Licence to lock: the overextension of technological protection measures

Q1 Social Sciences
V. Ooi
{"title":"Licence to lock: the overextension of technological protection measures","authors":"V. Ooi","doi":"10.1080/13600869.2021.1879594","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT As digital goods gain traction and technological advancements that enable and facilitate piracy develop, technological protection measures (‘TPMs’) have become indispensable tools for content-producers to safeguard their intellectual property (‘IP’) rights. Like other intellectual property laws, there is an inherent tension in TPM protection provisions between safeguarding the content-producers’ IP rights and the consumers’ collective legitimate right to access works. TPM protection may be overly broad in two major ways. Firstly, by an inefficacious transposition of the rights and authority requirements, which stems from Article 11 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty. Secondly, by an overly-broad protection of TPMs in domestic legislation. This article argues that circumventing TPMs should only be prohibited where this would also involve an infringement of existing IP rights. The first part of the article discusses the proper ambit of TPM protection provisions by comparing the scope of such laws in Australia and Singapore, concluding that the Singapore position effectively protects the content-producer's IP rights without extending the de facto enforceability of TPM rights. The second part considers the practical implications of TPMs, including how they affect parallel imports and related practices such as geoblocking, virtual private networks (‘VPNs’) and streaming.","PeriodicalId":53660,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Law, Computers and Technology","volume":"29 1","pages":"270 - 287"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Review of Law, Computers and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13600869.2021.1879594","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT As digital goods gain traction and technological advancements that enable and facilitate piracy develop, technological protection measures (‘TPMs’) have become indispensable tools for content-producers to safeguard their intellectual property (‘IP’) rights. Like other intellectual property laws, there is an inherent tension in TPM protection provisions between safeguarding the content-producers’ IP rights and the consumers’ collective legitimate right to access works. TPM protection may be overly broad in two major ways. Firstly, by an inefficacious transposition of the rights and authority requirements, which stems from Article 11 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty. Secondly, by an overly-broad protection of TPMs in domestic legislation. This article argues that circumventing TPMs should only be prohibited where this would also involve an infringement of existing IP rights. The first part of the article discusses the proper ambit of TPM protection provisions by comparing the scope of such laws in Australia and Singapore, concluding that the Singapore position effectively protects the content-producer's IP rights without extending the de facto enforceability of TPM rights. The second part considers the practical implications of TPMs, including how they affect parallel imports and related practices such as geoblocking, virtual private networks (‘VPNs’) and streaming.
许可锁:技术保护措施的过度延伸
随着数字产品的发展和技术的进步,盗版的发展成为可能和便利,技术保护措施(“TPMs”)已成为内容生产者保护其知识产权(“IP”)权利不可或缺的工具。与其他知识产权法一样,TPM保护条款在保护内容生产者的知识产权与保护消费者对作品的集体合法使用权之间存在着内在的张力。TPM保护可能在两个主要方面过于宽泛。首先,源于《世界知识产权组织版权条约》第11条的权利和权力要求的无效转换。其次,国内立法对tpm的保护过于宽泛。本文认为,只有在涉及侵犯现有知识产权的情况下,才应该禁止规避tpm。文章的第一部分通过比较澳大利亚和新加坡这类法律的范围,讨论了TPM保护规定的适当范围,得出新加坡的立场有效地保护了内容生产者的知识产权,而没有扩大TPM权利的事实上的可执行性。第二部分考虑tpm的实际影响,包括它们如何影响平行进口和相关实践,如地理封锁、虚拟专用网络(“vpn”)和流媒体。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信