universally acceptable copy-protection engineering by set uping ade factoplanetary criterion without unduly curtailing entree through some signifier of international harmonization. This is because of the fact that it is widely recognised that it would go much easier to decide the ‘P2P’ file-sharing argument in this manner. On this footing, it is argued that the WIPO Copyright Treaty could travel a long manner to making this because of the fact that the WIPO Copyright Treaty specifically addresses digital right of first publication issues because it has already succeeded in giving national legislators the inducement and general construction within which to move. With this in head, it should be recognised that, on this footing, if the WIPO Copyright Treaty is successfully implemented globally, people on the Internet can run more confidently since their on-line legal rights will be more clearly recognised.
But the unfortunate world is that the twin WIPO pacts have failed to efficaciously pass straight upon the issues associating to ‘P2P’ file sharing because of the fact that regional understandings affecting states with more common land have really faired small better regionally. This is efficaciously illustrated by the fact that the EU Copyright Directive purposes to harmonize“certain facets of right of first publication and related rights in the information society”. But the accomplishment of EU Member States in non being able to efficaciously harmonize anything has been noted since“the Member States are wholly free to follow any exclusions from the list given by the Directive. Thus, the province of jurisprudence ( s ) can be precisely the same before and after the supposed harmonisation”[ 32 ] . Therefore, with this in head, in order to be able to accomplish the purpose of international ordinance of the Internet, it is clearly of import to look to be realistic and recognize any specific jobs that can be remedied in the short term. Furthermore, it should besides be recognised that“ [ s ] ome legal bookmans even have asserted that internet should hold its ain jurisprudence and legal establishments, and have questioned whether state-based authoritiess should hold legal power over on-line activity”[ 33 ] . Such a position may good be true and it is clearly a bold aim for the long-run, but the world is that most states are improbable to be willing to release sovereignty [ 34 ] .
Furthermore, it must besides be recognised that, in a really proficient sense, a planetary rational belongings government is non a world unless all of the states presently established around the universe articulation the World Trade Organisation ( ‘WTO’ ) and comply with the TRIPs Agreement. But a recent illustration can be used to show the differences in right of first publication jurisprudence that remain, even after the minimal criterions set by TRIPs and the attempts made in the WIPO Copyright Treaty that involved the active practical enforcement of foreign judgements. This is because of the fact that it was recognised in the determination inYokel! , Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L’Antisemitisme ( ‘LICRA’ )[ 35 ] a Gallic tribunal ordered Yahoo to forestall gross revenues of Nazi-related memorabilia because it violated Gallic Torahs. But, in this instance, a Californian Court stated that Yahoo did non hold to follow with the order because of the fact that it violated the First Amendment [ 36 ] .
On this footing, it is incumbent upon right of first publication proprietors to look to revamp their concern theoretical accounts [ 37 ] because of the fact that right of first publication proprietors can non anticipate to bear down the same sum for a digital download as they would for a Cadmium. This efficaciously means that if copyright proprietors want to be able to efficaciously capture the market they must look to take down their monetary values further [ 38 ] and through value-added benefits [ 39 ] . This is because of the fact that right of first publication proprietors could look to offer ‘End Users’ the certainty that all downloads will be high quality because they come from the original beginning [ 40 ] and the chance to be able to use the purchase monetary value of individual vocals that they have purchased against the monetary value of an full Cadmium. Such a position has arisen in position of the fact that many advocates argue ‘End Users’ are happy“to wage for digital music services, provided such services offer all of the benefits with none of the defeats of a free network”[ 41 ] since they will besides non face legal action [ 42 ] . Therefore, on this footing, right of first publication proprietors must besides look to develop on-line music shops. But that is non every bit easy as it may sound. This is because of the fact that, due to legion licencing issues among assorted EU member provinces, puting up a web-store has proved slightly hard. But offering content online through authorised sites, such as ‘I-Tunes’ , whether created and run by right of first publication proprietors straight, through a spouse or licensed distributer, or through convergence of right of first publication proprietor companies with ISPs or engineering companies, are the most obvious paths for right of first publication proprietors to decide this issue [ 43 ] .
Other options that are available to right of first publication proprietors have besides included activation strategies that require ‘End Users’ to reach a right of first publication proprietor in order to be able to obtain an ‘activation code’ [ 44 ] . Furthermore, ‘ransoming’ has besides been used efficaciously by the celebrated author, Stephen King, in relation to the on-line release of his work in recent old ages. In this instance, King looked to print one chapter at a clip on his official web site and requested ‘voluntary’ payments of between US $ 1 and US $ 2 per chapter to him. But he besides let it be known that if he did non have payments for at least 75 % of downloads he would non finish his work. As a consequence,‘Riding the Bullet’became one of the most celebrated short story’s of all time to be released on the Internet [ 45 ] . But these are merely a position illustrations of the mechanisms that there are to vouch copyright protection because of the fact that there are besides many other attacks available to right of first publication proprietors that the jurisprudence can ease in the hereafter [ 46 ] . Therefore, these mechanism include ‘spoofing’ free ‘P2P’ sites with decoy digital files [ 47 ] and looking to set up systems whereby file-sharers can portion in the net incomes of file-sharing provided they distribute and portion merely authorised right of first publication protected files.
However, it must besides be recognised that there are many mechanisms that can be used for copyright protection outside of the jurisprudence. This is because, in looking to ease a thorough treatment, it is to be appreciated that there are clearly options for covering with the behavior of ‘P2P’ file sharing webs. Such a position is supported by the fact that every file-sharing system is reliant upon roll uping a mass of users to upload files into shared directories to be easy transmitted to other users [ 48 ] . But, even if file-sharing systems are made more inconvenient for users, it must be recognised that their impact can merely be marginalized. This is because of the fact, without technological controls, it must be recognised that violations could merely be prevented by a series of menaces. However, it should be appreciated that three types of controls could be applied ( a ) over entree to files ; ( B ) at the Internet Service Provider ( ‘ISP’ ) degree to patrol violations ; and ( degree Celsius ) at the hardware degree [ 49 ] .
Furthermore, it is besides to be appreciated that the growing in the handiness of music from legitimate on-line shops has been exponential [ 50 ] in curtailing copying. This is because it is clear that it could be argued that, by procuring the music itself, right of first publication proprietors have about wrested control over development back from the makers of copying or playback equipment. But a more sweeping option has besides proved to be to do ISP’s make the online gross revenues [ 51 ] because they have the concurrent ability to supervise all protected files and the same drawbacks refering unprotected stuff. Soon, there is nil to forestall the constitution of web sites offering peer-to-peer package for download [ 52 ] , but there is bing jurisprudence on which these web sites could run aground and limitations could hold been imposed on the developers, necessitating a mechanism for supervising copyright violation.
Furthermore, it is besides interesting to observe that, in a file-sharing instance in the US, developers were guilty of blindly explicating a system where non merely transportations, but besides hunts, were decentralised [ 53 ] . Therefore, with this in head, the load has now been passed to right of first publication proprietors to look to be able to efficaciously patrol these systems of ‘P2P’ file sharing because the consequence of enforcing legal conditions on file-sharing package would be to relocate that load to its propagators. But it must still be recognised it is absolutely possible to enforce a demand for all hunts to be routed through a cardinal waiter and using a mechanism to forestall systematic right of first publication violation happening [ 54 ] . The job was that these users so merely changed their usernames and carried on piquing careless [ 55 ] .
Therefore, with this in head, a more feasible attack would look to be to look to do it compulsory for the formal enrollment of users by the giving of personal information. This is because of the fact that so either the operators of the system or the right of first publication proprietors could bear down for stuff whose hunt name suggested it was protected and the returns could so be efficaciously split between these several parties. Furthermore, it may besides be possible to halt hunt engines from directing users to piquing package by patroling the most frequent ‘keyword’ hunts. For illustration, ISP’s could curtail ‘P2P’ traffic that was non routed to centralized waiters – even though such limitations are improbable to take to the closing down of ‘P2P’ systems. But it is besides of import to recognize that surcharges on Internet usage, collectible to ISP’s could besides be used efficaciously in looking to decide the jobs with ‘P2P’ systems [ 56 ] .
However, it must be recognised that, as the Supreme Court of Canada late efficaciously recognised, it may non possible to enforce such charges [ 57 ] – even though such a solution represents the best agencies for covering with the overall job of right of first publication violation over the Internet. Therefore, with this in head, the degree of surcharge would be linked to the nature and measure of stuff downloaded, through a combination of digital watermarking and specialized arbitrations. The jobs with this attack [ 58 ] have arisen because of the fact that it would be unjust to bear down the same level rate to all users of the Internet regardless of the degree of downloading. Furthermore, it must besides be recognised that the being of media pudding stones nowadayss a farther job because of the fact that right of first publication proprietors who besides act as ISP’s may derive an unjust advantage.
Finally, it is besides argued that a more sophisticated attack could be utilised to pull on the fact that, even after they are compressed, the size of music and movie files frequently exceeds most of the other stuff that it is really possible to download. This is because of the fact that the chief advantage here would be the bulk of Internet endorsers would non be caught and the chance of surcharges would discourage some people from downloading larger files over the ‘P2P’ file sharing systems. But it is besides to be recognised that downloads from legitimate beginnings could be efficaciously exempted by agencies of the usage of everyday engineering to automatically place the stuff was paid for and, although such a proposal would be extremely effectual against the downloading of movies, the fact remains a big figure of little downloads [ 59 ] would fall below the radio detection and ranging. With this in head, whilst many of the most extended wrongdoers download files utilizing the same subscription, this may still represent an effectual mechanism with comparative easiness.
In decision, in looking to critically measure the extent to which ‘copyright law’ has responded ( or ought to react ) to the issues raised by technological developments in ‘P2P’ file sharing on the Internet, it must be recognised this is still clearly a legal job that has non yet been efficaciously resolved so that it incumbent upon policy shapers to set greater attempts in to modulate ‘P2P’ file sharing. But it must be understood that, whilst any breach of right of first publication jurisprudence has actively served its intent as a suited land for conveying tribunal proceedings in this country, it is clear that alternate agencies for modulating behavior on ‘P2P’ file sharing webs is needed to be able to efficaciously be able to command the job beyond the jurisprudence. Such a position has arisen because it is arguable that copyright jurisprudence in this country is merely effectual as a ground for conveying the accused to tribunal and finally penalizing them. This is because of the fact that it does non truly work out the job at its beginning. Therefore, with this in head, it is of peculiar importance to look to the ISP’s and the ‘P2P’ file sharing webs to look to more efficaciously decide the issue utilizing digital rights direction techniques to curtail the ability of merchandises to play downloads from beginnings that are non standardised. But, for such beginnings to be genuinely effectual, these mechanisms must be universally implemented and enforced by jurisprudence to hold any opportunity of deciding this job around the universe and non simply in the US and Europe.
C. J. Angelopoulos‘Modern rational belongings statute law: warm for reform’( 2008 ) 19 ( 2 ) Ent LR 35-40
N. Blackmore‘Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Networks – the Legal & A ; Technological Challenges for Copyright Owners’( 2004 ) 55 NSW SC & A ; LJ
W. Fisher‘Digital Music: Problems & A ; Possibilities’( 2000 )
S. Hervey‘The Future of Online Music: Labels and Artists’( 2002 ) 15 Transnat’l Law. 279
M. Jackson & A ; M. Shelly‘Black chapeaus & A ; white chapeaus: mandate of copyright violation in Australia & A ; the United States’( 2006 ) 14 ( 1 ) IJL & A ; IT 28-46
D. Johnson & A ; D. Post‘Law & A ; Boundary lines: The Rise of Law in Cyberspace’( 1996 ) 48 Stanford Law Review 1367
M. R. Just‘Internet File-Sharing & A ; the Liability of Intermediaries for Copyright Infringement: A Need for International Consensus’( 2003 ) 1 JILT
N. Koss‘The Digital Music Dilemma: Protecting Copyright in the Age of Peer-To-Peer File Sharing’( 2003 ) 5 Vand. J. Ent. L. & A ; Prac. 94
R. S. R Ku‘The Creative Destruction of Copyright: Napster & A ; the New Economics of Digital Technology’( 2002 ) 69 U. Chi. L. Rev. 263
S. M. Lantagne‘The Morality of MP3’s: The Failure of the Recording Industry ‘s Plan of Attack’( 2004 ) 18 Harv. JL & A ; Tech. 269
K. M. Lemley‘Protecting Consumers From Themselves: Relieving the Market Inequalities Created by Online Copyright Infringement in the Entertainment Industry’( 2003 ) 13 Alb. L.J. Sci. & A ; Tech. 613
L. Lesser & A ; V. Grandpr‘Courts Expand ISP Protection, But Pitfalls Remain: 2001 In Review’6 NO. 10 Cyberspace Law 7
L. P. Loren‘Untangling the Web of Music Copyrights’( 2003 ) 53 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 673
F. MacMillan‘The Cruel C: Copyright & A ; Film’( 2002 ) 24:10 EIPR 483
H. MacQueen‘Copyright & A ; the Internet’, in Edwards. L & A ; Waelde. C ( Eds ) ‘Law & A ; the Internet. Regulating Cyberspace’ Hart Publishing ( 1997 )
K. Maskus‘Intellectual Property Rights in the Global Economy’Institute For International Economics ( 2000 )
R. Massey‘Major Rumbling in Online Music Delivery’( 2001 ) 12:2 Ent. L.R. 63
M. C. Mousley ‘Peer-To-Peer Combat: The Entertainment Industry’s Arsenal in Its War on Digital Piracy’ ( 2003 ) 48 Vill. L. Rev. 667
C. Nasir‘From Scare Tactics to Surcharges & A ; Other Ideas: Potential Solutions to Peer-to-Peer Copyright Infringement: Part 3’( 2005 ) 16 ( 5 ) Ent. LR. 105
D. Nelson‘Free the Music: Rethinking the Role of Copyright in an Age of Digital Distribution’( 2005 ) 78 S. Cal. L. Rev. 559
N. W. Netanel‘Impose a Noncommercial Use Levy to Let Free Peer-to-Peer File-Sharing’( 2003 ) 17 HJL & A ; T 1
F. Oberholzer & A ; K. Strumpf‘The Effect of File Sharing on Record Gross saless: An Empirical Analysis’( Harvard Business School, UNC March 2004 )
R. A. Reese‘Will Merging Access Controls & A ; Rights Controls Undermine the Structure of Anti-circumvention Law? ’( 2003 ) 18 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 619
P. Samuelson‘Copyright & A ; Freedom of Expression in Historical Perspective’( 2003 ) 10 J. Intell. Prop. L. 319
J. Schwartz‘When Free Is n’t Really Free’The New York Times ( 23rdNovember 2003 )
C. Sellers‘Digital Rights Management Systems: Recent European Issues’( 2003 ) 14:1 Ent. L.R. 5
A. Shapiro‘The Control Revolution – How the Internet is Puting Persons in Charge & A ; Changing the World We Know’Century Foundation ( 1999 )
L. Sobel‘DRM as an Enabler of Business Models: ISPs as Digital Retailers’( 2003 ) 18 BTLJ
A. Stokes & A ; J. Rudkin Binks‘Online Music: P2P Aftershocks’( 2003 ) 14:6 Ent. L.R. 127
S. Theimer‘Valanti Predicts Movies Online by 2005’The Washington Post ( 20ThursdayNovember 2003 )
A. R. Vivant in Lodder & A ; H. W. K. Kaspersen ( Eds. )‘eDirectives: Guide to European Union Law on E-Commerce’, ‘Commentary on the Directives on Distance Selling, Electronic Signatures, Electronic Commerce, Copyright in the Information Society, and Data Protection’ Kluwer Law International ( 2002 )
J. Walker & A ; A. Sharpe‘Digital Rights Management’( 2002 ) 18:4 CLSR 259
World trade organization‘Overview the TRIPS Agreement’( 2006 )
Table of Cases
A & A ; M Records v. Napster( 2001 ) 239 F 3d 1004 ( 9ThursdayCir. 2001 )
Boosey v. Whight( 1900 ) 1 Ch 122
Eldred v. Ashcroft123 S.Ct. 769 at p.792 ( U.S.S.C. 2003 )
Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. et al. v. Gaynor David Ball et Al.[ 2004 ] EWHC 1738 ( Ch. )
KODA NCB Dansk Artist Forbund, Dansk Musiker Forbund & A ; IFPI DenmarkCase No’s VL B-1943-99 & A ; VL V-2089-99 ( High Court of Justice, Western Division, April 20Thursday2001 )
MGM v. Grokster( 2005 ) 125 S. Ct. 2764
Nippon Columbia Co Ltd v. Yugen Kaisha Nippon NMO2002 ( Wa ) Case No.4249 ( Toyko District Court 29th Civil Division, interlocutory judgement January 29Thursday2003 )
Re Aimster Copyright Litigation( 2002 ) 252 F.Supp. 2d 634
Recording Industry Association of America Inc. v. Verizon Internet Services, Inc.351 F.3d 1229 ( 2003 )
Rudd v. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [ 1987 ] 1 WLR 786 ( HL )
SACEM v. VR & A ; FVCase No.99007491 Judgment No.3561/1999 ( Tribunal de Grande Instance de Saint-Etienne 3 Chambre, December 6Thursday1999 )
Society of Composers, Authors & A ; Music Publishers of Canada v. Canadian Association of Internet Providers et Al.( 2004 ) SCC 45
Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc464 U.S. 417 ( U.S.S.C. 1984 )
UMG Recordings, Inc. v. MP3.com, Inc.92 F.Supp.2d 349 ( S.D.N.Y. 2000 )
Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley273 F.3d 429 ( 2nd Cir. 2001 )
Verizon Internet Services Inc. v. Recording Industry Association of America, Inc.240 F.Supp.2d 24 ( D.C.D.C. 2003 )
White-Smith Music Pub. Co. v. Appollo Co.( 1908 ) 209 US 1
Yokel! , Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L’Antisemitisme ( ‘LICRA’ )169 F. Supp. 2d 1181 ( N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2001 )
Table of Legislative acts
Copyright Act 1976
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998
European Union Copyright Directive ( 2001/29/EC )