Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Private Ordering in Copyright Law: The Impact on Fair Use Activities on the Internet


Affiliations
1 NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad — 500 101, Telangana, India., India
 

Private ordering tools such as contracts have always been used in the context of copyright law in order to monetize the rights of the copyright holders. However, the use of networked information technologies like the Internet has brought in a deeper layer of engagement. The higher configurability of such technologies, affords points of regulatory leverage to private parties, allowing them to exercise more pervasive control. Prior to the digital era, it was not practical for (say) a publisher to track down every buyer and bargain with them. In contrast, the cyberspace facilitates such a regime to a much greater degree, since it allows copyright holders easier access to the end-users of their products, thus making the conclusion of a bargain much more feasible. Furthermore, the technology also allows the rights holders to deploy technological protection measures built into the medium of the information (e.g., the e-book), restricting certain actions via code. While this provides the rights holders with an assurance of the protection of their rights, it runs the danger of trespassing on liberties users would generally enjoy under the copyright law framework. The objective of this study is to consider the rising influence of private ordering mechanisms such as contracts and technological protection measures in the copyright framework and the impact it has on the rights and privileges provided by the public ordering framework of copyright. The methodology undertaken for this study is doctrinal in nature.

Keywords

Private Ordering, Contracts, Technological Protection Measures, Fair Use Provisions, Digital Copyright.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Koren N E, Governing Access to User-Generated Content: The Changing Nature of Private Ordering in Digital Networks in Governance, Regulation and Powers on the Internet (Eric Brousseau and Ors eds., 2012).
  • Koren N E, Copyrights in cyberspace: Rights without laws, Chicago Kent Law Review, 73 (4) (1998) 1155.
  • Priest E, Acupressure: The emerging role of market ordering in Global Copyright Enforcement, SMU Law Review, 68 (2015)169.
  • Priest E, Acupressure: The emerging role of market ordering in Global Copyright Enforcement, SMU Law Review, 68 (2015) 169, 209.
  • Cohen J, Copyright and the jurisprudence of self-help, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 13 (1998) 1089-1143.
  • Radin M J, The myth of private ordering: Rediscovering legal realism in cyberspace, Chicago Kent Law Review, 73 (4) (1998) 1295.
  • KerrI, Maurushat A & Tacit C S, Technological protection measures: Tilting at copyright‟s windmill, Ottawa Law Review, 34 (1) 2002-2003.
  • Mackay E, Intellectual Property and the Internet: The Share of Sharing in the Commodification of Information (Neil Netanel & Niva Elkin Koren eds., 2002).
  • Efroni Z, Access-Right: The Future of Digital Copyright Law (Oxford University Press, New York) (2011)195.
  • Strowel A & Dusollier S, Legal Protection of Technological Systems, Workshop on Implementation Issues of the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT), WCT-WPPT/IMP/2, 1999.
  • Chawla A, Law of Copyright: Comparative Perspectives (Lexis Nexis) 2013.
  • Scaria A G, Does India need digital rights management provisions or better digital business management strategies? Journal of Intellectual Property Rights,17 (2012) 463.
  • Hinze G, Brave new world, ten years later: Reviewing the impact of policy choices in the implementation of the WIPO Internet Treaties‟ Technological Protection Measure Provisions, Case Western Reserve Law Review, 57 (4) (2007) 779.
  • Favale M, The right of access in Digital Copyright: Right of the owner or right of the user? The Journal of World Intellectual Property 15 (1) (2012); Joseph P L, Paracopyright- A Peculiar Right to Control Access in Intellectual Property at the Edge: The Contested Contours of IP (Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss & Jane C. Ginsburg eds. 2014).
  • George S K, The enforceability of smart contracts in India, Court Uncourt, 6 (2019).
  • Bartoletti M, Smart contracts, Frontiers in Blockchain 2020 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fbloc.2020.0002 7/full (accessed on 14 March 2022).
  • Raskin M, The Law and legality of smart contracts, Georgetown Law Technology Review, 1 (2017).
  • Mohan M P Ram & Jain A, Indian Law on standard form contracts, Journal of Indian Law Institute, 62 (4) (2020).
  • 103rd Report Law Commission of India, 1984.
  • Cornelius K B, Standard form contracts and a smart contract future, Internet Policy Review, 7 (2) (2018).
  • Shrivastava S A, The enforceability of electronic click wrap and browse wrap agreements, NLIUL Review, 1 (6) (2020).
  • Terms and Conditions of Use JSTOR https://about. jstor.org/terms/ (accessed on 14 March 2022).
  • Hildebrandt M, Smart Technologies and the End(s) of Law (Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham) (2015) 12.
  • S P Barooah, Disruptive (Technology) Law? Examining TPMs and Anti-Circumvention Laws in the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012, NUJS Law Review, 5 (2012) 583.
  • Koren N E, Governing Access to User-Generated Content: The Changing Nature of Private Ordering in Digital Networks in Governance, Regulation and Powers on the Internet (Eric Brousseau and Ors eds., 2012), 343.
  • LIC of India v Consumer Education and Research Centre (1995) AIR 1811 (SC).
  • Perry M, Towards legal protection for Digital Rights Management in India: Necessity or burden? SSRN (2010) https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=164758 2 (accessed on 14 March 2022).
  • WCT came into force on 6 March 2002 while WPPT entered into force on 20 May 2002.
  • Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, 1886 provides creators such as authors, musicians, poets painters etc. the means to control the manner in which their works are used, the terms as per which they are used, and by whom. It contains provisions determining the minimum protection to be granted to the abovementioned copyrighted materials. It was amended on 29 September 1979.
  • Article 11 WIPO Copyright Treaty 1996.
  • Statement of Objects and Reasons, Indian Copyright Act, 1957. India subsequently became party to the WIPO Internet treaties.
  • Section 65A, Copyright Act1957.
  • Scaria A G, Does India need digital rights management provisions or better digital business management strategies? Journal of Intellectual Property Rights,17 (2012) 463; Barooah S P, Disruptive (Technology) Law? Examining TPMs and Anti-Circumvention Laws in the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012, NUJS Law Review, 5 (2012) 583.
  • Ashok A, Technological protection measures and the Indian Copyright Amendment Act 2012- A comment, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (2012).
  • Rajsingh B V, Digital Copyright Law- A Comparative Study of the Limitations and Exceptions relating to Education, (Thomson Reuters) 2020.
  • “No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title…”
  • Hinze G, Brave new world, ten years later: Reviewing the impact of policy choices in the implementation of the WIPO internet treaties‟ technological protection measure provisions, Case Western Reserve Law Review, 57 (4) (2007) 779
  • Article 6 (1), EU Copyright Directive, 2001/29/ EC LEXPARENCY, https://lexparency.org/eu/32001L0029/ ART_6/#3 (accessed on 9 August 2022).
  • Article 6, EU Copyright Directive, 2001/29/ EC LEXPARENCY https://lexparency.org/eu/32001L0029/ ART_6/#3 (accessed on 9 August 2022).
  • Section 1201(a) (2), Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998.
  • Article 6 (2), EU Copyright Directive, 2001/29/ EC LEXPARENCY https://lexparency.org/eu/32001L0029/ ART_6/#3 (accessed on 9 August 2022).
  • Section 1201 (a) (1) (B), Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998.
  • Neil A, Fixing Section 1201: Legislative and regulatory reforms for the DMCA‟s Anti-circumvention provisions, Tulane Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, 19 (2016).
  • Article 6 (4), EU Copyright Directive, 2001/29/ EC LEXPARENCY https://lexparency.org/eu/32001L0029/ ART_6/#3 (accessed on 9 August 2022).
  • Providing a little more clarity to the above provision is Recital 51 which states that “in the absence of such voluntary measures and agreements within a reasonable period of time, Member States should take appropriate measures to ensure that rights holders provide beneficiaries of such exceptions and limitations with appropriate means of benefitting from them, by modifying an implemented technological measure or by other means.” Marcella F, Technological protection measures and copyright exceptions in EU27: Towards the harmonization, LAW DEPAUL EDU (2007), https://law.depaul.edu/academics/centers -institutes-initiatives/center-for-intellectual -property-law-and-information -technology/programs/Documents/ipsc_2007/ paper/Marcella_FavalePaper.pdf (accessed on 9 August 2022).
  • Marcella F, Technological protection measures and copyright exceptions in EU27: Towards the harmonization, LAW DEPAUL EDU (2007), https://law.depaul.edu/ academics/centers-institutes-initiatives/center-for-intellectual-property-law-and-information-technology/ programs/Documents/ipsc_2007/paper/Marcella_FavalePape r.pdf (accessed on 9 August 2022).
  • Section 10A, Information Technology Act 2000.
  • Horton D, Flipping the script-contra proferentem and standard form contracts University of Colorado Law Review, 80 (2009) 431.
  • Gurushinder Singh v Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd, (2020) AIR 1395 (SC).
  • M M P Ram & Jain A, Exclusion clauses under the Indian Contract Law: A need to account for unreasonableness, NUJS Law Review, 13 (2020).
  • Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd v Kokilaben Chandravaadan (1987) AIR 1184 (SC).
  • 199th Report Law Commission of India, 2006.
  • Moscon V, Academic Freedom, Copyright and Access to Scholarly Works: A Comparative Perspective in Balancing Copyright Law in the Digital Age (Robert Caso & G Giovanella eds., 2015).
  • Various Justifications have been given for the limitations and exceptions. For a detailed analysis, Samuelson P, Justifications for Copyright Limitations and Exceptions in Copyright Law in the Age of Limitations and Exceptions (Ruth Okediji ed. 2017).
  • Samuelson P, Justifications for Copyright Limitations and Exceptions in Copyright Law in the Age of Limitations and Exceptions (Ruth Okediji ed. 2017).
  • Ahuja V K, Law Relating to Intellectual Property Rights, (Lexis Nexis) (2017) 158.
  • Section 52 (1) (p), Copyright Act 1957.
  • Section 52 (1) (i), Copyright Act 1957.
  • Sheridan J L, Copyright‟s Knowledge Principle, Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law, 17 (1) (2014).
  • Section 65A (c), Copyright Act 1957.
  • Section 65A (b), Copyright Act 1957.
  • Matthan R & Narendran N, Fair dealing of computer programs in India, The Indian Journal of Law and Technology, 7 (2011) 91 93.
  • All India Power Engineer Federation v Sasan Power Ltd (2016) 4 CPR 605.
  • The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of the University of Oxford & v Rameshwari Photocopy Services Ors .(2016) 233 DLT 279.
  • Synodinou T E, Lawfulness for users in European Copyright Law- Acquis and perspectives, Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law, 10 (1) (2019) 20.
  • Dhonchak A, Can user rights under Section 52 of the Indian Copyright Act be contractually waived, NALSAR Student Law Review, 13 (2019) 117.

Abstract Views: 69

PDF Views: 69




  • Private Ordering in Copyright Law: The Impact on Fair Use Activities on the Internet

Abstract Views: 69  |  PDF Views: 69

Authors

Apoorv Pragya
NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad — 500 101, Telangana, India., India

Abstract


Private ordering tools such as contracts have always been used in the context of copyright law in order to monetize the rights of the copyright holders. However, the use of networked information technologies like the Internet has brought in a deeper layer of engagement. The higher configurability of such technologies, affords points of regulatory leverage to private parties, allowing them to exercise more pervasive control. Prior to the digital era, it was not practical for (say) a publisher to track down every buyer and bargain with them. In contrast, the cyberspace facilitates such a regime to a much greater degree, since it allows copyright holders easier access to the end-users of their products, thus making the conclusion of a bargain much more feasible. Furthermore, the technology also allows the rights holders to deploy technological protection measures built into the medium of the information (e.g., the e-book), restricting certain actions via code. While this provides the rights holders with an assurance of the protection of their rights, it runs the danger of trespassing on liberties users would generally enjoy under the copyright law framework. The objective of this study is to consider the rising influence of private ordering mechanisms such as contracts and technological protection measures in the copyright framework and the impact it has on the rights and privileges provided by the public ordering framework of copyright. The methodology undertaken for this study is doctrinal in nature.

Keywords


Private Ordering, Contracts, Technological Protection Measures, Fair Use Provisions, Digital Copyright.

References