Presentation on theme: "Interight WIPO Informative Session on Limitations and Exceptions Geneva November 3 rd 2008 Automated Rights Management & Copyright Limitations and Exceptions."— Presentation transcript:
interight WIPO Informative Session on Limitations and Exceptions Geneva November 3 rd 2008 Automated Rights Management & Copyright Limitations and Exceptions by Nic Garnett
interight Disclaimer All the ideas and opinions expressed in the Study are those of the writer or of the persons identified in the Study. They do not nor are they intended to represent the views of WIPO. Likewise, any errors, omissions or other shortcomings in the Study are those exclusively of the writer.
interight The General Objective Attempts to provide a neutral and balanced introduction to a controversial area of inquiry; Seeks to contribute to a better understanding of the relationship between traditional methods of rights management and technology based systems; Aims to enhance knowledge of the digital environment as it impacts the development of copyright law.
interight Automated Rights Management Technical Protection Measures: Copy Protection Access Control Digital Rights Management Encryption Rights Management Information Systems: Identifiers (e.g. DOI) Tags Watermarks Fingerprinting
interight Central Issues ARM: essential for protection Copyright: limits to protection Certain ARM protect beyond limits ARM Technologies v. Exceptions Protected and Unprotected content channels are incompatible
interight The Logic of the Study For DRM technology, an exception is a rule; 2 options for implementation: Turn off DRM Implement with DRM Turning off the DRM may create unacceptable risk to rights holders Use DRM to implement the exception
interight Other Issues Complexity of the digital environment Changing nature of activities Matrix of exceptions Proprietary ARM technologies Impact of the Three Step Test
interight Focus of Study Digital Rights Management technology Fields of Application ~ Exceptions relating to: Access by Visually Impaired People Distance Learning Five Territories, Five Copyright Laws Australia South Korea Spain United Kingdom United Sates of America
interight Field I: Accessibility Technology provides many accessibility tools: screen readers, etc. Certain kinds of ARM technologies applied in certain ways obstruct access Some copyright laws contemplate the removal of obstructions but the method of implementation is unclear
interight Field II: Distance Learning Education, including distance learning, has its own vast ecosystem Technology facilitates the creation of virtual classrooms Models are emerging in which ARM technologies are important enabler Emerging legislation: US TEACH Act 2002
interight Interface of Law & Technology: I The legal definition of fair use is, by computer scientists standards, maddeningly vague. No enumeration of fair uses is provided. There is not even a precise algorithm for deciding whether a particular use is fair. Instead, the law says that judges should make case- by-case decisions based on four factors: the nature of the use; the nature of the original work; the portion of the original work used; and the effect of the use on the market. The law does not say exactly how these factors should be evaluated or even how the factors should be weighted against one another. To a computer scientist, such imprecision is a bug. Professor Ed Felton
interight Interface of Law & Technology: II If DRM systems cant make the right judgment in every case, perhaps they can get some special cases right. Perhaps they can allow backup copies or personal use within the home. Perhaps these special cases are simple enough that they can be reasonably approximated. But even these seemingly simple cases are more difficult than they might initially seem. A backup, for instance, is most useful if it can be restored on a different machine (in case the original machine breaks). But backup cannot simply provide a mechanism for moving a file from one machine to another; such a general file transfer facility is a ready loophole for infringers. The solution may involve centralized record keeping, ensuring a backup is not restored too frequently or in too many places, though such record keeping raises privacy issues. The point is not that handling backup is impossible but that it is surprisingly challenging. To date there has been no satisfactory solution to these problems, though it may be because most of the development effort has been (misdirected toward the effort to build all-encompassing DRM systems. There may be hope, however, for a bottom-up approach that tries to handle a few cases well.
interight Interface of Law & Technology: III ARM Technologies v. Exceptions ARM Technologies are managed systems Central authority +Trusted Intermediary Existing institutions = Trusted Intermediaries Trusted Intermediaries manage secure networks
interight Update An end to DRM? The growing importance of other ARM technologies Generalization of DRM Increasing interoperability Growing sophistication of DRM
interight Conclusions ARM Technologies, including DRM, will become increasingly prevalent ARM Technologies can provide the key to the fair implementation of exceptions, particularly where the exceptions relate to the needs and functions of particular communities or institutions Work on keeping copyright law responsive to technological challenges should take account of the capabilities of ARM Technologies Working deployments of ARM Technologies should be studied with a view to developing best practice statements and reference models for more generalized use