• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Berkeley technology law journal >Reforming the Reproduction Right: The Case for Personal Use Copies
【24h】

Reforming the Reproduction Right: The Case for Personal Use Copies

机译：改革复制权：个人使用复制案

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The new realities of the digital age have rendered the 1976 Copyright Act inadequate for protecting reasonable personal copying and have created incentives for copyright holders to implement objectionable strategies to protect their rights.rnThe Note explains that the only current shield to litigation for consumers is the fair use defense, which is inadequate due to the difficulty in proving that a personal copy is transformative. High costs of litigating, coupled with potentially ruinous penalties for losing, leaves little incentive for consumers not to settle even when the personal copy is clearly a fair use.rnThe Note then explains that the Copyright Act also fails to protect copyright holders due to its focus on "copying" as the proxy for infringement. This is ineffective to prevent filesharing as it is hard to prove that "copying" has occurred, and it forces the holder to invade consumers' privacy by using programs that track their activities. This also incentivizes holders to litigate out of existence developing technologies that aid consumers in making personal copies in direct contravention of the constitutional purpose of copyright.rnThe Note concludes that to better protect the rights of copyright holders in the digital age, legislation should be enacted that changes the proxy for infringement from "copying," to communicating works to the public, and that grants the copyright holder the exclusive right to authorize such communication. Furthermore, legislation that demarcates private use as non-infringement will ensure that private use copies for productive use and sharing between friends and family is protected.
机译：数字时代的新现实使1976年的《版权法》不足以保护合理的个人复制，并激励了版权所有者实施令人反感的策略来保护自己的权利。注解解释说，目前针对消费者提起诉讼的唯一盾牌是公平的使用辩护，但由于难以证明个人副本具有变革性，因此这是不够的。诉讼的高成本加上​​可能造成的毁灭性罚款，即使个人复制品显然是合理使用，也无济于事使消费者不愿和解。注释接着解释说，《版权法》由于其重点突出而未能保护版权持有人。以“复制”为侵权代理。由于很难证明已发生“复制”，因此这种方法无法有效地防止文件共享，并且迫使持有人通过使用跟踪其活动的程序来侵害消费者的隐私。这也激励持有人对不存在的开发技术提起诉讼，该技术可以帮助消费者在直接违反版权的宪法目的的情况下制作个人副本。rn该说明的结论是，为了更好地保护数字时代的版权持有人的权利，应制定法律，将侵权代理从“复制”更改为向公众传播作品，并授予版权所有者专有权以授权这种传播。此外，将私人使用界定为非侵权的法律将确保私人使用副本用于生产性使用以及在亲朋好友之间共享。

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