(KW) Instead of technological
protection, what if intellectual property were treated as a
service instead of a product? For example, the Open
Music Model which allows for user to pay a subscription fee
and allows for open file sharing and open competition, and
the copyright holder gets paid per download or share.
Would piracy still be an issue? Would current laws
that penalize piracy still be necessary?
(LJ) Theoretically, Big Media could centralize its media distribution to one site (like Hulu) on the internet and stop sales of hard DVDs/CDs in the future, so that the only way to easily consume the media is to subscribe there. Say that the next Twilight movie comes out and they only distribute via streaming online using an exclusive provider. But then they flag their copy (using digital watermarking) outside that site. Would they be able to designate media as presumptively pirated after placing such strong limits on the release and access to the media?
(DF) If technological
protection works, should we abolish copyright protection for
intellectual property in digital form?
(SR) Should copyright owners be
forced to give up some of their exclusive rights
(Example: duration of the right) if they are permitted
to constrain a consumer’s use of their work (i.e.
limiting the number of archival copies that can be
made or limiting types of software or hardware that
can “play” the work)?
Privacy
(KW) What privacy concerns, if any, are there with downloads that embed personal information? For example, iTunes purchases embed your name and email address within the file. What if more information was captured such as a home address, now is it a concern? Is this an effective way to prevent piracy?
(LJ) It seems that with the increasing
prevalence of cloud computing and hosting data online for
streaming, it seems possible that future filesharing will
happen by sharing access, rather than actually
copying. How might it be litigated if I chose to share
my password rather than a file? What if I claimed it
was stolen instead?
(LJ) Some people want to browse anonymously, but
social networks are consistently making sharing more public
and more compulsory. If this trend continues it will be
difficult for anyone non-expert to use social networks without
revealing more than they intend. What recourse, if any,
would these people have legally for damage to their privacy
and reputation, and is there some implicit knowledge
expectation that is growing as the complexity of the networks
increases? Where is the limit at which we can no longer
expect a layperson to keep up with these networks?
(SR) Should users be permitted to remove
their personal information from transactional watermarks (to
maintain privacy) or is this part of the quid pro quo?
(DF) Suppose my software permits me to monitor your use of it in a way which would be a tortious invasion of privacy if done by a human being. Is it still tortious if the information never goes to a human, but simply feeds into a program which tells me whether you are violating your license but not what you are doing?
Other
(SR) Would increasing the penalty for
infringement while simultaneously decreasing the life of
exclusive rights to copyright owners provide an adequate
level of deterrence to copyright infringement while still
making creation of copyrightable works rewarding?
President
Sarkozy once proposed requiring Internet Service Provides
to terminate Internet access to repeat infringers. What if
we a) decrease the life of some copyrightable works, say
music for 5 years instead of the current (life of owner +
50/70 years) and b) (presuming we could create an internet
warrant) drastically increase the infringement penalty to
a possible “internet ban” for 20 years? Would this lead to
proper deterrence while still creating an adequate reward
for authors?
(SE) A new California law, effective January 1, 2020, will
require that all textbooks used in public and private
postsecondary institutions be made available in electronic
form. The law also allows for the e-textbooks to "be
copy-protected.” It is possible that companies like Apple
(iPad) and Amazon (Kindle) will have a near monopoly on the
electronic ecosystems that will deliver these books. Could
this mean that any determination of what is copyable or
usable as "fair use" will be determined by software and thus
limit flexibility for the instructor? e.g. the iPads copy
protection software will dictate how much text an instructor
can copy for class materials. Maybe we should rethink what
"fair use" will mean in the e-textbook world.
(SE) Imagine an altruistic artist, in hopes of gaining
notoriety, distributes her music for free through her
website. The artist wants to ensure a "copyleft" type
license that will encourage derivative works and will ensure
that such works be kept free as well. Also, the artist wants
to restrict the music from being associated with politically
charged topics or things that she thinks are morally
compromising. Since the artist wants to encourage derivative
works she is worried that simply having a "clickthrough"
license on her website will not provide the ultimate end
users with adequate acknowledgment of her or of her wishes.
What kind of technological solution could be developed to
help her?
Legal Research on copyright infringement of MP3's by Donald
Choi
Legal
Research by Susannah Ragab