Policy Challenges Around Digital Copyright

1,228 views

Published on

Presentation given at Association of American Publishers' Professional and Scholarly Publishing Conference, February 2009, Washington, DC

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,228
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
250
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
28
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Policy Challenges Around Digital Copyright

  1. 1. Slide 1 Digital Copyright Technology Policy Challenges Bill Rosenblatt GiantSteps Media Technology Strategies billr@giantstepsmts.com bill @ i t t t www.giantstepsmts.com 212 956 1045 © 2010 GiantSteps Media Technology Strategies 1
  2. 2. Slide 2 The Background Digital Content is E Di it l C t t i Everywhere h  Places – User generated content sites – File sharing networks – “Warez” sites Warez” – Search engines – Email  Much of it is unauthorized copyrighted work py g – E-book market growth draws more attention – Especially with 3 incompatible major platforms © 2010 GiantSteps Media Technology Strategies 2
  3. 3. Slide 3 The Background Fronts i th I f i F t in the Infringement B ttl t Battle  Legal  Economic  Behavioral  Technical © 2010 GiantSteps Media Technology Strategies 3
  4. 4. Slide 4 Technical Responses to Infringement  DRM a/k/a TPMs – proactive protection of digital content  Filtering – gatekeeping of © content in networks and websites  Secondary Liability – going after those who enable infringement through technology  Free riding – addressing behaviors of search engines, blogs engines blogs, etc. that use © content for their own benefit © 2010 GiantSteps Media Technology Strategies 4
  5. 5. Slide 5 Technical Protection Measures/DRM  Technology: used in e-books by most major publishers e- – 3 major DRMs: Amazon, Adobe, Apple  Covered in DMCA (17 USC 1201(a)) – C i i li h ki and t ffi ki i h ki t l Criminalizes hacking d trafficking in hacking tools – Result of agreement between telcos and media cos in early 1990s  Key issues – Liability is on hacker, not supplier of technology – Lack of statutory exemptions for Fair Use and other use cases – Lack of clarity over standard of “effectiveness” of DRM effectiveness”  Not an active area public policy now – Was hot in the post-Napster era (2002-4) post- (2002- – Current area is video – “Selectable Output Control” Control” © 2010 GiantSteps Media Technology Strategies 5
  6. 6. Slide 6 Secondary Infringement Liability  Who is liable when someone uses content w/o authorization? – Direct infringement: the actual uploader/downloader uploader/downloader – Secondary: aiding and abetting infringement (tools, services), or “looking the other way” for financial benefit way”  17 USC 512 (DMCA) provides for takedown notices – Service providers can take content down in order to avoid liability  M di industry wants to require service providers t take more steps t Media i d t t t i i id to t k t to filter unauthorized content – Viacom v. YouTube – in process – UMG v. Veoh – decided for Veoh in district court  Technologies and costs are at issue – Proactive (filtering, DRM) vs. reactive (takedown notices) technologies ( g, ) vs. ( ) g – Who pays – content owner or service provider? © 2010 GiantSteps Media Technology Strategies 6
  7. 7. Slide 7 Content Identification Technologies for Filtering Filt i  Fingerprinting – Examining “plain” files to determine content identity plain” – Various technologies for music and video – Leading vendor for text: Attributor – Used primarily by news publishers  Watermarking – Reading hidden p -embedded codes in files g pre- pre – Not applicable to text content – Widely used for still images – S i providers e.g. Pi S Service id PicScout © 2010 GiantSteps Media Technology Strategies 7
  8. 8. Slide 8 Filtering Initiatives  Video industry self-regulation attempt failed self- – UGC Principles, 2007  “Progressive response” a/k/a “Three strikes, you’re out” legislation response” you’ out” – F France, Singapore, S K Si S. Korea  Litigation – Morpheus file-sharing case in US, under appeal file- – SABAM (music licensing) v. Scarlet (ISP) case in Belgium  Efforts to include mandatory filtering in national broadband plan © 2010 GiantSteps Media Technology Strategies 8
  9. 9. Slide 9 FCC v. Brand X Decision (2005)  Telcos exempt from content liability – © Infringement (and libel, fraud, etc.) – “Just the wires” – no ability to control content wires”  Telcos also run Internet services – Verizon – AT&T  D i i said th t I t Decision id that Internet services are diff t i different b t t beasts – Not subject to common carrier liability exemptions – Therefore telcos can control content on their ISPs w/o risking loss of exemptions  This frees telcos to control content on ISPs – Copyright filtering – doing it in exchange for content licenses – Net neutrality © 2010 GiantSteps Media Technology Strategies 9
  10. 10. Slide 10 Free Riding  Book publishing – Google settlement  News publishing – N litigation so f … No liti ti far… far – Associated Press hNews tagging technology – Antitrust inquiry in Germany – Dormant technology standards initiative (ACAP)  Will become bigger issue as more news publishers put up pay walls © 2010 GiantSteps Media Technology Strategies 10
  11. 11. Slide 11 Consumer Concerns over Technologies  DRMs – Lack of interoperability (platform lock-in) lock-in) – Various technical glitches  Filtering technologies – False positives – Due process, presumption of innocence process – Network performance  Free riding – Negotiations taking place without consumer input  Fair Use – applies to all of the above – Of special concern in scholarly publishing © 2010 GiantSteps Media Technology Strategies 11
  12. 12. Slide 12 Bill Rosenblatt GiantSteps Media Technology Strategies billr@giantstepsmts.com 212 956 1045 www.giantstepsmts.com py g gy copyrightandtechnology.com © 2010 GiantSteps Media Technology Strategies 12

×