subscribe to this page
The author, in this entry from a Web 2.0-centric blog, details Youtube’s recent efforts to both appease copyright holders and to promote creativity amongst its users. In January 2007, Youtube unveiled plans for a Revenue Sharing program which would give certain Youtube users a portion of ad revenue Youtube receives based on the number of hits their videos garner. Youtube will give even higher exposure to users labeled as “Directors,” people who are allowed to upload films greater than 10 minutes in length. Similarly, Youtube will share revenue with some copyright holders based on ad money they receive for the viewing of infringing videos. The author discusses the possibility that Youtube will have to increase the number of ads it shows to make up for the profit lost from the Revenue Sharing Program. This leads to the dilemma of Youtube losing viewers if advertisements begin to show up before minute-long clips. To increase the effectiveness of heightened advertising, Youtube may have to adopt a TV style model in which “an advertiser pays Youtube (and thus the content creator) X amount for every viewing.” To appease advertisers, Youtube’s new Audio Fingerprinting technology could be used to prevent inappropriate videos from being paired with reputable brands. This would be similar to Google Adsense which provides targeted advertising to firms. The problem relates to copyright because if Youtube adopts targeted advertising, which it has recently begun to do, it will be receiving revenue for ads placed in front of infringing videos for which it does not have deals settled with the copyright holders, thus increasing the possibility of them being vicariously liable. The solution, the author notes, is to use Audio Fingerprinting to detect copyrighted material and then inform the copyright holder, who will have the option to either remove the material or share revenue gained from the video with Youtube.
This system could potentially solve the problem of both Youtube and the copyright holder losing money from various transactions. Youtube loses money when it devotes bandwidth and time to a video only to have the video deleted due to a takedown notice. Similarly, the holder loses money wasting man hours filing takedown notices and finding the actual infringing material. If both groups work together, as Youtube intends, companies will be much less likely to sue Youtube, especially if they are actually making money from infringing videos posted online. Similarly, Youtube decreases its chance of liability because it is increasing its promotion of original works by paying some users. By offering directors a part of the revenue earned from their original and creative works, Youtube is encouraging users to make their own films rather than simply splicing together copyrighted material (which leads to zero profit for users). Thus, with the adoption of the revenue sharing plan detailed above, Youtube has simultaneously appeased the copyright holders and expanded its promotion of original material, showing courts that there are indeed significant “non-infringing” uses for Youtube.
belongs to The Youtube Copyright Dilemma project
tagged advertisements copyright copyright_holder dmca ip isp lawsuit revenue_sharing tv_model_advertising youtube by mcguffey ...on 24-NOV-08
tagged advertisements copyright copyright_holder dmca ip isp lawsuit revenue_sharing tv_model_advertising youtube by mcguffey ...on 24-NOV-08
In this Manifesto, Professor Boyle claims that there are systematic errors in contemporary intellectual property policy and that WIPO has an important role in helping to correct them.
Yang,D . "intellectual property abuses: how should multinationals respond?" Long range planning [0024-6301] 37.5 (2004). 459-475.
This article presents a decidedly pro-business approach to the problem of piracy in China. From the start, the article takes for granted that weak IPR is a bad thing that recalcitrant countries are loathe to enforce. Furthermore, the article continues by providing statistics that show that China is one of the worst infringers in the world of intellectual property rights. An example of this decidedly one-sided look at piracy and IP infringement appears on page 5. “Piracy is not a victimless game as so many people think, but an unscrupulous practice requiring continuous surveillance and resolution. Host countries, multinationals, and consumers are all victims of piracy.”
The article then, instead of suggesting that businesses should fight for stronger legal means of IPR protection, assumes that businesses still want to enter the Chinese market and, hence, explains ways for businesses to combat piracy through their own means. Ten strategies are listed including the Budweiser strategy (technical solutions), the partnership strategy (contractual surveillance), the Coca-Cola strategy (narrowing price gaps), the Microsoft strategy (monitoring and private-eye), the commercial settlement strategy, the acquiring strategy, the DuPont strategy (reapplication), the MU strategy (communicating with aggrieved firms), the government hand strategy, and consumer campaigns.
Although this article presents an extremely biased look at intellectual property rights and does little to provide insight into causes or reasons for strong or weak IPR’s, it presents a very important statement just by its existence. This important point is that large multinational corporations have both the incentive and the means to enter the Chinese market despite a relatively weak IPR regime. This indicates that a weak IPR regime is not necessarily detrimental to foreign investment and therefore a gradual implementation of international IPR standards is feasible.
The article then, instead of suggesting that businesses should fight for stronger legal means of IPR protection, assumes that businesses still want to enter the Chinese market and, hence, explains ways for businesses to combat piracy through their own means. Ten strategies are listed including the Budweiser strategy (technical solutions), the partnership strategy (contractual surveillance), the Coca-Cola strategy (narrowing price gaps), the Microsoft strategy (monitoring and private-eye), the commercial settlement strategy, the acquiring strategy, the DuPont strategy (reapplication), the MU strategy (communicating with aggrieved firms), the government hand strategy, and consumer campaigns.
Although this article presents an extremely biased look at intellectual property rights and does little to provide insight into causes or reasons for strong or weak IPR’s, it presents a very important statement just by its existence. This important point is that large multinational corporations have both the incentive and the means to enter the Chinese market despite a relatively weak IPR regime. This indicates that a weak IPR regime is not necessarily detrimental to foreign investment and therefore a gradual implementation of international IPR standards is feasible.
belongs to Copyright and Culture Bibliography project
tagged China IP Multinationals by rogerlm ...on 31-JUL-06
tagged China IP Multinationals by rogerlm ...on 31-JUL-06
Xiaobai,S . "A dilemma for developing countries in intellectual property strategy? Lessons from a case study of software piracy and Microsoft in China" Science & public policy [0302-3427] 32.3 (2005). 187-198.
This article poses two important questions; Will businesses and countries invest in the economies of developing countries if these developing countries do not enforce intellectual property rights on the same standards of developed countries? And, if the current situation of increasing the strength of intellectual property rights in developing countries continues, will these developing countries be able to compete in a world of IPR harmonization?
The article poses an initial answer to these questions by citing empirical studies that suggest developing countries develop best with weak IPR regimes and that only as these countries become more developed should they enforce stricter regimes. Examples of countries that have enacted stronger IPR regimes as their economies developed are East Asian counties including Korea, Japan, and Taiwan, and notably the United States. Yet, what the empirical evidence lacks, according to this article, is a timetable for deciding when a country is developed enough to implement a strong IPR regime. To understand the situation further, the article turns to a study of Microsoft software in China.
In this study, the article first gives an overview explaining how prevalent piracy is in China. The article then shows that despite this piracy, Microsoft has entered the Chinese market with great difficulties. Piracy of Microsoft products subsequently increased and contrary to logic, this led Microsoft to further invest in China in an attempt to promote legal usage of Microsoft products. This further investment was presumably because Microsoft sees China as the largest potential market in the world.
This study then shows that, contrary to some scholars’ beliefs, a weak IPR regime can lead to an increased investment in developing countries. However, this is counterbalanced by the belief that an investment of high-tech products does not allow the developing country to discover its own technologies/products/ideas.
This article, although slightly redundant with other sources, is crucial to backing the project's thesis that developing countries and especially China are best advised to take a gradual approach to implementing strong IPR regimes. The article also fully supports the argument that China is best suited to a gradual increase in its IPR protection in that the article presents a case study showing that foreign investment in China will still occur despite its weaker IPR protection than developed nations.
The article poses an initial answer to these questions by citing empirical studies that suggest developing countries develop best with weak IPR regimes and that only as these countries become more developed should they enforce stricter regimes. Examples of countries that have enacted stronger IPR regimes as their economies developed are East Asian counties including Korea, Japan, and Taiwan, and notably the United States. Yet, what the empirical evidence lacks, according to this article, is a timetable for deciding when a country is developed enough to implement a strong IPR regime. To understand the situation further, the article turns to a study of Microsoft software in China.
In this study, the article first gives an overview explaining how prevalent piracy is in China. The article then shows that despite this piracy, Microsoft has entered the Chinese market with great difficulties. Piracy of Microsoft products subsequently increased and contrary to logic, this led Microsoft to further invest in China in an attempt to promote legal usage of Microsoft products. This further investment was presumably because Microsoft sees China as the largest potential market in the world.
This study then shows that, contrary to some scholars’ beliefs, a weak IPR regime can lead to an increased investment in developing countries. However, this is counterbalanced by the belief that an investment of high-tech products does not allow the developing country to discover its own technologies/products/ideas.
This article, although slightly redundant with other sources, is crucial to backing the project's thesis that developing countries and especially China are best advised to take a gradual approach to implementing strong IPR regimes. The article also fully supports the argument that China is best suited to a gradual increase in its IPR protection in that the article presents a case study showing that foreign investment in China will still occur despite its weaker IPR protection than developed nations.
Linek,E . "International Efforts Are Achieving Credible IP Enforcement Even Amid Chronic Abuse" Intellectual property & technology law journal [1534-3618] 18.3 (2006). 4-7.
This article is short and poses little insight into the situation of intellectual property rights in China, yet it does provide valuable statistics about the levels of piracy in China. The statistics present an optimistic view of the situation by stating the increased number of criminal prosecutions for IPR violations; however, the statistics leave out the pessimistic view that the number of violations are possibly rising and that could explain the increase in prosecutions.
Yet, despite the lack of in-depth analysis provided, this article hints at some of the basic themes of more insightful works. Examples of these are that China has historical traditions that impede its compliance with international standards of intellectual copyright protection and that China has too many administrative bureaucracies to effectively enforce IPR. The article also presents an interesting view that unfortunately has no support: an assertion that because China has joined the WTO, its institutions will adapt in a positive manner.
The statistics in this article include the numbers of criminal prosecutions in China for IPR infringement and estimates of the amount of money lost by US businesses because of piracy. Also, there is a comparison over time of changes in these statistics. These numbers, although vague, can be used to present a case with nearly any goal in mind and, therefore, are valuable in research about IPR in China.
The last important aspect of this article is that it places China in the context of the larger developing world. It points out that China represents the single largest market (in numbers of people) in the world, and because it is considered to have a developing economy, China plays a large role in determining the stance of other developing economies. This is an important message and illuminates the significance of understanding the IPR situation in China and, therefore, the significance of China taking a gradual approach to strengthening its IPRs in a broader, global sense.
Yet, despite the lack of in-depth analysis provided, this article hints at some of the basic themes of more insightful works. Examples of these are that China has historical traditions that impede its compliance with international standards of intellectual copyright protection and that China has too many administrative bureaucracies to effectively enforce IPR. The article also presents an interesting view that unfortunately has no support: an assertion that because China has joined the WTO, its institutions will adapt in a positive manner.
The statistics in this article include the numbers of criminal prosecutions in China for IPR infringement and estimates of the amount of money lost by US businesses because of piracy. Also, there is a comparison over time of changes in these statistics. These numbers, although vague, can be used to present a case with nearly any goal in mind and, therefore, are valuable in research about IPR in China.
The last important aspect of this article is that it places China in the context of the larger developing world. It points out that China represents the single largest market (in numbers of people) in the world, and because it is considered to have a developing economy, China plays a large role in determining the stance of other developing economies. This is an important message and illuminates the significance of understanding the IPR situation in China and, therefore, the significance of China taking a gradual approach to strengthening its IPRs in a broader, global sense.
belongs to Copyright and Culture Bibliography project
tagged China Enforcement IP by rogerlm ...on 31-JUL-06
tagged China Enforcement IP by rogerlm ...on 31-JUL-06
Intellectual property and development : lessons from recent economic research / edited by Carsten Fink and Keith E. Maskus. [0821357727 (pbk.) ] Washington, DC : A copublication of the World Bank and Oxford University Press, New York, c2005.
Call#: Van Pelt Library K1401 .I5528 2005
Call#: Van Pelt Library K1401 .I5528 2005
This book, which is a compilation of essays, constitutes an in depth economic analysis of how intellectual property rights effect development within an economy. The final essay focuses on China and is entitled “Intellectual Property Rights and Economic Development in China.” The essay is well written, and the economic concepts are simply described.
The essay discusses the growth of China’s economy through an economic analysis of intellectual property rights and how they affect business and investment. The first half of the essay presents the standard economic theory for strengthening intellectual property rights in developing economies and reviews the benefits derived from strict enforcement of intellectual property rights. However, this review is balanced by a discussion of reasons why the government of a developing economy would not want to enact strict enforcement of IPRs.
The second half of the essay deals specifically with China. The authors, Maskus, Dougherty, and Mertha use three sections to prove that China is making significant progress in strengthening IPR enforcement, but the point out that China also has a number of problems that must be addressed before it can reach an acceptable state of IPR protection. The first of these sections is a discussion of interviews held with lawyers, scholars, businessmen, and policy makers in China. The next section evaluates statistics on trademarks and patents in China. The final section looks at “data on technology development and inputs, along with some estimated effects on Chinese industrial productivity.” The authors conclude that
"Overall, our analysis suggests that the IPR situation for invention and innovation is improving in China but that there are still significant problems associated with inadequate enforcement, regional income differences, insufficient incentives for commercialization of the results of R&D, and relatively low levels of research effort."
This essay is extremely helpful in determining the state of IPRs in China through the lens of economics although it presents the material in a way that is biased toward the assumption that all developing economies should have strong IPRs. Therefore, this book comprises an important opposition to the thesis of gradual improvement in China's IPRs but provides valuable reasons why a developing country would want a weaker IPR regime, which hence supports the assertion for China’s gradual development.
The essay discusses the growth of China’s economy through an economic analysis of intellectual property rights and how they affect business and investment. The first half of the essay presents the standard economic theory for strengthening intellectual property rights in developing economies and reviews the benefits derived from strict enforcement of intellectual property rights. However, this review is balanced by a discussion of reasons why the government of a developing economy would not want to enact strict enforcement of IPRs.
The second half of the essay deals specifically with China. The authors, Maskus, Dougherty, and Mertha use three sections to prove that China is making significant progress in strengthening IPR enforcement, but the point out that China also has a number of problems that must be addressed before it can reach an acceptable state of IPR protection. The first of these sections is a discussion of interviews held with lawyers, scholars, businessmen, and policy makers in China. The next section evaluates statistics on trademarks and patents in China. The final section looks at “data on technology development and inputs, along with some estimated effects on Chinese industrial productivity.” The authors conclude that
"Overall, our analysis suggests that the IPR situation for invention and innovation is improving in China but that there are still significant problems associated with inadequate enforcement, regional income differences, insufficient incentives for commercialization of the results of R&D, and relatively low levels of research effort."
This essay is extremely helpful in determining the state of IPRs in China through the lens of economics although it presents the material in a way that is biased toward the assumption that all developing economies should have strong IPRs. Therefore, this book comprises an important opposition to the thesis of gradual improvement in China's IPRs but provides valuable reasons why a developing country would want a weaker IPR regime, which hence supports the assertion for China’s gradual development.
belongs to Copyright and Culture Bibliography project
tagged China Development Economics IP by rogerlm ...on 31-JUL-06
tagged China Development Economics IP by rogerlm ...on 31-JUL-06
"Applying the principles of stewardship, AEIN, a nonprofit corporation, allocates Internet Protocol resources; develops consensus-based policies; and facilitates the advancement of the internet through information and educational outreach."
Kembrew MacLeod takes a decidedly anti-corporate stance in Freedom of Expression, as he details the effects conglomeratization and more stringent laws have had on creative industries such as music, film and other art forms. MacLeod believes that these laws cause the creators of culture to self-censor in order to prevent legal action, and that as more laws are created (such as the DMCA) more self-censorship will occur. According to MacLeod, this increasingly hostile environment then pits "Intellectual Property" against "Freedom of Expression." MacLeod feels that both IP and free expression can co-exist, but not in the current legal climate.
In this article for Wired Magazine, Larry Lessig offers an overview of some of the troubles causes by over-protective copyright laws. As an example, Lessig tries to license the song "Happy Birthday" for recording and distribution, in honor of the first “birthday” of the Free Culture Movement. In order to obtain the rights to the song, Lessig must navigate through a web of nonresposive organizations and exorbitant fees. In the end, Lessig does not obtain the ability to record the song at all, revealing the weakness and confusion that are present in the current copyright system.
As a follow-up to their exploratory report of the effects of copyright restrictions on documentary filmmakers, Pat Aufderheide and Peter Jaszi have collaborated with a group of filmmakers, lawyers and other experts to create a statement of best practices for claims of fair use in documentary filmmaking. This statement will help guide filmmakers in their claims of fair use, and help inform them what material is within their bounds. This statement of best practices will help standardize the process of seeking and obtaining rights in the documentary film world, and assist in helping filmmakers make legally informed decisions. According to the statement, documentary filmmakers should be afforded the same rights as cultural and historical critics in print media.
This book explores the historical and legal frameworks governing intellectual property law. Moreover, this book describes how these assumptions and frameworks have been completely changed by the introduction of the internet and other media like DVDs and CDs. Various theoretical arguments, both for minimizing and maximizing IP protection, are explored in the context of current issues like webcasting and the legal definition of trespass in cyberspace. These practical applications help illuminate the complicated nature of IP in an increasingly digital world.
In this article from the Journal of Intellectual Property Law Lydia Loren denounces the second-class status that fair use has been given in the realm of copyright law. Loren is frustrated by the court’s routine emphasis on monetary and market-driven issues, often the deciding factors in fair use cases. Loren feels these rulign shortchange the purpose of fair use claims by not considering the external benefits that fair use would provide in some cases. According to Loren, the chief deciding factor in ruling on fair use claims should be to see if these claims further knowledge and learning.
Documentary filmmaker Brigid Maher created this short film Stories Untold to accompany the arguments made in Peter Jaszi and Pat Aufderheide's report Untold Stories: Creative Consequences of the Rights Clearance Culture for Documentary Filmmakers. This link is a transcript of that film. A link to the streaming, broadband version of the film is available here in streaming .mov format. Speaking with documentary filmmakers, Maher gives the viewer a first-person look at the hardships of fair use clearance. In this film, it is readily apparent that even the simplest video clip or shortest song may cause a myriad of problems for filmmakers.
In Who Owns Culture? Susan Scafidi navigates the unstable relationship between cultural creation and legal protection of cultural works. Scafidi is particularly interested in the notion of individual creation. The book highlights how American law privileges individual creation over group or communal works. In this book, the basics behind cultural commoditization, ownership and commercialization are explored, as well as the uneven legal framework that governs cultural products.
Spurred on by the publication of the Aufderheide and Jaszi report, Matt Dunne explores the strugglers of documentary filmmakers trying to fund their projects in this article. Dunne expresses the growing frustration in the documentary community at having to face large fees and mountains of paperwork before releasing a film. Dunne also notes that the commercial success of some recent documentaries such as Fahrenheit 9/11, may make the position of documentaries in the legal realm even more precarious. As the difficulties rise for filmmakers, Dunne draws a parallel to recent music lawsuits and the increasing difficulty of fair use claims for academic books.