This article, although brief, is interesting because it shows how Apple responded to a threat to its control of an industry. This article was written very soon after RealNetworks announced that it had created a version of Harmony that allowed iPod compatibility. It shows how the immediate response to a threat like this is the DMCA. Apple immediately turns to the laws not because of copyright, but because they want to maintain control of their iPod empire. This shows how the DMCA is used to protect monopolies and prevent widespread compatibility and interoperability. The nature of copyright law changes with the DMCA, which is exploited by technology companies and used as a means of market control and monopolization.
This case is another example of companies, in this case motion picture studios, using the DMCA to control a market. The case looks at the DMCA and is one that argues about its constitutionality. The court uses precedents like Corley in its ruling in favor of the DMCA, saying the law is constitutional and it is within the powers of Congress. This case is one of the earlier cases regarding DMCA and control, and since it deals directly with the DMCA, it is an example that goes against my thesis. The court, here, clearly decides a case using the DMCA and does not find issues with it as an act. It allows the studios to maintain the control over DVDs that they want. The DMCA is used to help and monopoly.
This article is an example of how the DMCA actively denies consumers rights afforded to them by copyright. The DMCA does not consider the consumer like copyright law does. It looks past them as “mere inconveniences” and favors larger companies and content holders. This shows how the DMCA works more for larger interest and denies the founding principles of progress that are embedded in copyright law. The DMCA has changed the face and nature of copyright and has the potential to go further.
I will use this paper for the examples it gives of how the DMCA functions against the intentions behind copyright law. I will also use it as a starting point and further research some of the examples it provides. The paper gives a good, clear analysis of the major issues of the DMCA and shows how it is being used as a means of exploitation rather than as copyright law. The DMCA violates the principles that copyright was founded on.
Microsoft’s “Play for Sure” claims that Windows Media Player’s DRM allows you to choose your music and devices. However, there are still severe restrictions because of DRM. There are very few players that are compatible to play with the WMA DRM format. If you want to use a player that does not support WMA content, you have to repurchase your library of music. Even though Microsoft markets their DRM as user friendly and non-restrictive, it is more to make DRM a norm than the truth of the matter.
RealNetworks markets their services as compatible with any MP3 playing device. This in fact is not true, because music purchased through RealNetworks only plays on devices that support their DRM or the WMA format, thus limiting the players that the songs can be played on and restricting use of their music. RealNetworks, like iTunes, limits the number of times you can burn a song as well as the number of backup copies that can be made. They reserve the right to modify their DRM and what it controls. RealNetworks also does not allow reselling or remixing songs purchased through them.
Napster 2.0 advertises itself as a service that allows you to have all the music you want in anyway that you want it. It offers three services and all charge more for uses that were once free. Napster Unlimited allows you access to all the music you want until you stop paying the monthly fee. You also have to pay if you want to put it on a device, which can only be one that supports WMA. It also costs money to burn it. The DRM restrictions can change, you can only backup a limited amount of times and burning is restricted.
I will use this article as an example of how companies use DRM to exploit the music market place. Each service limits the music they sell so that it can only be used with products that they license. They also limit what a person can do with the music, even things that are traditionally acceptable under copyright law such as making back up copies and the first sale doctrine. This article shows how the DMCA changes traditional copyright laws and allows companies to exploit their customers.
This case deals with aftermarkets and monopolies. Universal remote controls for garage doors are often purchased as replacements or backups to the devices included with the garage door on initial purchase. The aftermarket for these devices then becomes a lucrative market for those who provide replacement garage door openers. Skylink makes universal remotes that work with many different brands and models of garage doors. Chamberlain, a major garage door manufacturer sells replacement remotes for its products. However, Skylink cuts into Chamberlain’s aftermarket profits with its universal remotes. The DMCA protects circumvention of any copyrighted work, such as the rolling code in Chamberlain’s claim. However, this case is more than just a copyright infringement case, because it has larger significance in the marketplace. If Chamberlain had been able to win their case and make the model 39 illegal because of DMCA infringement, it would then give them more control of the aftermarket by taking away the competition of universal remotes. This case is an example of how companies are turning to copyright and the DMCA in order to give themselves control of a market. Copyright is being used to help give companies a monopoly in the area of the market that they want to control. I will use this case as an example of a company trying to exploit the DMCA in order to control a market. It shows how copyright law is exploited by a manufacturer and then put into place by the courts. The major point is that the courts do not find anything wrong in the DMCA, just a lack support by the plaintiff. This shows that the DMCA is still open for exploitation, and this trend will continue.
Call#: Van Pelt Library P94.65.N7 M38 1996
This book is a detailed look at NAFTA and the cultural industries. The book opens with an explanation of trade agreements like NAFTA and GATT as well as FTA and Cultural Industries. The book questions if culture should be subject to free trade. In the second chapter, John Sinclair examines cultural industries and the theory of cultural dominance and imperialism. Sinclair writes about the difference of cultural products from commodities because their appeal is their novelty and they are not used up when they are consumed. Sinclair questions if national culture should be protected by trade laws and to what extent. In the third chapter, Colin Haskins, Adam Finn and Stuart McFadyen write about TV and film in relation to Canada’s response to US dominance in international trade. This chapter is an examination of different country’s responses to US dominance with an economic focus. They question trade issues asking if they are merely goods, if the US is dumping and why the US dominates in the trade of cultural industries. The last section of the chapter is about Canadian policy and an assessment of their laws in relation to cultural industries. The next chapter in this part of the book, by Henry Newcomb, questions what happens to a culture when it adopts another culture’s methods of producing, understanding and representing their culture. Newcomb says that only cultural industries and not the culture itself can be protected by trade agreements. He looks at the issues and problems in defining cultural industries and how to protect them. The next chapter also concentrates on TV and more specifically the soap opera within the context of global media. Robert C. Allen begins with a brief history of the soap opera. Allen chooses to focus on the Mexican telenovela and compare it to US soap operas. In his comparison of the telenovela and the soap opera, Allen argues that the telenovela is a stronger product in the international market than the US soap opera.
The next section of the book focuses on Mexico and cultural trade and identity. The first chapter, by Carlos Monsivias, is about Mexican nationalism and how the US cultural industries and presence in Mexico affects the sense of nationalism in the country. He claims that the cultural identity needs to stem from adaptability of US culture into the Mexican system because the power of the US cannot be denied. Following this chapter, Nestor Garcia Canclini also writes about the Mexican identity. Canclini says that there will be multicultural and trans-cultural changes and influence within Mexico and its social and cultural policies. Jose Carlos Lozano, in his chapter, focuses on the reception of US cultural industries on the Mexican border and their effects on Mexican culture. This chapter focuses on the people’s response to the opening of Mexico under NAFTA and the effects of US culture on people close to the border. He shows that there is nationalism and that people often prefer the products of their country. The last chapter in this section of the book is by Eduardo Barrera and again deals with issues surrounding NAFTA, cultural industries and the US-Mexico border. He calls the border a laboratory for post modernity. Barrera does a case study on TV in a barrio to look at the effect of the transmission of cultural industries across the border with results that support Lozano’s arguments. The next section of the book focuses on Quebec and issues of trade and national identity. The first chapter shows how cultural industries are important to the survival of cultural identity. Claude Martin writes about how Quebec’s cultural industries are fundamental to the nation, despite their lack of strength when compared to Hollywood. The next chapter, by Roger De La Garde, is a look at TV in Montreal and the effects of free trade on the industry and community. This chapter is similar to those on Mexican border studies, in that it demonstrates a demand and a loyalty to local programming as opposed to English or dubbed-US shows. The following chapter examines best selling books as a representation of Quebec’s support of their authors. Jacques Lemieux and Denis Saint-Jacques claim that in the ten years of the study, Quebecois authors sold more books than US authors. The final chapter on Quebec focuses on the music industry. Line Grenier again demonstrates that the people of Quebec prefer their own music to the US imports. The final part of the book focuses on copyright and contracts. The first chapter focuses on issues surrounding the popular music industry in relation to NAFTA. It explains how music is always changing copyright law and speculates how NAFTA will change to cover new laws and technologies. The final chapter, by Keith Acheson and Christopher J. Maule, is a broader look at copyright, NAFTA and cultural industries. They argue that cultural products are becoming more and more prevalent in daily life and they have an effect on the quality of life. They demonstrate what copyright does and how it interacts with contracts to function in the cultural industries. This book was very interesting and provided a lot of points of view on NAFTA and how it works in terms of trading cultural commodities. The authors’ articles were all different but each section came together to demonstrate common themes and sentiments.
The article is short, but gives a very interesting comparison of the music and film industries and a common problem that technology brought. Penenberg shows different approaches to how to solve illegal downloads and piracy, noting the difficulty of the task but giving examples of viable solutions. It is a very informative article and it provides an idea of how the film industry might develop.
This article deals with peer-to-peer (P2P) sharing and the film industry. The ninth circuit court ruled in the case of MGM v. Grokster. The court ruled that some file sharing Internet services are not liable for copyright infringement committed by their users. This is a big blow to both the music and film industries. David Bell and Jeffery Sullivan acknowledge this decision as “legally correct,” but they are also aware of its implications for the entertainment industries. The sellers of copying equipment are not liable for the use of the equipment in copyright infringement, as decided by the Supreme Court in Sony v. Universal. Since Grokster and Streamcast were found to have substantially legitimate uses, they fell under the precedent set by the Sony case.. Next, MGM tried to prove vicarious copyright infringement through direct infringement by a primary party, direct financial benefit by the defendants and the ability of the defendants to supervise the users. This was not proven because the relationship between software provider and user is decentralized and the software provider has no obligation to monitor the actions of its users. This ruling was appealed. The appeal questions if the defendants are responsible for secondary copyright liability because of the large amount of infringement. Here, Bell and Sullivan explain the standards for secondary liability. They argue that the court was to narrow in its definitions for knowledge of infringement and contributions to primary infringement. Next the article deals with pervious rulings on the case and the necessity of proving legitimate uses if one is to use the Sony verdict in its favor. The article deals with if and how the Supreme Court should address and respond to this case. The next part of the article explains existing legislation. It states that copyright holders cannot recover loses from secondary copyright infringement. It also looks at cases of the record industry against Internet Service Providers, noting the protection of software companies and ISPs. The article looks at the Induce act, which was brought up fro review recently and would make software companies liable for encouraging copyright infringement. The article shows the pros and cons of this piece of legislation. Other pieces of legislation brought up in the article are the Piracy Deterrence and Education Act, the Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation Act and the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act. The article concludes with an explanation of the possible effects of the Supreme Court’s decision on the case.
The article provides a detailed explanation and example of the copyright issues brought up by P2P technology. There is a good analysis of the case as well as explanations and references to copyright law and how these issues are being dealt with outside of this specific instance. The language is a little legal at times, but the article is very comprehensive and informative.
This article is very interesting because it is so dated. It provides a good look into how copyright law was pushed and used as new technologies developed in the past. With hindsight, we can now use this article to examine how copyright law has worked within entertainment industries over time and apply that to the copyright issues of today.
Call#: Van Pelt Library Rosengarten Reserve Z642 .V35 2001
Vaidhyanathan closes the book with a look at digital copyright issues and international law. This section deals with computer software as well as Napster and P2P file sharing. It also deals with international protections and standardization issues.
The book provides a good explanation of the history of copyright and literary copyright law and development. However, its focus on the film industry shows how the law developed and was used and tested, the chapters pertaining to this aspect of copyright did not go into the law and ideas of copyright in the same detail of literary copyright. The section on the music industry was also extremely limited and tangential at times. Its focus was mainly on Hip-Hop and the tension between the genre and the law and how they functioned together. This section did not go very deep into the basics of musical copyright and seemed to get too far away from copyright in some of its arguments about Hip Hop. Although they are valid arguments in a broader scope, they do not seem fitting to the book as a whole.