Digital Copyright Infringement Research Articles

NFT 관련 저작권 쟁점에 관한 연구

This study examined the technical characteristics of NFT, such as the concept of NFT, its history, and the distinction between NFT and NFT contents (Chapter 2). And as a preliminary review to discuss the legal issues of NFT, the productibility and the copyrightibility of NFT and NFT contents were reviewed (Chapter 3). NFT includes NFT metadata and NFT content. Under the current law, the productibility of NFT metadata and NFT content is denied, but NFT metadata has a high possibility of scarcity, exclusive control, and independent trading, so it was argued that property law protection could be possible with future amendments to the law or changes in interpretation theory. Copyrightibility of NFT metadata will be denied, but it is determined that NFT content can be recognized as copyrightable according to its contents. Based on the discussion in Chapter 3, the copyright law issues raised by NFTs were reviewed (Chapter 4). First, we looked at NFT-related copyright dispute cases that are becoming a reality, and selected and examined representative cases of digital copyright infringement that are expected to have significant implications in NFT-related litigation, focusing on relatively recent cases. Based on the review of these cases, aspects of copyright infringement that are expected to occur during the transaction and creation of NFTs are analyzed and listed in detail from the objective and subjective perspectives. Specifically, the series of processes of creating and storing NFTs without the permission of the copyright holder is highly likely to include a commercial use process, and therefore may constitute infringement of Author’s Property Rights and Moral Rights depending on the method or content of use of NFT content. In addition, advertising and posting NFTs on NFT trading platforms appears to be an act of aiding and abetting the act of providing them to the public commercially and continuously because the NFTs contain a URI that links to NFT content that infringes copyright.

Exploring the Safe Harbor Principle and the Allocation of Platform Liability in the DMCA

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act's safe harbor clauses, which was established more than 20 years ago, are no longer able to reconcile the current widespread problem of copyright infringement in social media. Therefore, this paper examines the allocation of responsibilities between social media platforms, users and copyright owners in the event of digital copyright infringement in social media, the negative impact of the DMCA provisions on stakeholders in social media and possible solutions to the problem. The main problem with the current DMCA's safe harbor doctrine is that the exemptions provided shift too much responsibility and liability to copyright owners and social media users, fail to provide effective remedies, and place an extremely heavy burden on them to enforce their rights. This has had a negative impact on the development of social media and creative output. For this reason, Congress need to change the DMCA's upregulating to increase the bar for safe harbor designation and impose additional requirements on platforms. In order to more effectively contribute to the growth of the social media business and the preservation of digital copyright pairs in the field of practice, this study primarily adopts a legal doctrinal research technique, comparative research approach, and literary research method.

A Novel Video Copyright Protection Scheme Based on Blockchain and Double Watermarking

With the continuous development of multimedia, more and more digital works such as videos are spread, stored, and used in the network. In recent years, digital copyright infringement disputes have occurred frequently. The traditional copyright protection system has some problems, such as difficulty confirming copyright, monitoring infringement, and obtaining evidence for rights protection. To this end, we have designed and implemented a novel video copyright protection scheme based on the blockchain and double watermarking technology. We use the image correlation coefficient method to extract video keyframes. And we combine with Contourlet Transform domain, QR decomposition, and SIFT algorithm to improve the robustness of watermark against geometric attacks on the premise of invisibility. After that, we use Arnold Transformation (Cat Map) based on the Maximum Entropy Threshold Segmentation to encrypt the robust watermark and strengthen the security. Moreover, based on the characteristics of the fragile watermarking, we accurately locate the attacked video’s tamper position and complete the integrity authentication of the watermarked video. In addition, the hash digest of the video watermark and the user ID of the copyright owner is signed by SM2 and uploaded to the blockchain. The user can register the copyright after passing the identity authentication. We conduct tests and security analysis on the blockchain performance of the system, the performance of the commercial cryptography algorithm, and the security of the watermarking system. The experimental results show that the blockchain used in this system conforms to the industry standard, the performance of SM2 and SM3 is better than ECC-256 and SHA-256, and the system security is well guaranteed.

Liability and Access to Contact Information - Striking the Balance When Service is Used to Distribute Copyrighted Digital Content

This Chapter addresses fragmentation caused by legal intervention in cases regarding unauthorised access to digital content. It is argued that fragmentation of legal rules may constitute a positive cap on liability connecting digital infringement to similar standards used in assessing real world liability, thus revealing silent legal cultures in decision-making. Fragmentation is present in two ways. First, Lessig’s famous statement “code is law” is used to question, whether in essence 1) technological fact dictates law (code is law), 2) legal norms dictate technology (law is code) or 3) whether legal questions can be addressed by legal tools (law is law). This theoretical framework is applied to a series of cases decided by the Finnish Market Court seeking to define a standard of liability for “significant distribution of unauthorised digital content”. The cases, involving pre-release file-sharing of high demand TV-series, boiled down to intricate technological evidence to establish liability. Has law lost its bearings against the digital “it could have been anyone” –defense, or can courts rely on established legal doctrine to establish personal liability? It is argued that courts have not lost discretion to assess credibility of defenses merely due to a technological setting preventing absolute certainty of fact. The second broader issue of fragmentation links to democratic and constitutional values reflected in silent legal cultures. If law is law; thus nationally flavoured, how do we address the question of fragmentation based on territoriality? This relates to differences in compensation cultures for digital copyright infringement in Finland and abroad. Pressure is put on teleoperators to release contact information of users of internet services. Consequently, the Finnish Market Court has balanced competing interests in several decisions. The Market Court indirectly addressed the issue of scope of liability by establishing infringement of Nordic, not global rights. The court was reluctant to grant the right holder access to information that could be used against Finnish defendants in other jurisdictions. First, if law is subordinated to code, it escapes Finnish jurisdiction, because technology is global. Second, if code is subordinated to copyright law, it escapes Finnish constitutional values, because development of copyright law is global. Third, if local democratic and constitutional values may influence actual liability for digital copyright infringement, right holders may not abuse court procedures to bring suit in forums with higher punishment or compensation cultures. These silent legal cultures, whether national, regional or global have great impact on balancing interests in practice.

Digital Protest Skills and Online Activism Against Copyright Reform in France and the European Union

AbstractIn the past decade, parliaments in industrialized countries have been pressured to adopt more restrictive legislation to prevent unauthorized file‐sharing and enforce higher standards of digital copyright enforcement over entertainment media and computer software. A complex process of supranational and national lawmaking has resulted in several legislatures adopting such measures, with wide variations in content and implementation. These policy developments offer an interesting research puzzle, given their high political salience and the amount of controversy they have generated. Specifically, the introduction of harsher intellectual property regulations has resulted in intense “online” and “offline” collective action by skilled activists who have significantly altered the digital copyright policy field over the years. In France, grassroots movements have turned the passing of digital copyright infringement laws through Parliament into highly controversial episodes. Similarly, at the European level, the Telecoms Package Reform has given rise to an intense protest effort, carried by an ad hoc coalition of European activists. In both cases, online mobilization was an essential element of political contention against these legislative initiatives. In both cases, our analysis shows that online mobilization and contention can substantially affect policymaking by disrupting the course of parliamentary lawmaking at both the national and European levels. We provide an analytical framework to study these processes, as well as an analysis of the frames and digital network repertoires involved in the two cases under scrutiny, with reference to the nascent research agenda formed by the politics of intellectual property.

Wireless Liability: Liability Concerns for Operators of Unsecured Wireless Networks

A growing number of plaintiff’s lawyers in digital copyright infringement cases are aggressively pursuing claims against even unlikely defendants. Most notably, in one case a seventy year old grandmother accused of pirating pornography. Furthermore, plaintiff’s lawyers state in settlement letters that “[t]he Internet Service Provider . . . account holder is responsible for securing [their] [wireless] connection and may be legally responsible for any infringement(s) that result from an unsecured wireless network/router,” even if a “spouse, child, roommate, employee, or business associate” committed the infringement. Some of these initial settlement letters even state that the affirmative defense of having an unsecured wireless network “has never been successfully argued, in multiple contexts, including child pornography and civil copyright infringements actions.” Recently negligent operation of a wireless network (WLAN) has also begun to appear as a cause of action in digital copyright infringement cases. One unnamed defendant (Doe 4) even agreed to pay $10,000 as part of a settlement in which he “acknowledge[d] that a failure to secure [his] wireless internet router by password protection may invite infringing uses of copyrighted materials accessible to individuals through such a router.” Doe 4 also agreed to take steps to “secure his . . . router and to deny [the] use of his internet connection to anyone who would engage in infringing conduct.” This paper focuses on the liability of wireless network operators for the wrongful acts committed by others on their unsecured networks. The premise of this paper is that the operator of an unsecured wireless router is not liable for the wrongful acts of third parties committed over his open Internet connection.

“Warez” the Copyright Violation? Digital Copyright Infringement: Legal Loopholes and Decentralization

“Warez” the Copyright Violation? Digital Copyright Infringement: Legal Loopholes and Decentralization

Teaching Ethical Copyright Behavior: Assessing the Effects of a University-Sponsored Computing Ethics Program

Universities have become sensitized to the potential for students’ illegal downloading of copyrighted materials. Education has been advocated as one way to curb downloading of copyrighted digital content. This study investigates the effectiveness of a university-sponsored computing ethics education program. The program positively influenced students’ ethical beliefs about downloading and increased awareness, agreement, and compliance with university policies on copyright infringement. The study offers encouragement that education can be an effective preventative measure for discouraging digital copyright infringement on campus.

Teaching Ethical Copyright Behavior: Assessing the Effects of a University-Sponsored Computing Ethics Program

Universities have become sensitized to the potential for students’ illegal downloading of copyrighted materials. Education has been advocated as one way to curb downloading of copyrighted digital content. This study investigates the effectiveness of a university-sponsored computing ethics education program. The program positively influenced students’ ethical beliefs about downloading and increased awareness, agreement, and compliance with university policies on copyright infringement. The study offers encouragement that education can be an effective preventative measure for discouraging digital copyright infringement on campus.

Crime, Copyright, & the Digital Age

This essay, which will appear as a chapter in a collection entitled What Is a Crime? Criminal Conduct in Contemporary Society, edited by the Law Commission of Canada (forthcoming 2004, UBC Press), describes and evaluates efforts to criminalize digital copyright infringement in the United States in Canada. Part II relates the history of criminal copyright legislation and enforcement in the two nations. That history reveals a longstanding legislative and administrative reluctance to impose criminal punishments on copyright infringers. It also shows, however, that in recent decades legislatures have become more willing, in the face of new technological threats and industry pressure, to expand the scope and severity of criminal copyright offences. This has culminated in two novel responses to the threat of digitization: the criminalization of non-commercial infringement and the prohibition (enforced by criminal as well as civil sanctions) of technologies enabling the circumvention of protections against unauthorized copying. Part III explores the impact of digitization on the economics of copyright enforcement. It describes the weakening of civil enforcement mechanisms wrought by digitization and canvasses the normative debate surrounding the appropriate scope of copyright protection for digital works. I note the extent of copyright protection on the ground depends heavily on the availability and efficacy of remedies and argue that criminal law principles should play a prominent role in determining the extent to which those remedies are criminalized. Part IV attempts to articulate limiting principles for the application of criminal penalties to copyright infringement. Section A canvasses moral theories of criminalization, including approaches grounded on analogy, consensus, and harm. While these theories generate useful insights, especially on the interaction between law and shared social norms, none provides a compelling argument for or against the criminalization of copyright infringement. Section B turns to economic analysis. The standard economic model of crime predicts that optimal deterrence can be achieved by adjusting enforcement and punishment levels. Econometric and socio-legal research reveals, however, that under certain conditions deterrence may not be achievable. I argue that this is likely to be the case for certain types of copyright crime, including non-commercial online file sharing and technological circumvention. This failure of deterrence results from strategic interactions often associated with digital copyright infringement, including low visibility, widespread disobedience, risk aversion, substitution effects, and most importantly, disjunction between criminal punishments and social norms. Under these conditions, criminalization is likely to be ineffective and harmful. Part V concludes, recommending restraint regarding the expansion of criminal copyright law.