Introduction to DRM Laws Multimedia Security

智慧財產權法及著作權法

智慧財產權法的範圍 著作權 工業財產權 產業創造活動成果之權益 原創著作 著作鄰接權 產業秩序維護之識別 公平產業秩序之維持 商標權 專利-發明 專利-新式樣 營業秘密法 公平交易法 專利-新型 植物種苗法 積體電路保護法

規範之目的 促進文化發展 促進技術創作進步 維護正當競爭秩序 第一條：「為保障著作人著作權益，調和社會公共利益，促進國家文化發展，特制定本法。本法未規定者，適用其他法律之規定。」

重要的著作權觀念 著作權包含數種權利，可以分開授權 著作權保護的客體很廣泛 著作權具有限制：合理使用 保護DRM的法律：反規避條款 救濟方法：民事責任與刑事責任

著作權保護什麼？ 語文著作 音樂著作 戲劇、舞蹈著作 美術著作 攝影著作 圖形著作 視聽著作 錄音著作 建築著作 電腦程式著作 改作著作 編輯著作 表演 共同著作 結合著作

什麼樣的東西會受到著作權的保護？ 原創性 客觀的表達形式-「一定之表現形式」 文學、科學、藝術或其他學術 !(不得為著作權標的之著作) 法律、公文 政府翻譯或編輯物 標語、符號、公式、數表… 單純傳達事實之新聞報導 依法令舉行之考試題目

原創性 著作人所原始獨立完成，未接觸或抄襲他人著作，以表達著作人內心之思想或感情，而具有最低程度之創意。 只要能證明著作人是獨立創作完成，即使與他人所做的相似或相同，仍然可以受到著作權法保護。 與專利、商標要求不同

客觀的表達形式 著作必須將其創作內容以客觀化之表達方式使其為外部所得感知 不包含「思想」 一定之表現形式 表現形式不以有形為限 思想與表達區分原則：著作權僅於著作之表達，不及於著作本身的思想

著作權有哪些保護的層面？ 著作人格權 著作財產權 公開發表權 姓名表示權 禁止變更權 重製權 公開口述權 公開播送權 公開上映權 公開演出權 公開傳輸權 公開展示權 改作權 編輯權 散佈權 出租權 Copy Right and Author’s Right

著作權什麼時候發生？由誰取得？ 完成著作時立即取得著作權，不需登記 僱傭關係（老闆對員工 && 無契約約定）： 員工為著作人(著作人格權) 老闆享有著作財產權 出資聘人（程式外包 && 無契約約定）： 受聘人為著作人(著作人格權) 受聘人同時也享有著作財產權 惟出資人得利用該著作

著作權可以存在多久？ 著作人格權：永久 著作財產權： 一般人：至死後五十年 公司行號：公開後五十年

著作權有什麼限制-合理使用（1/3） 中央或地方機關之重製 為司法程序之重製 為學校授課之重製 為編制教科書之重製、改作或編輯 文教機構之重製 圖書館之重製 時事報導之利用他人著作

合理使用（2/3） 政府機關或公法人著作之利用 個人或家庭為非營利，得利用圖書館、非供公眾使用之機器重製 為報導、研究而引用 為盲人重製及錄音 為試題之利用而重製 非營利性活動之利用

合理使用（3/3） 廣播、電視之錄音、錄影 社區共同天線之轉播 美術、攝影著作之展示及重製 長期展示之美術、建築著作之利用 電腦程式之修改或重製 媒體時論之轉載或播送 公開演說及公開陳述之利用

合理使用要怎麼判斷？ 利用之目的及非營教育目的為商業目的或，包括係性質 著作之性質 所利用之質量及在整個著作所佔之比例 利用結果對著作潛在市場與現在價值之影響 第六十五條：「著作之合理使用，不構成著作財產權之侵害。著作之利用是否合於第四十四條至第六十三條規定或其他合理使用之情形，應審酌一切情狀，尤應注意下列事項，以為判斷之基準： 一 利用之目的及性質，包括係為商業目的或非營利教育目的。 二 著作之性質。 三 所利用之質量及其在整個著作所占之比例。 四 利用結果對著作潛在市場與現在價值之影響。 」

受到侵害時的救濟 著作人格權：民事 著作財產權：民事、刑事 非法移除權利著作管理資訊：民事、刑事

第 84 條 第 85 條 著作權人或製版權人對於侵害其權利者，得請求排除之，有侵害之虞者， 得請求防止之。 侵害著作人格權者，負損害賠償責任。雖非財產上之損害，被害人亦得請 求賠償相當之金額。 前項侵害，被害人並得請求表示著作人之姓名或名稱、更正內容或為其他 回復名譽之適當處分

第 87 條 有下列情形之一者，除本法另有規定外，視為侵害著作權或製版權： 一、以侵害著作人名譽之方法利用其著作者。 二、明知為侵害製版權之物而散布或意圖散布而公開陳列或持有者。 三、輸入未經著作財產權人或製版權人授權重製之重製物或製版物者。 四、未經著作財產權人同意而輸入著作原件或其重製物者。 五、以侵害電腦程式著作財產權之重製物作為營業之使用者。 六、明知為侵害著作財產權之物而以移轉所有權或出租以外之方式散布者 ，或明知為侵害著作財產權之物，意圖散布而公開陳列或持有者。

第 88 條 因故意或過失不法侵害他人之著作財產權或製版權者，負損害賠償責任。 數人共同不法侵害者，連帶負賠償責任。 前項損害賠償，被害人得依下列規定擇一請求： 一 依民法第二百十六條之規定請求。但被害人不能證明其損害時，得以 其行使權利依通常情形可得預期之利益，減除被侵害後行使同一權利 所得利益之差額，為其所受損害。 二 請求侵害人因侵害行為所得之利益。但侵害人不能證明其成本或必要 費用時，以其侵害行為所得之全部收入，為其所得利益。 依前項規定，如被害人不易證明其實際損害額，得請求法院依侵害情節， 在新臺幣一萬元以上一百萬元以下酌定賠償額。如損害行為屬故意且情節 重大者，賠償額得增至新臺幣五百萬元。

第 91 條 擅自以重製之方法侵害他人之著作財產權者，處三年以下有期徒刑、拘役 ，或科或併科新臺幣七十五萬元以下罰金。 意圖銷售或出租而擅自以重製之方法侵害他人之著作財產權者，處六月以 上五年以下有期徒刑，得併科新臺幣二十萬元以上二百萬元以下罰金。 以重製於光碟之方法犯前項之罪者，處六月以上五年以下有期徒刑，得併 科新臺幣五十萬元以上五百萬元以下罰金。 著作僅供個人參考或合理使用者，不構成著作權侵害。

Anti-circumvention Law

How to protect Copyrights? Anti-circumvention Law Technology Protection Copyrights Law Copyrights New Weapon?

Outline TPMs & DRM The impact of DRM Digital Content & Copyright International Conventions DMCA & TCA Conclusion

The Scope of Copyright Copyrights is a legal device to give authors the exclusive right to exploit the market for their works The ultimate task of the copyright law is to strike a fair balance between the author’s right to control the dissemination of one’s works and the public interest in fostering their widest dissemination The public interest must prevail

The Characteristics of the digital revolution(1/2) In April of 1993,at a WIPO-sponsored intellectual property and technology conference, the conference noted 4 characteristics of the digital revolution: Digital Material is intangible until it is processed and projected through a microprocessor-controlled device. It can be copied repeatedly with no less of quality.

The Characteristics of the digital revolution(2/2) The way information is conveyed is flexible, as it can be combined, altered mixed, and manipulated relatively Digital media has an indefinite life because it will not decay as time passes

The difficulty of Copyright on the internet No less of quality when making copies No meaningful marginal costs of reproduction or distribution Anonymous nature of the internet Uneducated user

What is TPMs? TPM( Technical Protection Measures) refer to technology that allows copyright owners to protect their works from unauthorized use and copying TPMs work by impeding copy and using digital files, either by marking the files for identification, or by encrypting these files so as to make the files unreadable

TPM Methods Digital Watermarking Fingerprinting Encryption Access Control Use Control

What is DRM DRM incorporates TPMs to set secure distribution in the digital world and end-to-end management of the rights, including set access rules, encrypting, attaching metadata, securing distribution of content, providing access keys to paying consumers, enforcing permissions, measuring and reporting.

The impact of DRM a Threat to Privacy a Threat to Open Source Software a Threat to Fair Use Rights a Media Consumption Culture Shift a barrier to historians

A Threat to Privacy The systems usually require the user to reveal his or her identity and rights to access protected content. Upon authentication of identity and rights to the content, the user can access the content. But it is a treat to our privacy.

A Threat to Open Source Software DRM schemes and laws that require embedding copy protection into devices endanger the development of open-source software. Open-source software developers rely on reverse engineering to write programs that can interact with hardware. This practice is illegal under the DMCA.

A Threat to Fair Use Rights Fair Use provides a defense to individuals who engage in an unauthorized use of protected content. It is impossible for DRM systems to incorporate Fair Use principles because they are difficult to define, and evolve over time. Someone argued that for DRM to recognize Fair Use, engineers must be able to program a federal judge onto a computer chip.

A Media Consumption Culture Shift The technology can limit users' interaction with media. Through limiting interaction, over time, DRM technologies can change users expectations about control and use of digital content. This business model could be more lucrative for content controllers. The user has no choice .

A barrier to historians The use of DRM may also be a barrier to future historians, since technologies designed to permit data to be read only on particular machines may well make future Data Recovery impossible This argument connects the issue of DRM with that of asset management and archive technology.

The beginning of legal protection The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in December 1996 in Switzerland. Delegates from 160 country consider to update copyright law. The delegates considered whether to afford legal protection to TPMs. They reached a consensus requires legal protection against circumvention.

WIPO Legislation Digital Millennium Copyright Act in 1998 (DMCA) European Union Copyright Directive in 2001 (EUCD) Taiwan Copyright Act in 2004 (TCA) 1998 2001 2004

DMCA Premise Anti-circumvention provisions Anti-device provisions Exceptions Exemptions Remedies Problems Case

DMCA - Premise The circumvent protection must be effectively. 1201(a)(3)(B)：If the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation prevents, restricts, or otherwise limits the exercise of a right of a copyright owner under this title.

DMCA- Anti-circumvention - Anti-device (1/2) May not circumvent Technological measure Effectively controls access to a protected work May not manufacture, distribute, or otherwise traffic in: Technology, product, service, or device Primarily designed/produced for circumvention, or Only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent, or Knowingly marketed for use in circumvention

DMCA- Anti-circumvention - Anti-device (2/2) Control to Access Even if fair use exists, fair access does not. circumvention preparation Control to Use Not include circumvention DVD example

DMCA- Exceptions(1/2) Nonprofit libraries Acquisition decisions only No exemption from device prohibitions Law enforcement, intelligence, etc. Reverse engineering for interoperability Lawfully obtained the right to use a copy Information not previously readily available Sole purpose limitation on conduct and devices Sole purpose limitation on sharing of information

DMCA- Exceptions(2/2) “Good faith encryption research” Necessity and good faith effort to obtain authorization “Manner” limits on dissemination of information Credentialing requirements for researchers Information shared with copyright owner Disabling collection of personal information Sole purpose and effect limitations Only if notice and opt-out not provided and disclosed Security testing Sole purpose and “manner” limitations

DMCA- Exemptions On October 28, 2003, the Librarian of Congress announced the classes of works subject to the exemption from the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures. Discuss every three years Filtering Software Application Dongles obsolete Software obsolete Ebook all read-aloud

DMCA - Remedies Civil remedies Criminal offenses and penalties $200 - $2500 Criminal offenses and penalties shall be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both, for the first offense shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both, for any subsequent offense.

DMCA - Problems(1/2) Fair use (refer to German’s Copyright Law) Free speech && Academic freedom Microsoft v. Slashdot Movie industry v. DeCSS Adobe v. Slyorov HP v. Dutch programmer Failure to Warn of a TPM (refer to German’s Copyright Law)

DMCA - Problems(2/2) Companies concentrate legal actions on stopping the sale of compatible accessories Lexmark v.s. Static Control Sony v.s. mod chips Copyright misuse

Some Case in U.S.(1/2) Control digital content Control Compatible RealNetworks v. Streambox Control Compatible Universal City Studios Inc. v. Corley Control Merchandise Sony Computer Entertainment American Inc v. GameMasters Lexmark v.s. Static Control

Some Case in U.S.(2/2) Control consumer Sony v. AiboPet Control free && Academic freedom Felten v. Recording Industry Assoc. of America Blackboard Inc. v. Billy Hoffman & Virgil Griffith U.S. v. ElcomSoft & Sklyarov

RealNetworks, Inc. v. Streambox, Inc.(1/2) The plaintiff offered software to consumers that enabled Internet streaming of audio and video files encoded in a special digital format. Defendants marketed software that bypassed a “secret handshake” authentication sequence required for accessing these files, and further permitted users to make unauthorized copies of the files.

RealNetworks, Inc. v. Streambox, Inc.(2/2) The court determined that the plaintiff was likely to prevail under both of the antitrafficking provisions of the DMCA, and issued an injunction.

Universal City Studios Inc. v. Corley A group of eight motion picture studios sought to enjoin Internet web site owners from posting a computer program known as DeCSS. This program circumvented CSS, which is the encryption system that protects digital versatile disks (DVDs). The Second Circuit upheld an injunction based on the legal finding that DeCSS violated the anti-trafficking provisions of the DMCA.

Sony Computer Entertainment American Inc v. GameMasters(1/2) The first published case that interprets § 1201 in 1999. The plaintiff company manufactured PlayStation video game consoles designed to operate only when encrypted data on a game CD verified that both the game and console were licensed for the same geographical region.

Sony Computer Entertainment American Inc v. GameMasters(2/2) The defendant’s product allowed PlayStation owners to bypass the authentication process and to play games from other geographical regions. The court determined that this activity constituted the circumvention of a technological measure designed to control access to copyrighted works, and issued an injunction.

Lexmark v.s. Static Control(1/2) Printer Engine Program v.s. Toner Loading Program Lexmark has implemented an "authentication" handshake between its printers and toner cartridges. When Static Controls reverse-engineered the authentication procedure in order to enable refilled and remanufactured cartridges to work with Lexmark printers.

Lexmark v.s. Static Control(2/2) Lexmark claims that this authentication sequence is a technological measure used to control access to its copyrighted printer firmware. No copyright infringement of their printer firmware has been even alleged. It is solely the use of a legitimately purchased product that Lexmark seeks to restrict.

Sony v. AiboPet(1/2) Aibo is Sony Corporation's popular robot dog . Someone named AiboPet writed new program in the Aibo community to control Aibo.

Sony v. AiboPet(2/2) Sony threatened to take legal action against an elder in the Aibo community for allegedly violating provisions of the DMCA by posting enhancements to Sony's Aibo software on his site. At Aibo discussion sites, hundreds of people are vowing to never again buy Sony.

Felten v. Recording Industry Assoc. of America (1/2) Computer science professor Felten cracked the SDMI( Secure Digital Music Initiative) algorithm and arranged to present results at conference RIAA notified conference organizers of possibility of lawsuit Felten withdrew paper amid uproar

Felten v. Recording Industry Assoc. of America (2/2) RIAA issued press release disclaiming intent to sue; Felten presented paper at a different conference Felten filed declaratory judgment action challenging lawfulness of possible suit or prosecution

Blackboard Inc. v. Billy Hoffman & Virgil Griffith In April 2003 Blackboard is the most popular card system on college campuses. Billy Hoffman, published a guide on how to hack into his school's card system, the Blackboard Transaction System. Virgil Griffith is Billy Hoffman’s partner.

U.S. v. ElcomSoft & Sklyarov(1/2) In July 2001 Moscow-based software firm developed Advanced eBook Processor, which disables copy-protection on files formatted for Adobe eBook Reader Elcom distributed APDFPR via a Web site accessible in U.S.

U.S. v. ElcomSoft & Sklyarov(2/2) ElcomSoft programmer, Dmitry Sklyarov was arrested in Las Vegas on July 16, 2001, and charged with trafficking in, and offering to the public, a software program that could circumvent technological protections. Sklyarov agreed to cooperate in prosecution of Elcom Dmitry and ElcomSoft are the first software developers to be prosecuted under the criminal provisions of the DMCA

Other case about free speech HP sent US DMCA threats to researchers who had found problems in one of the HP operating system. A Dutch programmer declined to publish his research on the weaknesses of an Intel video encryption system fearing future legal action on a trip to the US.

我國-反規避條款(1/3) 第八十條之二： 著作權人所採取禁止或限制他人擅自進入著作之防盜拷措施，未經合法授權不得予以破解、破壞或以其他方法反制之。 破解、破壞或規避防盜拷措施之設備、器材、零件、技術或資訊，未經合法授權不得製造、輸入、為公眾提供使用、或為公眾提供服務。

我國-反規避條款(2/3) 排除條款 為維護國家安全者 中央或地方機關所為者 檔案保存機構、教育機構或供公眾使用之圖書館，為評估是否取得資料所為者 為保護未成年者 為保護個人資料者 為電腦或網路進行安全測試者 為進行加密研究者 為進行還原工程者 其他經主管機關所定情形

我國-反規避條款(3/3) 著作權人所採取有效禁止或限制他人擅自進入或利用著作之設備、器材零件、技術或其他科技方法 技術保護措施： 防盜拷措施必須積極、有效。

TCA-反規避-實務見解(1/2) 電子郵件 字第 940520A 號 該規定僅適用於對著作權人所採取禁 止或限制他人擅自「進入著作」之防盜拷措施 (accesscontrols) 所 為之破解、破壞或以其他方法規避之行為。至於破解、破壞或以其他方法規避著作權人防止進入的盜拷措施而進入著作之後，更進一步對 「利用著作」的防盜拷措施 (copycontrols) ，即重製或公開傳輸等 所為之措施，亦加以破壞，而為之重製或公開傳輸等之行為，則不在 上述規定之適用範圍，應視其有無合理使用或是否構成侵害著作權而定其法律效果。

TCA-反規避-實務見解(2/2) 著作權法第 80 條之 2 第 1 項所保護者係著 作權人所採取的防盜拷措施，避免被破解、破壞或以其他之方法規避 ，除非經過其合法之授權，至於該破解防盜拷措施之設備、零件、器 材等等究竟是誰所製造？是否為合法製造？係國內製造或國外製造？ 應均非所問。

TCA-數位權利管理資訊(1/2) 第八十條之一 不得移除或變更著作權人所為之權利管理電子資訊。除 因行為時之技術限制，非移除或變更著作權利管理電子資訊即不能合法利用該著作。 錄製或傳輸系統轉換時，因技術上之必要而移除或變更 明知著作之權利管理電子資訊，業經非法移除或變更者，不得發行或為發行而進口或持有該著作原件或拷貝。亦不得公開播送、公開演出或公開傳輸

TCA-數位權利管理資訊(2/2) 權利管理電子資訊： 於著作原件或其拷貝中，或於著作向公眾傳達時，所攜帶之足以確認著作、著作名稱、著作權人、著作財產權人或其授權之人及利用期間或條件之相關電子資訊。此類資訊包括數字或符號

TCA-違反之法律效果(1/2) 第九十條之三（民事責任） 第九十六條之一（刑事責任） 違反第八十條之一或第八十條之二規定，致著作權人受損害者，負賠償責任。數人共同違反者，負連帶賠償責任。 第九十六條之一（刑事責任） 有下列情形之一者，處一年以下有期徒刑、拘役，或科或併科新臺幣二萬 元以上二十五萬元以下罰金： 一、違反第八十條之一規定者。 二、違反第八十條之二第二項規定 者。 ( 自己的規避行為不罰) 告訴乃論

TCA-違反之法律效果(2/2) 個人的自助規避行為 有民事責任（但應該賠多少？） 無刑事責任 準備行為 有民事責任 有刑事責任

Conclusion 規避行為到底造成什麼權利受損？ 技術保護將衍生更多的問題 對於一般的消費者，並無太大影響 對於台灣的科技產業？

German – 出賣人負標示義務 權利人應該以標示方式告知消費者其是否採取技術保護措施、措施支應、有何限制，供消費者判斷是否願意，以及願意以什麼價格購買。 德國目前並沒有任何案例出現。

German - DRM & Fair Use 德國：權利人若依著作權法規定，採取合法接觸技術保護措施，應在受益人得著作或保護標的時，提供其在必要範圍內得以使用各該規定之必要手段。 司法與公共安全 供教堂、學校或授課使用 供個人學術上使用 …………..

USA-The TEACH Act The Technology Education and Copyright Harmonization Act was passed into law in the USA in November 2002. To support education by explicitly allowing reproduction of copyrighted material for certain educational purposes, without requiring permission or compensation . Where it gets interesting is when TEACH meets the DMCA.