REVERSE NOTICE & TAKEDOWN OF DRM TO ENABLE FAIR USES Pamela Samuelson CRCS Workshop Oct. 3, 2007
LAW & TECHNOLOGY <ul><li>Many intersections of law & technology as competing or complementary strategies for dealing with ...
TPMs NOTHING NEW <ul><li>There’s nothing particularly new about using access controls and other technical measures to prot...
NII & IP WHITE PAPER (1995) <ul><li>©’d works in digital form are vulnerable to market-destructive appropriations in globa...
WIPO © TREATY (1996) <ul><li>US proposed very similar rule for the WIPO © Treaty (WCT) as necessary to enable global marke...
HOW TO IMPLEMENT WCT? <ul><li>Minimalist way to implement WCT was to outlaw acts of circumvention intended to facilitate ©...
STRUCTURE OF 1201 <ul><li>1201(a)(1)(A):  illegal to bypass TPM used by © owner to control access to work </li></ul><ul><l...
DMCA “ACT” RULE <ul><li>1201(a)(1)(A):  Illegal after 10/00 to circumvent an effective TPM used by © owners to control acc...
1201(c) <ul><li>No effect on rights, limits or defences, including fair use, under this title </li></ul><ul><li>(2) No eff...
OTHER LIMITS <ul><li>Circumvention of other TPMs, such as copy- or use-controls, left unregulated  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>W...
ANTI-DEVICE RULES <ul><li>1201(a)(2):  outlaws technologies that bypass effective  access controls  used by copyright owne...
ANTI-DEVICE RULES <ul><li>Illegal to manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in </li></ul>...
DEBATE re TPM & FAIR USES <ul><li>Congress decided vs. allowing fair use circumventions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>David Nimmer...
FAIR USE CIRCUMVENTIONS? <ul><li>Linguist bypasses CSS to take clips from movies to show as expert witness derogatory uses...
HOW TO ACCOMMODATE FU? <ul><li>Ginsburg:  allow fair users to make use of circumvention services to bypass TPMs </li></ul>...
ORIGINS OF N&TD  <ul><li>Notice & takedown principle was a judicial adaptation in  RTC v. Netcom </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Aut...
REVERSE NOTICE REGIME <ul><li>Prospective fair user notifies © owner of intent to make fair use of TPM’d content </li></ul...
OBJECTIONS? <ul><li>Corley  forecloses; would need legislation </li></ul><ul><li>Rights holders won’t find acceptable </li...
RESPONSES <ul><li>Netcom  shows that judicial innovations such as notice & takedown feasible </li></ul><ul><li>Chamberlain...
CHAMBERLAIN <ul><li>Maker of universal GDO not liable for 1201 </li></ul><ul><li>Fed. Cir’s decision provides intellectual...
BURDEN <ul><li>Yes, it’s better when fair uses can be done anonymously </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1201(c)(1) defense may succee...
CONCLUSION <ul><li>WCT recognizes the need for a balance of © owner and public interests </li></ul><ul><li>DMCA anti-circu...
ACLU AMICUS BRIEF IN  CORLEY <ul><li>If 1201 is to be constitutional under Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 8 and 1 st  A, it has to in...
CONCENTRIC RINGS <ul><li>Center of ring:  direct © liability requires proof of infringement, but fair use limits </li></ul...
ACLU BRIEF <ul><li>Need for limiting principles at every ring of potential liability or constitutional problems  </li></ul...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

A Reverse Notice & Takedown Regime to Enable Public Interest Uses of Technically Protected Content

1,288 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

A Reverse Notice & Takedown Regime to Enable Public Interest Uses of Technically Protected Content

  1. 1. REVERSE NOTICE & TAKEDOWN OF DRM TO ENABLE FAIR USES Pamela Samuelson CRCS Workshop Oct. 3, 2007
  2. 2. LAW & TECHNOLOGY <ul><li>Many intersections of law & technology as competing or complementary strategies for dealing with troublesome phenomena: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Privacy laws & privacy enabling technologies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Anti-spam laws & anti-spam technologies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Anti-phishing laws & anti-spam technologies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Anti-spyware laws & anti-spyware technologies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Anti-pornography laws & filtering technologies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Anti-circumvention laws & circumvention technologies: this is where I will focus today </li></ul></ul>
  3. 3. TPMs NOTHING NEW <ul><li>There’s nothing particularly new about using access controls and other technical measures to protect information assets </li></ul><ul><li>Often illegal to bypass access controls </li></ul><ul><ul><li>CFAA: unauthorized access to federally protected computers; exceeding authorized access </li></ul></ul><ul><li>But when © industry groups began using or planning to use TPMs, they insisted that new legislation was needed to outlaw technologies designed to circumvent their TPMs </li></ul>
  4. 4. NII & IP WHITE PAPER (1995) <ul><li>©’d works in digital form are vulnerable to market-destructive appropriations in global digital networked environments </li></ul><ul><ul><li>© owners want to use TPMs to protect digital works </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Answer to the machine is the machine” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Circumvention tools undermine, so need to outlaw </li></ul></ul><ul><li>WP recommended legislation to outlaw technologies, the primary purpose or effect of which was to bypass or circumvent technical protection measures (TPMs) used by © owners to protect their works </li></ul>
  5. 5. WIPO © TREATY (1996) <ul><li>US proposed very similar rule for the WIPO © Treaty (WCT) as necessary to enable global markets in digital content </li></ul><ul><li>Anti-circumvention provision was controversial at diplomatic conference </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Concern about impacts on innovation, access to information, fair uses </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Final treaty required “adequate legal protection” and “effective legal remedies” vs. circumvention </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Seemingly left to nations how to implement </li></ul></ul>
  6. 6. HOW TO IMPLEMENT WCT? <ul><li>Minimalist way to implement WCT was to outlaw acts of circumvention intended to facilitate © infringement </li></ul><ul><li>Not clear it was necessary to outlaw circumvention technologies </li></ul><ul><li>Sony Betamax default rule: © owners can’t control technologies if they have or are capable of substantial non-infringing uses </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Many circumvention technologies have lawful uses (e.g., enable backup copying, fair uses) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>© industry: we need a stronger rule! </li></ul>
  7. 7. STRUCTURE OF 1201 <ul><li>1201(a)(1)(A): illegal to bypass TPM used by © owner to control access to work </li></ul><ul><li>1201(a)(2): illegal to make or traffic in technologies or services primarily designed or produced to bypass access controls </li></ul><ul><li>1201(b)(1): illegal to make or traffic in technologies or services primarily designed or produced to bypass TPMs used to protect ©’d works </li></ul>
  8. 8. DMCA “ACT” RULE <ul><li>1201(a)(1)(A): Illegal after 10/00 to circumvent an effective TPM used by © owners to control access to ©’d works </li></ul><ul><li>7 specific exceptions: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Law enforcement/national security </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reverse eng’g necessary for interoperability </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Legitimate encryption research </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Computer security testing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Nonprofit “shopping” privilege </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Parental control-related </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Personal privacy protection </li></ul></ul>
  9. 9. 1201(c) <ul><li>No effect on rights, limits or defences, including fair use, under this title </li></ul><ul><li>(2) No effect on contributory/vicarious liability </li></ul><ul><li>(3) No requirement to respond to technical measures in computer/consumer products </li></ul><ul><li>(4) No effect on free speech/press </li></ul><ul><li>Latter 3 added during legislative struggle; much contested what (1) and (4) mean </li></ul>
  10. 10. OTHER LIMITS <ul><li>Circumvention of other TPMs, such as copy- or use-controls, left unregulated </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Was this intended to leave room for fair uses? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Library of Congress conducts triennial rulemaking to consider proposed exemptions from this rule for some classes of works or uses </li></ul><ul><ul><li>6 granted last year </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>1 was for film studies teachers to make fair use clips of DVD movies to prepare teaching materials for class </li></ul></ul>
  11. 11. ANTI-DEVICE RULES <ul><li>1201(a)(2): outlaws technologies that bypass effective access controls used by copyright owners to protect their works </li></ul><ul><li>1202(b)(1): outlaws technologies that bypass other effective technical measures used by copyright owners to protect rights </li></ul><ul><li>1201(k): illegal to make video cassette recorders that don’t accommodate automatic gain control technology </li></ul>
  12. 12. ANTI-DEVICE RULES <ul><li>Illegal to manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in </li></ul><ul><ul><li>If primarily designed or produced to circumvent, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lacks commercially significant use other than circumvention, or </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Marketed as a circumvention device </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Only 3 of the exceptions to 1201(a)(1)(A) are also exempt from the anti-device rules, only 1 (1201(f)) is exempt from both anti-device rules </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Is there an implied right to make a tool to engage in privileged circumventions? </li></ul></ul>
  13. 13. DEBATE re TPM & FAIR USES <ul><li>Congress decided vs. allowing fair use circumventions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>David Nimmer; Judge Kaplan in Corley </li></ul></ul><ul><li>1201(c)(1) + no regulation of other TPMs = intent to enable fair uses </li></ul><ul><li>many scholars /Judge Gasarja in Chamberlain </li></ul><ul><li>3. Without some fair use-like limitation, anti-circumvention rules may be unconstitutional: </li></ul><ul><li>Jane Ginsburg/ACLU in Corley </li></ul>
  14. 14. FAIR USE CIRCUMVENTIONS? <ul><li>Linguist bypasses CSS to take clips from movies to show as expert witness derogatory uses of “redskins” in litigation challenging TM </li></ul><ul><li>Firm bypasses encryption to discern whether another firm has infringed its patents or © </li></ul><ul><li>Researcher reverse engineers TPMs in Sony BMG copy-protected CDs, leading to discovery of rootkit sw </li></ul><ul><li>Purchaser of Aibo dogs reverse engineers sw to develop software to make the dogs do new tricks </li></ul><ul><li>Technologist reverse engineers filtering sw to find out what it blocks </li></ul><ul><li>Computer Museum reverse engineers TPM to preserve sw </li></ul>
  15. 15. HOW TO ACCOMMODATE FU? <ul><li>Ginsburg: allow fair users to make use of circumvention services to bypass TPMs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Very risky in view of Corley decision </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Burk & Cohen: require © owners to provide keys to DRM to fair use infrastructure provider as precondition to qualifying for anti-circ protection </li></ul><ul><ul><li>In your dreams </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Lipton: CO should have administrative process to adjudicate fair use circumventions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Political economy problems would plague it </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Reichman/Dinwoodie/Samuelson: judicially created reverse notice & takedown procedure to enable fair uses </li></ul>
  16. 16. ORIGINS OF N&TD <ul><li>Notice & takedown principle was a judicial adaptation in RTC v. Netcom </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Automated copying in RAM by servers in course of transmission not infringement </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ISP is not strictly liable for infringing copies on its site, on its servers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>But if ISP gets notice of infringing materials, has a duty to investigate and take it down if charges are correct </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Notice & takedown later codified in 512 </li></ul>
  17. 17. REVERSE NOTICE REGIME <ul><li>Prospective fair user notifies © owner of intent to make fair use of TPM’d content </li></ul><ul><li>© owner has an obligation then to either take down the TPM or explain why not </li></ul><ul><li>If no response within a reasonable time, fair user can hack the TPM & engage in fair use </li></ul><ul><li>If © owner says no, fair user can seek declaratory judgment to enable fair use </li></ul>
  18. 18. OBJECTIONS? <ul><li>Corley forecloses; would need legislation </li></ul><ul><li>Rights holders won’t find acceptable </li></ul><ul><li>If can’t get access to a tool to enable the fair use, then theoretical fair use can’t happen </li></ul><ul><li>Generally able to make fair uses without seeking permissions, burdensome </li></ul><ul><li>Costly, many fair users will be deterred </li></ul>
  19. 19. RESPONSES <ul><li>Netcom shows that judicial innovations such as notice & takedown feasible </li></ul><ul><li>Chamberlain provides groundwork </li></ul><ul><li>Content owners might be more responsive than we’d expect </li></ul><ul><ul><li>But Sklansky got permission from Disney! </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Movie studios not suing remixers who obviously bypassed CSS </li></ul></ul>
  20. 20. CHAMBERLAIN <ul><li>Maker of universal GDO not liable for 1201 </li></ul><ul><li>Fed. Cir’s decision provides intellectual infrastructure for judicial innovation as to reverse notice & takedown: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>By requiring a showing of a nexus between acts of circumvention & infringement for 1201 liability; no infringement = no 1201 liability </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>By endorsing 1201(c)(1) as fair use savings clause; any other interpretation “irrational” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Balance = a “bedrock principle” of intellectual property law, 1201 included </li></ul></ul>
  21. 21. BURDEN <ul><li>Yes, it’s better when fair uses can be done anonymously </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1201(c)(1) defense may succeed if © owner sues for 1201 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Our backs are vs. the wall: need to find way for FU </li></ul><ul><li>Congress has been persuaded to ban circumvention technologies because of the high risk they will be used for infringement </li></ul><ul><li>But Congress expected fair uses to continue, but did not think through how this could be accomplished </li></ul><ul><li>Reverse notice regime is a plausible way to get there </li></ul><ul><li>Case by case adjudication could develop basic principles for enabling fair uses of TPM content </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Might eventually be codified, as 512 was </li></ul></ul><ul><li>EFF, LS clinics can represent prospective fair users </li></ul>
  22. 22. CONCLUSION <ul><li>WCT recognizes the need for a balance of © owner and public interests </li></ul><ul><li>DMCA anti-circumvention rules do not fully accomplish a balanced solution </li></ul><ul><li>Reverse notice & takedown would enable public interest uses, while leaving intact the ban on infringement-enabling circumvention technologies </li></ul><ul><li>Over time, norms would evolve & standardized procedures could develop, eventually codified </li></ul><ul><li>Our proposal is the most feasible of those proposed thus far to accommodate fair & other privileged uses of TPM’d content under the anti-circumvention rules </li></ul>
  23. 23. ACLU AMICUS BRIEF IN CORLEY <ul><li>If 1201 is to be constitutional under Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 8 and 1 st A, it has to include limiting principles </li></ul><ul><li>Fair use has constitutional dimensions that don’t go away just because a copyright owner uses technical measures to protect access or a copy </li></ul><ul><li>So court has two choices: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>It must either read limiting principles into 1201 (e.g., fair use) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>or rule that 1201 is unconstitutional on its face </li></ul></ul>
  24. 24. CONCENTRIC RINGS <ul><li>Center of ring: direct © liability requires proof of infringement, but fair use limits </li></ul><ul><li>2 nd ring: vicarious/contributory requires proof of underlying infringement; fair use still limits </li></ul><ul><li>3 rd ring: acts of circumvention which is subject to 7 exceptions (e.g., encryption res., interoperability) + 1201(c) </li></ul><ul><li>4 th ring: anti-device rules; no FU limit </li></ul><ul><li>5 th ring: contributory circumvention liability, newly invented by Kaplan, J., because linking does not directly “provide” DeCSS; no FU limit </li></ul>
  25. 25. ACLU BRIEF <ul><li>Need for limiting principles at every ring of potential liability or constitutional problems </li></ul><ul><li>Shouldn’t there be some proof of underlying infringement or at least grave risk? </li></ul><ul><li>Shouldn’t there be some relationship between the infringer & person charged under 1201? </li></ul><ul><li>Shouldn’t there be some fair use-like principles? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Touretsky “gallery” of CSS descramblers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Felten’s publication of results of SDMI hack, study of Sony rootkit software </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Jane Ginsburg’s links to sites where DeCSS can be found for her © course </li></ul></ul>

×