Grøndal (2006)

From Copyright EVIDENCE
Revision as of 12:38, 23 January 2018 by AThomas (talk | contribs) (Saved using "Save and continue" button in form)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Advertising Architectural Publishing of books, periodicals and other publishing Programming and broadcasting Computer programming Computer consultancy Creative, arts and entertainment Cultural education Libraries, archives, museums and other cultural activities

Film and motion pictures Sound recording and music publishing Photographic activities PR and communication Software publishing Video game publishing Specialised design Television programmes Translation and interpretation

1. Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare 2. Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)? 3. Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors) 4. Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption) 5. Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)

A. Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right) B. Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction) C. Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing) D. Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability) E. Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts) F. Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)

Source Details

Grøndal (2006)
Title: DRM and Contract Terms
Author(s): Lars Grøndal
Year: 2006
Citation: Grøndal, L. (2006) DRM and contract terms. Available at http://www.indicare.org/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=177 (last accessed 19/01/2018)
Link(s): , Open Access
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:
Linked by:
About the Data
Data Description: The study comprises of an analysis of the iTunes Terms of Service in relation to community and national law, and terms which pertain to DRM limitations.
Data Type: Primary data
Secondary Data Sources:
Data Collection Methods:
Data Analysis Methods:
Industry(ies):
Country(ies):
Cross Country Study?: Yes
Comparative Study?: No
Literature review?: No
Government or policy study?: No
Time Period(s) of Collection:
Funder(s):

Abstract

In every day life consumers are frequently accepting standardised contractual and technological terms that they have little or no understanding of. Some of these terms are generally unfair and do not stand up to legal scrutiny. In this article iTunes Music Store’s Terms of Service is used as an example of a standard contract containing unfair terms.

Main Results of the Study

The study analyses three terms in the iTunes Terms of Service which are considered particularly relevant to DRM:

• Firstly, the unilateral right to change terms and conditions. In 2005, updates to the terms resulted in users having stricter limits on streaming and burning music (in particular being prevented from streaming music over the internet). This change was unilateral on Apple’s part, and sole responsibility to check and comply with the changes fell on the user (under penalty of termination of account).

• Secondly, limitations of liability. Even in the case of security flaws in the software, Apple assumes no liability for any security intrusion (albeit this may be limited by the Unfair Terms Directive).

• Lastly, interoperability restrictions. Through Apples “Fairplay” system, compatibility is only possible with Apple hardware devices, resulting in anticompetitive hardware tie-in. From a Norwegian perspective, the author notes how these limitations could be circumvented simply by burning a playlist to a CD.

Policy Implications as Stated By Author

The author concludes that, whilst it is possible to challenge unfair DRMs under current legislation, this is hampered by two factors:

• Policymakers do not take into account the unique features of digital goods, and;

• Business focussed policy has resulted in the absence of consumer considerations.

The aim of the study is to contribute to a campaign for consumers’ digital rights, in tandem with promoting a better legal framework for consumers.


Coverage of Study

Coverage of Fundamental Issues
Issue Included within Study
Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare
Green-tick.png
Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)?
Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors)
Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption)
Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)
Coverage of Evidence Based Policies
Issue Included within Study
Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right)
Green-tick.png
Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction)
Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing)
Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability)
Green-tick.png
Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts)
Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)

Datasets