Online Copyright Infringement Research Articles

The Digital Economy Act 2010: Why the UK's Graduated Response System to Counter Online Copyright Infringement Should Be Repealed

Through providing an overview and critical analysis of the UK’s graduated response system to online copyright infringement, as recently enacted under the Digital Economy Act 2010, this thesis argues that the system is so deeply flawed and fraught with problems that its immediate repeal is entirely warranted. It highlights the many flaws and problems and shows that the approach is not likely to be effective in achieving its aims and that ‘sending a message’ may be the best it can hope to achieve. It further shows that, even if the system does somehow prove to be at all effective, it is nevertheless manifestly unfair to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and subscribers and, as there are also likely to be serious unintended consequences due to its implementation, it should therefore still be repealed.

Copyright Conspiracy: How the New Copyright Alert System May Violate The Sherman Act

In July 2011, a consortium of major content providers and Internet service providers announced their intention to implement the Copyright Alert System, a graduated response plan aimed at stemming online copyright infringement by individual users. While other commentators have examined the rise of these systems abroad and certain potential issues with the implementation of such measures in the United States, little has been said about the antitrust implications of a private system of copyright enforcement. This article recounts the history of online infringement leading up to the Copyright Alert System and then analyzes the system from the perspective of antitrust law, taking the position that the system announced raises significant antitrust concerns. The article concludes with recommendations for improving the current system to protect the rights of consumers.

‘Graduated Response’ à l'Anglaise: Online Copyright Infringement and the Digital Economy Act 2010

This article undertakes a comprehensive examination of sections 3-16 of the Digital Economy Act (DEA) 2010, a controversial copyright enforcement initiative that, if implemented, will trigger a species of 'graduated response' to online copyright infringement in the United Kingdom. The article first identifies the regulatory strategy embodied in the relevant provisions, the legal context that frames them, and the background to their inclusion in the DEA. It then analyses in detail the obligations that will be imposed on Internet access providers – and the implications for Internet users – if the provisions are brought fully into effect. Overall, the article aims to illuminate the circumstances in which the provisions were drafted and reveal the conflicts they have generated – conflicts that continue to yield challenges both to their legality and to their legitimacy, and could yet make them a dead letter.

Are Internet protocol addresses personal data? The fight against online copyright infringement

Internet Protocol addresses [IP addresses] are central for Internet electronic communications. They individualize computers and their users to make the delivery of data packets possible. IP addresses are also often used to identify websurfers for litigation purposes. In particular, they constitute a key in the fight against online copyright infringement to identify infringers. However, it is a matter of dispute to know if IP addresses are personal data. In a review of relevant case law, the present paper seeks to identify when IP addresses are – or should be – considered as personal data. It suggests a contextual approach to the concept of personal data.

Online and Offline Copyright Infringement in Digital Environment: An Overview of Korean Case Laws

The Article will explore Korean case laws pursuant to online piracy, focusing on ISP’s liability. Also, the Article will discuss offline privacy in digital environment while taking into account international jurisdiction and choice of laws.

When first we practice to deceive: arresting online copyright infringement through the Digital Millennium Copyright Act

The problem of internet copyright infringement is one of the important copyright challenges of the day. In 1998, the US Congress undertook to address this issue by passing the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, which provides 'safe harbour' immunity to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from vicarious liability claims for subscriber infringement. Some recent court decisions interpreting the act, however, threaten this balance of the pertinent internet constituent interests. This article proposes that these court decisions misconstrue the terms of the act, and contravene the express objectives of the statute, by needlessly entangling ISPs in infringement disputes between copyright holders and internet end-users.

What Payment Intermediaries are Doing about Online Liability and Why It Matters

In the mid-2000, with the publication of the Goldsmith and Wu book Who Controls the Internet? Illusions of a Borderless World, the debate over internet exceptionalism rapidly shifted from the “nature” of the Internet as something intrinsically beyond the control of governments to a problem of choice. Intermediaries can control illegal behavior on the Internet and governments can control intermediaries, but should they? And if governments should exert control over intermediaries, how should the global legal order be structured to accommodate their role? The experiences of traditional payment intermediaries in acting to limit internet gambling, child pornography, controlled substances, online tobacco, and online copyright infringement suggest several lessons. First, regardless of the precise legal liabilities, intermediaries have a general responsibility to keep their systems free of illegal transactions and they are taking steps to satisfy that obligation. Second, the decision to impose legal responsibilities on intermediaries should not be based on the least cost avoider principle. Assessments of intermediary liability must take into account market failures, as well as an analysis of costs, benefits, and equities. Third, internet exceptionalism is not the right framework for internet governance because intermediaries should not defer to the judgments of self-governing communities of internet users when these judgments conflict with local law. Fourth, the exceptionalists are right that a “bordered Internet” will not scale well. The experience of traditional payment systems points towards international harmonization. If governments are going to use intermediaries to regulate the Internet, they need to coordinate their laws to make that role possible.

ISP Indirect Copyright Liability Regime: An Economic Efficient Liability Regime for Online Copyright Protection Shaped by Internet Technology

ISPs’ indirect copyright liability permits regulation where traditional legislation fails to meet requirements of copyright protection in a new digital environment, and makes a third party possibly to prevent or decrease the risk of copyright infringement at low cost. However, though it has been hailed as a forceful tool for governing ISPs’ liability for fierce copyright infringement committed by their users over the Internet in most of the jurisdictions, the strength of this liability regime is still being challenged. Some argued that imposing indirect liability on the ISPs may lead to ISPs’ over-zealous censorship and thereby decrease or limit free access to copyright materials. Meanwhile, the ISPs also argued that it is unfair for them to bear the full social costs generated by their users’ unlawful activities, merely because they are providing facilities and services. So far, dozens of studies have been produced to criticise those arguments and justify ISPs’ indirect copyright liability from legal point of view; however, less attention has been paid to the economic implication of ISPs’ indirect copyright liability and the significance it achieves at the confluence of law and economics. Utilizing an evaluation criterion: economic efficiency-Hicks-Kaldor criterion and a simple economic model: cost-benefit analysis, both are drawn from the theory of economics, this paper examines economic strength of indirect liability regime in the context of ISPs’ liability for online copyright infringement. It employs a string of relevant cases against those who allegedly facilitate copyright infringements to compare the costs and benefits of ISPs’ indirect copyright liability and also three applications of it including vicarious liability, contributory liability and inducement liability. The paper finally concludes that only ISPs’ indirect copyright liability regime shaped by the technology through the development of the Internet is the most efficient liability regime to tackle extensive online copyright infringements and bring long term social welfare to the society. This paper was presented at the 23rd BILETA Annual Conference 2008 on March, 2008, and it has been published in the conference proceeding of the 23rd BILETA Annual Conference 2008.

Deterrence Effect of Four Legal and Extralegal Factors on Online Copyright Infringement

A survey of online file sharers found that both legal and extralegal factors had a deterrence effect on online copyright infringement. Perceived certainty of punishment, perceived stigma of label, awareness of the laws and consensus with the laws were found to be negatively correlated with both current and likely future file-sharing activities. The regression analyses revealed that both current and future file-sharing activities were best predicted by the legal factor perceived certainty of punishment. The extralegal factors, perceived stigma of label and consensus with the laws, played important roles in deterring both current and likely future file-sharing activities, while awareness of the laws played a weak role in deterring likelihood of future file-sharing. The findings provide an empirical basis for developing alternative strategies to deter online file-sharing that involves massive users.

Rip, mix, burn … sue … ad infinitum: The effects of deterrence vs voluntary cooperation on non-commercial online copyright infringing behaviour

In recent years, the opportunities for content creation and distribution afforded by Web 2.0 have been widely embraced by an increasingly online, computer-literate population. They have also resulted in widespread copyright infringement, which corporate and government regulatory bodies have sought to constrain with legislative changes, court actions, public education campaigns, and technological protection measures. These approaches are informed by theories of perceptual deterrence, and are not working. 
 
 This paper offers evidence supporting an alternative, process-based approach to understanding online copyright infringement; an approach focussed on factors that encourage voluntary deference, cooperation and compliance, rather than attempting to induce it with threats of punishment.

When Rights Clash Online: The Tracking of P2p Copyright Infringements Vs. the EC Personal Data Directive

‘ Anti-piracy Group Broke Swedish Data Laws ’ . This was the headline to a news story published on the 10 th of June 2005 by The Local, a Swedish online news publication. As it turns out, one of Sweden’s anti-piracy groups, Antipiratbyran (APB), in its bid to track copyright infringers, allegedly processed the personal data of Swedish peer to peer (p2p) fi le sharers in contravention of the Swedish Personal Data Act. This story is representative of the divergent perspectives that have been adopted by copyright owners and p2p fi le sharers. On one hand, a review of postings in some of the forums frequented by p2p participants indicates that some fi le sharers assume that there should be a legal rule by which copyright holders are prevented from invading their privacy. On the other hand, developments in the US go to show that the copyright holders seem to have taken the view that the fi ght against online copyright infringements should supersede all privacy considerations. There is therefore an apparent clash between two well-recognised rights, copyrights and data protection/informational privacy. The need to carefully consider this clash with a view to a possible resolution has now inspired this paper.

Copyright law, the internet, and distance education

This article examines copyright issues related to online course development and delivery. An overview and brief history of copyright law is presented, with attention to the ways in which various technologies have shaped modern interpretations of copyright law. Examples of recent lawsuits and several case studies provide a context for examination of fair use issues and liability for online copyright infringement. Finally, some helpful questions are presented on topics such as process issues, institutional policies, software and licensing, copyright issues, and other alternatives. These questions should provide a basis to help online course providers think through issues related to copyright, the Internet, and distance education.