Information Security & US & Life & Love & Fashion & Hacking & Passion

'copyright'에 해당되는 글 3건

2009.03.26 six questions on copyright for jonathan zittrain by CEOinIRVINE
2009.03.26 DMCA by CEOinIRVINE
2009.03.26 Copyright as Politics and Business by CEOinIRVINE

six questions on copyright for jonathan zittrain

Hacking 2009. 3. 26. 06:41

SIX QUESTIONS ON COPYRIGHT FOR JONATHAN ZITTRAIN

We spoke with Jonathan Zittrain, assistant professor for Entrepreneurial Legal Studies at Harvard University and faculty co-director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society.^[26]

Q1: Is downloading copyright infringement and stealing, or is it fair use? Can you legally download a digital version of a song you bought on a record?

A1: Fair use is much more narrow than most people think. Fair use is a standard, not a rule, and it often requires a lawsuit to decide it. Many people honestly don't see downloading as stealing, since it doesn't deprive anyone else of the song itself—only a chance to profit from its sale. They might say, "it's not a pie, it's just sniffing the aroma." Still, I think it is generally an infringement to download large amounts of copyrighted material without permission. Even if you already own the corresponding CD, the case could be made that a network-derived copy is infringing.

Q2: How come it was okay to swap music on tape but now, as music industry executives state, since it's digital and perfect, it isn't? Further, they say it was okay when only a few did it, but now that we have millions to share with it's not okay.

A2: Copyright law has always been complicated, and now that it routinely impinges on individual behavior, it's all the more a big mess. Conscience and convenience have governed individual behavior in the past; for example, many people feel socially awkward ordering up, say, a descrambler to steal cable TV service. Now copying has become quite convenient. The real objection the music industry has to services like KaZaA and Grokster is that they are thought to seriously dampen profits. So long as the industry frames its pricing around the scarcity of its product, there probably indeed is such an impact.

Q3: Why do you think so many young (and older) people feel it's OK to download?

A3: First, because the "stealing," if such it is, is indirect: it's taking money out of the pocket of someone who might otherwise be able to charge for the music. That's a harm, but a distinct one from the harm of, say, having one's car stolen. Second, there is a lasting impression of the American music industry as often being at odds with the creative artists it enlists. People may feel it's OK to copy music if it's "merely" hurting a company that in turn was giving a bad deal to an artist anyway. Finally, consumers want convenience, and the industry has been slow to offer equally convenient legal alternatives.

Q4: You say copyright law is a big mess. What is your legal opinion of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act?

A4: The DMCA is a big mess, too. It has reinforced the mercenary instincts of the copyright holders, who now want to see every possible profit from a work go to them and who think that the way to reconcile old business models with new technologies is to alter the technology to suit the business model—which then cuts off a range of other innovation wholly unrelated to intellectual property.

Q5: You've called the Internet "an instrument of anarchy." Is there any way to plug up the increasingly free flow of information, as the RIAA has attempted to do?

A5: The record companies are acting like pit bulls. There's a "take no prisoners" attitude on both sides of the issue. It may take the form of a new Internet which uses its own technologies to control copyrighted media.

Q6: What are the most appropriate solutions to digital piracy, ones that will make all parties satisfied?

A6: I credit that if copyrights were to be rendered inconsequential by technology, then creators will create less—and many will cease to create at all. There are a number of good alternatives; for example, the iTunes model or Harvard Law professor Terry Fisher's proposal for an alternative compensation system based on compulsory licensing. We need to focus our thinking away from income structures that ossified in the early 20^th century and toward a combination of technological advances and rewards for innovation that will enhance rather than stanch the flow of ideas, which is fundamental to a free society.

'Hacking' 카테고리의 다른 글

Visa, MasterCard In Security Hot Seat (0)	2009.04.01
Incident Reponse (1)	2009.03.30
Copyright as Politics and Business (0)	2009.03.26
DMCA Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) (0)	2009.03.26
Hacking Quiz (too easy.. for beginners) (0)	2009.03.14

Posted by CEOinIRVINE

DMCA

IT 2009. 3. 26. 06:31

The Congress shall have Power...To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

—United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8

The fountainhead of copyright law in the United States is this statement. It comes early in the Constitution and stands in august company along with other declarations relating to levying taxes, coining money, building roads, and waging war. Before penning this statement, the founding fathers debated long and hard over what "exclusive rights to writings and discoveries" should cover and how long those rights should last. The debate revolved around the balance between public good and the promotion of progress. The decision came down on the side of the public good.

From this simple declaration came the Copyright Act of 1790, and from that came a chain of extensions, amendments, replacements, and updates over the last 200 plus years. The end of that progression is the subject of this chapter, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA). It is thoroughly modern. Its language is peppered with technological terms from the modern age: words like encryption, digital media, and Internet. It targets modern behavior: software "cracking," digital file copying, and Internet file access. It answers to modern politics: lobbying by powerful entrenched interests with today's media-sensitive politicians.

It would be nice to think that those who govern today are still concerned about that balance that Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Franklin, and others fretted over. Yet it is increasingly evident that in today's world, Libra's scales are tipped in favor of promoting progress rather than insuring the public good.

The DMCA and its cousin, the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, provide a case in point. These two pieces of legislation, passed by Congress within a week of each other, stretched U.S. copyright law into a new shape and shifted the balance between public good and business interests in the direction of a small group of wealthy, powerful copyright holders.

The government could use its powers and negotiating skills to mediate between the often conflicting interests of business and consumers—between the makers of CDs and the buyers of CD burners; between software publishers and dirt-poor graduate students; between Sony Pictures and the buyers of Sony DVD burners; between the music industry and the online downloaders.

But as you saw in Chapter 2, Is It Copyright or the Right to Copy?, you can go all the way back to England at the turn of the 18^th century and find government swayed by political expediency and business interests in matters copyright. You also saw how it has become easier over the past 200 years to be remunerated for intellectual effort through copyright protection laws. Of course, few of those who actually create the work are reaping those rewards, since a concurrent trend has been to move copyright ownership from the hands of the artist or creator into those of the business entity that produces, manufactures, and markets the work. There are plenty of media and software millionaires and even billionaires. Those business entities, whether we're talking about music, movies, computer games, or computer software (or books for that matter), are well-heeled and powerful. Like any other life-form, they will go to nearly any length to protect their lifeblood assets. It's their duty to the species—er, stockholders.

Some argue that in the age of the Information Society, we need more protections for business, since information can be viewed as a corporate or economic asset. But others see in these laws unintended consequences that put the concept of intellectual property and the individual's rights to fair use of copyrighted media at risk.

Germany's chancellor Otto von Bismarck (1815–1898) is reputed to have quipped that making laws is like making sausages: The less one knows about the process, the more respect one has for the outcome. This particular sausage, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, while tasty to the industry that lobbied for it, gives plenty of others indigestion.

'IT' 카테고리의 다른 글

Microsoft and TomTom settle patent fight (0)	2009.03.31
IBM to cut 5,000 jobs in U.S.--sources (0)	2009.03.26
Software Publishers Suffer From Privacy (1)	2009.03.26
Plan, Write Code, Test; Plan, Write Code, Test (0)	2009.03.26
MS Planning Process (0)	2009.03.26

Posted by CEOinIRVINE

Copyright as Politics and Business

Hacking 2009. 3. 26. 06:14

Copyright as Politics and Business

Are you picking up on a theme here? From the first copyright act of 1476 to the ruling in Donaldson v. Beckett three centuries later, copyright was primarily about business, ownership of intellectual content, and political maneuvering. It never really concerned itself much with authors' rights to control the dissemination of their intellectual property or to benefit financially from their published work. Furthermore, since the passage of the Statute of Anne over two centuries ago, it's been more and more of the same.

You don't need to know all the gruesome details of the history of copyright in the Western World. But if you're going to make sense of today's controversies, it helps to see the progression and understand the distinction between copyright and the right to copy.

Is the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) that much different from yesteryear's Royal Stationers Company? Are the software counterfeiters of China much different from the Scottish book bootleggers of 1700? Are authors who received a flat fee from their printers in Shakespeare's time much different from today's musicians who get royalties on their music only after promotion costs, marketing costs, printing costs, and innumerable administrative fees are deducted from revenues? Table 2-1 , at the end of the chapter, offers up a smorgasbord of political shenanigans behind the history of copyright law.

Table 2-1. The Political History of Copyright
Date	Event	Outcome	Political or Business Motivation
557	Columba copies Finnian's Psalter to use in his own monastery.	King Diarmait orders him to return the copy to Finnian.	There was previous bad blood between Columba and Diarmait; after the ruling, Columba supports an uprising in which Diarmait is killed.
1456	Gutenberg invents the printing press.	Control of content moves from religious houses and individual authors or their patrons to owners of printing presses (which were scarce and expensive).	The printing press creates a radical change in the price of making copies and in their quality, and shifts financial rewards from publishing to printers from authors (such as there were).
1476	First English copyright law	Printers have to register what books or pamphlets they produce.	The Crown wants to prevent the distribution of information unfavorable to the government and to obtain revenues from selling licenses.
1557	Company of Stationers of London incorporated under Queen Mary	A long-time printer's guild gets royal sanction for an official monopoly on printing and begins controlling prices and distribution via a system of Stationers' Copyrights that could be bought, sold, or traded. Copyrights were perpetual (lasting for eternity).	A Catholic monarchy gains additional control of content through prior censorship (the register) from a guild/company headed by a Roman Catholic.
1624	Statute of Monopolies	Parliament abolishes guilds and assumes the responsibility of regulation in their market areas—the Stationers Company excepted.	The Statute helps erode the power of the Crown (and increases that of Parliament) as the Crown makes money selling monopoly rights; now Parliament assumes the mantle of censor.
1695	Lapse of the licensing acts	Parliament lets the last of the licensing acts which governed the rights of publication lapse, essentially abolishing prepublication censorship. However, under no copyright constraint, booksellers and printers in Scotland retypeset popular books from England and resell them at a lower price.	Under pressure from vocal intellectuals such as John Milton and John Locke, Parliament lets the licensing acts lapse, but in practice nothing changes. The Stationers Company becomes a cartel, copyrights remain with publishers, and authors sell their material to the Stationers Company members for a flat fee. The increasing piracy from Scotland seems to be an unintended consequence.
1710	Statute of Queen Anne	A new copyright law is created to prevent future bookseller monopolies, granting some rights to authors, and encouraging production of more work.	The Queen brokers the treaty with Scotland, giving them some of the book trade in return for coming under the copyright law, and to ensure support against potential invasions from France or an uprising of Jacobites; the Stationers Company trades some market control for the ability to continue as a monopoly.
1769	Millar v. Taylor	In a challenge to the Statute of Queen Anne, Taylor reprints a book published by Millar after the copyright runs out. Millar sues, claiming a perpetual copyright under common law.	The court finds for Millar and for the first time asserts copyright under common law, clearly a promonopoly, probusiness, pro-Stationers' Company ruling.
1774	Donaldson v. Beckett	A Scottish printer republishes the same book involved in Millar v. Taylor, challenging the ruling of Millar v. Taylor.	This case goes to the full House of Lords, which is less inclined to support the Stationers Company monopoly and more inclined to assert the power of government. Donaldson wins, and copyright is determined to be a state-granted right or license, not a right given to authors by God.
1787	U.S. Constitution	Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the power to promote "science and the useful arts" through laws protecting intellectual property, but for limited time only.	This is a compromise between promoting business (the exclusive rights), a position favored by James Madison, and guarding against the power of monopolies, a position favored by Thomas Jefferson.
1790	U.S. Copyright Act	Act puts into law the intent of the Constitution and extends copyright to maps and charts. The term length is 14 years, renewable for another 14, for a total of 28.	As a descendent of the Statute of Anne, U.S. copyright still favors publishers over authors.
1802	Extension to the Copyright Act	Adds designs, engravings, etchings, and prints to copyright protection.	Allows U.S. artists and engravers to make prints of classic works of art and resell them in the U.S. under copyright protection; encourages the distribution of cheaper European art in the States.
1804	Napoleonic Code	Codifies post-French Revolution rule for business, including copyright. Introduces the concept of "moral rights" for authors.	Splits author's rights into (1) economic rights and (2) moral rights. The former could be sold, licensed, etc. while the latter gives the author rights beyond the sale of economic rights in how the work can be displayed, edited, resold, etc.
1831	Extension to the Copyright Act	Coverage for sheet music is added and the copyright period extended another 14 years (total of 42).	Longer period of copyright favors owners (mostly publishers).
1834	Wheaton v. Peters	Peters wants to publish a condensed version of his predecessor's reports, recordings, and notes of court proceedings, Wheaton sues. The court finds for Peters because Wheaton hadn't filed the right paperwork.	In this decision the court establishes that the U.S. recognizes no "common law" rights for authors and that copyright is a monopoly granted by the state.
1841	Folsom v. Marsh	Marsh republishes as excerpts 350 pages of a collection of George Washington's letters first published by Folsom; the courts find for Folsom.	Establishes that there is a right to "fair use" of another's work—but that taking 350 pages verbatim is not fair use.
1853	Stowe v. Thomas	A German publisher translates Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin into German and sells it in the U.S.; Stowe sues, but the courts find for Thomas.	Although this keeps intact the idea that you can copyright expressions of ideas, but not the ideas themselves, it galvanizes American authors into pressuring Congress to add foreign translation to the copyright laws in 1870.
1856	Extension to the Copyright Act	Right of performance of dramatic works.
1865	Extension to the Copyright Act	Photographs.
1870	Copyright Act of 1870	Paintings, statues, fine arts, and translations are included. Codifies that U.S. copyright is a right granted by the state, not a right by natural law.	Puts into law the concept established in Wheaton that no common law right to copyright exists.
1886	Berne Convention	Extends copyright to authors outside the country of origin. Eventually offers protection of life plus 75 years, but also promotes concept of author's "moral rights."	U.S. doesn't sign, preferring the shorter copyright span of the Copyright Act because of the freedom from author control of derivative or follow-on works.
1891	International Copyright Act (Chace Act)	Copyright granted to non-U.S. citizens if reciprocated.	Eastern publishers and printers finally support authors with Congress to protect business from lower-price Midwestern publishers.
1909	Copyright Act of 1909	First time all copyright laws are put into one bill. First sale doctrine codified. Also allows corporate copyright and work for hire. Extends copyright to 28 years, renewable for another 28, for a total of 56.	Helps newspapers and later motion picture companies to get copyright protection, giving them the rights of persons. Also establishes rules for when authors are "work for hire" employees. This is the first time companies get the same rights as people.
1912	Extension of Copyright Act	Gives copyright coverage to motion pictures after years of lawsuits under the 1870 Act.	Blurs the separation of copyright protection for "expression" not "ideas." Even a "treatment" could be copyrighted. Screenwriters become employees and contract workers.
1955	Universal Copyright Convention	Substitutes for signing the Berne Convention and covers only 28 years of protection (for foreign authors selling books in the U.S.).	Enables the U.S. to offer minimal protection of foreign works without signing onto all the conditions of the Berne Convention.
1976	Copyright Act of 1976	Extends copyright to life of author plus 50 years; for anonymous works for hire, 75 years from publication, 100 years from year of creation.	Sets the stage for signing the Berne Convention later and makes it easier for the U.S. to have reciprocal copyright agreements—important since the U.S. is not a net exporter of content.
1984	Betamax case	Universal Studios and Disney sue Sony, maker of the Betamax video tape recorder. The case begins in 1979 with a ruling that home taping was "fair use," then is reversed on appeal in 1981 and reversed again in 1984 by a 5–4 majority of the Supreme Court.	Public opinion was largely against the concept (jokes about "video police"), and experts thought enforcement would be difficult. Many countries, however, impose a tax on VCRs and blank tapes and pay the proceeds to the movie industry.
1988	U.S. signs Berne Convention.	Extends U.S. copyright to life plus 50 years.	U.S. signs in order to extend international copyright to life plus 70 years without major debate. Mickey Mouse is 60 years old at the time.
1998	Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act	Extends the copyright coverage to life plus 70 years, mirroring many countries that are signatories to the Berne Convention.	Gives U.S. publishers and authors reciprocal rights for those countries that also have 70-year copyrights; the Disney Corporation, whose copyright on Mickey Mouse in the cartoon Steamboat Willy is set to expire in 2003, spearheads lobbying Congress.
1998	Digital Millennium Copyright Act	The DMCA amends the Copyright Act by outlawing the use of techniques to prevent unauthorized copying and penalties for circumventing those techniques.	The law mandates that hardware manufacturers build machines capable of recognizing copyright protection systems and sets the content industry against the MP3, VCR, CDR, and DVR industries.

The progression is not pretty, nor is it pure. But it is a progression. After a millennium and a half, it is a little easier for those who create intellectual work to reap some financial rewards from that work. A little.

'Hacking' 카테고리의 다른 글

Incident Reponse (1)	2009.03.30
six questions on copyright for jonathan zittrain (0)	2009.03.26
DMCA Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) (0)	2009.03.26
Hacking Quiz (too easy.. for beginners) (0)	2009.03.14
Positioning IDS Snort Sensor (0)	2009.03.12

Posted by CEOinIRVINE

◀ 이전페이지 1 다음페이지 ▶

일	월	화	수	목	금	토
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31

Information Security & US & Life & Love & Fashion & Hacking & Passion

'copyright'에 해당되는 글 3건

six questions on copyright for jonathan zittrain

SIX QUESTIONS ON COPYRIGHT FOR JONATHAN ZITTRAIN

'Hacking' 카테고리의 다른 글

DMCA

'IT' 카테고리의 다른 글

Copyright as Politics and Business

Copyright as Politics and Business

Table 2-1. The Political History of Copyright

'Hacking' 카테고리의 다른 글

최근에 올라온 글

공지사항

카테고리

태그목록

달력

링크

최근에 달린 댓글

최근에 받은 트랙백

글 보관함

티스토리툴바

Q1:	Is downloading copyright infringement and stealing, or is it fair use? Can you legally download a digital version of a song you bought on a record?
A1:	Fair use is much more narrow than most people think. Fair use is a standard, not a rule, and it often requires a lawsuit to decide it. Many people honestly don't see downloading as stealing, since it doesn't deprive anyone else of the song itself—only a chance to profit from its sale. They might say, "it's not a pie, it's just sniffing the aroma." Still, I think it is generally an infringement to download large amounts of copyrighted material without permission. Even if you already own the corresponding CD, the case could be made that a network-derived copy is infringing.
Q2:	How come it was okay to swap music on tape but now, as music industry executives state, since it's digital and perfect, it isn't? Further, they say it was okay when only a few did it, but now that we have millions to share with it's not okay.
A2:	Copyright law has always been complicated, and now that it routinely impinges on individual behavior, it's all the more a big mess. Conscience and convenience have governed individual behavior in the past; for example, many people feel socially awkward ordering up, say, a descrambler to steal cable TV service. Now copying has become quite convenient. The real objection the music industry has to services like KaZaA and Grokster is that they are thought to seriously dampen profits. So long as the industry frames its pricing around the scarcity of its product, there probably indeed is such an impact.
Q3:	Why do you think so many young (and older) people feel it's OK to download?
A3:	First, because the "stealing," if such it is, is indirect: it's taking money out of the pocket of someone who might otherwise be able to charge for the music. That's a harm, but a distinct one from the harm of, say, having one's car stolen. Second, there is a lasting impression of the American music industry as often being at odds with the creative artists it enlists. People may feel it's OK to copy music if it's "merely" hurting a company that in turn was giving a bad deal to an artist anyway. Finally, consumers want convenience, and the industry has been slow to offer equally convenient legal alternatives.
Q4:	You say copyright law is a big mess. What is your legal opinion of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act?
A4:	The DMCA is a big mess, too. It has reinforced the mercenary instincts of the copyright holders, who now want to see every possible profit from a work go to them and who think that the way to reconcile old business models with new technologies is to alter the technology to suit the business model—which then cuts off a range of other innovation wholly unrelated to intellectual property.
Q5:	You've called the Internet "an instrument of anarchy." Is there any way to plug up the increasingly free flow of information, as the RIAA has attempted to do?
A5:	The record companies are acting like pit bulls. There's a "take no prisoners" attitude on both sides of the issue. It may take the form of a new Internet which uses its own technologies to control copyrighted media.
Q6:	What are the most appropriate solutions to digital piracy, ones that will make all parties satisfied?
A6:	I credit that if copyrights were to be rendered inconsequential by technology, then creators will create less—and many will cease to create at all. There are a number of good alternatives; for example, the iTunes model or Harvard Law professor Terry Fisher's proposal for an alternative compensation system based on compulsory licensing. We need to focus our thinking away from income structures that ossified in the early 20^th century and toward a combination of technological advances and rewards for innovation that will enhance rather than stanch the flow of ideas, which is fundamental to a free society.