LawMeme LawMeme Yale Law School  
LawMeme
Search LawMeme [ Advanced Search ]
 
 
 
 
Onus of Copyright Protection on Technology Companies - IP Lawyer
Posted by Ernest Miller on Monday, November 18 @ 10:20:51 EST Copyright
Thomas F. Holt Jr., a partner in the Boston office of Kirkpatrick & Lockhart LLP, pens an op-ed in the Sunday edition of the Boston Globe about Eldred v. Ashcroft (Conflict over copyright extension will only deepen). The article is fairly balanced until the end, when Holt concludes that:
Yet Congress cannot go it alone on this issue: Both sides [Silicon Valley and Hollywood] will need to hammer out workable [technological] standards that will protect legitimate intellectual property rights and the rights of those seeking access to knowledge.
In the end, it will be up to technology companies to seriously consider ways to prevent their equipment from being the getaway car in the theft of creative works, be it motion pictures or music. It won't be easy, but America's technology leaders are up to the task.
Why is the onus on Silicon Valley? Is technology the only solution? Why couldn't the last paragraph have been:
In the end, it will be up to the content industry to seriously consider alternative business models that take into account consumer desires, as well as use existing laws to prevent the illicit distribution of creative works, be it motion pictures or music. It won't be easy, but America's content industry leaders are up to the task.
Or a mixture of the original last paragraph and my version? Oh, right, Holt is a member of the Intellectual Property Owners Association’s Litigation Committee.

Legally mandated technology is not the solution. Revised copyright law and new business models are the only thing that make sense. [via Lessig.org]

 
Login
Nickname

Password

Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
Related Links
· Thomas F. Holt Jr.
· Kirkpatrick & Lockhart
· Boston Globe
· Eldred v. Ashcroft
· Conflict over copyright extension will only deepen
· Intellectual Property Owners Association
· Litigation Committee
· Lessig.org
· More about Copyright
· News by Ernest Miller


Most read story about Copyright:
Top Ten New Copyright Crimes

Options

Printer Friendly Page  Printer Friendly Page

Send to a Friend  Send to a Friend
"User's Login" | Login/Create an Account | 3 comments | Search Discussion
Threshold
  
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

Re: Onus of Copyright Protection on Technology Companies - IP Lawyer (Score: 2, Insighful)
by bryan_taylor on Monday, November 18 @ 16:06:18 EST
(User Info | Send a Message)
Holt misquotes O'Connor in the article, which indicates to me that he never even read the transcript of Eldred v. Ashcroft. He obviously got his opinions about the case second hand from news reports. After I read the transcript, my view of the chances for Eldred to win improved dramatically. To me the signature moment was Scalia slamming Olsen with the "functional equivalent to an unlimited time" question.

Anyway, the main point of his article was that tech and content companies need to work hard to find middle ground. I don't believe there is any middle ground: either computers will be capable of reproducing arbitrary bits or they will not. The top security experts all say that "trusted client" solutions are not secure and cannot be secure. It is really a flamboyant overestimate to suggest that a bunch of corporations can somehow will into existence a magic solution to this issue.

I also think that were the companies to agree and the government joined in giving their agreement the force of law it would STILL fail. Americans simply are not willing to accept the police state that would be required to stop copyright infringement.

I believe that the content industry is where the software industry was about 20 years ago. If you recall, there was a period where every boxed software that came out was copy protected. None of it worked and eventually the market forces rewarded software companies that didn't copy protect. Even this was not good enough and the open source movement arose to combat the proprietary revenue sinks.

The most likely outcome in my opinion is that the next 5 to 10 years will see increasingly hostile legal battles being won, like Napster and 2600, being won in the courts by the big media, but lost, also like Napster and 2600, on the streets by the complete contept of the public for the opinions. Eventually a critical mass will develop of people who are willing, short term, to reject the traditional products and a true alternative paradigm will develop.


[ Reply to This ]

Re: Onus of Copyright Protection on Technology Companies - IP Lawyer (Score: 2, Insighful)
by raidman on Monday, November 18 @ 19:02:19 EST
(User Info | Send a Message)
The getaway car analogy inadvertently perfectly illustrates the problem with restrictive DRM 'shut all the analog holes' laws. Car makers are not obliged to prevent all cars and all drivers from using cars in ways that might also potentially be used for illegal acts. So why should computer makers be held to this standard, and is the cure worse than the problem? Reductio ad absurdum - The MPAA/RIAA plan is the equivalent of forcing every truck, bus, car, scooter and bicycle mfg. to be built so as to prevent it from being driven within 500ft of bank, and that automatically drives offenders of this rule to police station if anyone even accuses them of violating the law. Few people would make an informed decision to buy a car that others track how and where you drive, and arbitrarily control where and how it can be driven, just because it might possibly be used for illegal, or worse, merely corporately undesirable acts. Is that vision even compatible with a free society? That's why the whole DRM discussion is a carefully phrased pile of Newspeak designed to obscure the core principle they have already partially, and are seeking to completely enshrine in law, ie. that others have the arbitrary right to unlimited control of society's access and use of information, i.e. this issue is a fundamental question of individual freedom.


[ Reply to This ]

Re: Onus of Copyright Protection on Technology Companies - IP Lawyer (Score: 0)
by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Tuesday, November 19 @ 04:15:23 EST
I find it quite disturbing that the current trend is protecting by law measures taken to enforce rights granted by legislation. Thus copyright infringement will be twice punishable, first as circumventing a technical device designed to prevent copyright infringement and second as the actual copyright infringement.

I strongly dislike all legislation that is purely directed at technology and not the protected right.

the car analogy might be something like: "every car is to be installed with a device limiting the top speed to 50mph. circumventing this device, i.e. speeding, will be punished as both speeding and as circumvention."

I believe this type of abitrary legislation lessens the public's trust in the legislature and, most importantly, the effect the law has on people. Respect is diminished.

(sorry for any spelling flaws, english is my 3rd language..)


[ Reply to This ]


Leges humanae nascuntur, vivunt, moriuntur
Human laws are born, live, and die

All stories, comments and submissions copyright their respective posters.
Everything Else Copyright (c) 2002 by the Information Society Project.
This material may be distributed only subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Open Publication License, v1.0 or later (the latest version is presently available at http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/).