首页> 外文期刊>Information & communications technology law >The Pros and Cons of Strengthening Intellectual Property Protection: Technological Protection Measures and Section 1201 of the United States Copyright Act
【24h】

The Pros and Cons of Strengthening Intellectual Property Protection: Technological Protection Measures and Section 1201 of the United States Copyright Act

机译:加强知识产权保护的利与弊:技术保护措施和美国版权法第1201条

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

The announcement in late November 2006 of the Copyright Office's triennial rulemaking to identify 'classes of works' exempt from the §1201(a)(1) prohibition on circumvention of a technological measure controlling access to copyrighted works in part occasions this assessment of the judicial and administrative construction of this chapter of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The current Rulemaking appears more innovative than its predecessors, particularly in defining the exempted 'class of works' by reference to the characteristics of the works' users. Copyright owner overreaching or misuse may also underlie the relative vigor of this Rulemaking: if producers of devices or providers of services seek to leverage into de facto monopolies over utilitarian articles, the protection of access controls on computer programs that in turn control the function of these objects, then the courts and the Librarian of Congress through the Copyright Office will need to exercise countervailing vigilance in interpreting the statute. Fortunately, §2202 is not so hermetically drafted as to resist all attempts to introduce flexibility; this article suggests some approaches to offset overly literalist statutory construction. Notably, the emergence of fair use as a limiting norm of extra-copyright application, as evidenced in the Trademark Dilution Revision Act 2006, suggests that judges may yet devise ways of reconciling broader intellectual property rights with principles of free expression. Those who interpret the statute should nonetheless bear in mind the many new business models that Congress foresaw and that digital rights management measures (some of them author-empowering) have in fact enabled, lest insecurity dampen the prospects for these models' development.
机译:2006年11月下旬,版权局宣布了三年一度的法规制定程序,以确认“§1201(a)(1)禁止对涉及版权作品的获取采取技术措施的禁令”的“作品类别”和1998年《数字千年版权法案》这一章的行政管理。当前的规则制定似乎比其前任更具创新性,特别是在通过参考作品用户的特征来定义豁免的“作品类别”时。版权拥有者的过度使用或滥用也可能是该规则制定的相对活力的基础:如果设备的生产者或服务的提供者试图利用功利主义物品的事实垄断,则对计算机程序的访问控制进行保护,从而控制这些程序的功能。反对,那么法院和美国版权保护局的国会图书馆馆长就需要在解释法规时保持警惕。幸运的是,§2202的起草并不是为了抵制所有尝试引入灵活性的尝试。本文提出了一些弥补过度的文字主义法律解释的方法。值得注意的是,正如2006年《商标稀释法》所证明的那样,合理使用已成为超版权申请的一种限制规范,这表明法官们可能仍在想办法使更广泛的知识产权与自由表达原则相协调。尽管如此,那些解释该法规的人应该牢记国会预见的许多新的商业模式,以及数字版权管理措施(其中一些赋予了作者授权)实际上已经启用,以免不安全感抑制了这些模式的发展前景。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号