The effect of the Digital Economy Act 2010 upon 'semiotic democracy'

International Review of Law, Computers and Technology

Volumn 24, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 251-262

  Griffin, James G H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Copyright; Digital Economy Act; Semiotic democracy

Indexed keywords

EID: 78649241256     PISSN: 13600869     EISSN: 13646885     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13600869.2010.522325     Document Type: Article

References (84)

1. A. Mann, 'Digital Controversy Bill', http://www.bristows.com/?pid=46&nid=1491&level=2 (last accessed 9 June 2010).
2. K. Howson, 'Digital Economy An Orwellian Nightmare"', http://www.top10-broadband.co.uk/news/2010/01/digital_economy_bill_an_orwellian_nightmare_/ (last accessed 9 June 2010).
3. C. Donstone, 'Monday View', http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1244025/MONDAY-VIEW-The-copyright-crackdown-pay-for.html (last accessed 9 June 2010)
4. M. Reisz, 'Digital Copyright Will Be Burdonsome', http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=410184&c=1 (last accessed 9 June 2010)
5. Anon, 'Digital Economy Bill Could Provide Citizen Backlash', http://www.techeye.net/internet/digital-economy-bill-could-provoke-citizen-backlash (last accessed 9 June 2010).
6. K. Allen, 'Internet Companies Urge Mandelson to Delete Clause', http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/dec/02/digital-economy-bill-google-facebook (last accessed 9
7. June 2010)
8. Anon, 'Digital Economy Bill Could Breach Rights', http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/ technology/8500876.stm (last accessed 9 June 2010)
9. E. Berridge, 'Digital Economy Bill Breaches Human Rights', http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1590819/digital-economy-bill-breaches-human-rights (last accessed 9 June 2010).
10. T. Ballard, 'Clause 17 of the Digital Economy Bill', http://blog.harbottle.com/dm/?p=29 (last accessed 9 June 2010).
11. For information about the tracking of individuals online, which is related to this, see The Register, available at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/12/davenport_lyons_acs_law/ (last accessed 9 June 2010).
12. J. Fiske, Television Culture (London: Methuen, 1987), 239.
13. W. Fisher, Promises to Keep (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2004), 28-9
14. S. Vaidhyanathan, The Anarchist in the Library (New York: Basic Books, 2004), 77-8.
15. S. Katyal, 'Semiotic Disobedience', Washington University Law Review 84 (2006): 489.
16. Y. Benkler, 'From Consumers to Users: Shifting the Deeper Structures of Regulation Toward Sustainable Commons and User Access', Federal Communications Law Journal 3 (1998): 561
17. L. Lessig, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace (New York: Basic Books, 1999)
18. A. Murray, The Regulation of Cyberspace (Abingdon, UK: Routledge-Cavendish, 2007), chap. 4.
19. J. Hughes, '"Recoding Intellectual Property and Overlooked Audience Interests', Texas Law Review 77 (1999): 923.
20. Hughes, Recoding, and Fisher, Promises to Keep, 35, and for a similar view see HM Treasury, Gowers Review of Intellectual Property (London: The Stationery Office, 2006), 67.
21. For general discussion of the economic impact of recipients entering into competition with the right holder, see W. Landes and R. Posner, 'An Economic Analysis of Copyright Law', Journal of Legal Studies 18 (1989): 325
22. H. Demsetz, Economic, Legal and Political Dimensions of Competition (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1982).
23. Fisher, Promises to Keep, 31.
24. Fisher, Promises to Keep, 28-9
25. Vaidhyanathan, Anarchist in the Library, 77-8.
26. Katyal, 'Semiotic Disobedience', 489.
27. Benkler, 'From Consumers to Users', 561.
28. Lessig, Code and Other Laws, 87
29. J. Bentham, The Panopticon Writings, ed. Miran Bozovic (London: Verso, 1995).
30. H. Rheingold, The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier (New York: HarperPerennial, 1994), 289.
31. For other interpretations, see K. Robins and F. Webster, 'Cybernetic Capitalism: Information, Technology, Everyday Life', in The Political Economy of Information, ed. V. Mosko and J. Wasko (Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1988).
32. John Perry Barlow, 'The Economy of Ideas', Wired Magazine 2, no. 3 (March 1994).
33. G. Putnam, Authors and Their Public in Ancient Times (New York: Knickerbocker Press, 1893.
34. For later developments, see R. Bowker, 'Copyright: Its history and Law' (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1912)
35. C. Montalembert, The Monks of the West (London: Ballantyne Press, 1896.
36. For information concerning the Stationers' Guild, see B. Kaplan, An Unhurried View of Copyright (New York: Columbia University Press, 1966), 3
37. E. Arber, ed., 'Introduction', in A Transcript of the Registers of the Company of Stationers of London, 1554-1640, vol. I (London: Privately Printed, 1967), xxxi.
38. H. Ransom, The First Copyright Statute (Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1956).
39. For further information, see Bowker, 'Copyright', 9.
40. Kaplan, Unhurried View of Copyright, 3.
41. In re Verizon Internet Services Inc. 240 F. Supp. 2d 24, 26 (D.D.C. 2003)
42. In re Verizon Internet Services Inc. 257 F. Supp. 2d 244, 246-47 (D.D.C. 2003).
43. A. Kao, 'RIAA v. Verizon: Applying the Subpoena Provision of the DMCA', Berkeley Technology Law Journal 19 (2004): 405.
44. For details concerning similar arrangements in the UK, see Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR), Consultation on Legislative Options to Address Illicit Peer-to-Peer (P2P) File-Sharing (London: BERR, 2008) available at http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file47139.pdf (last accessed 9 June 2010). The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is at 47.
45. Recording Industry Association of America Inc. v. Verizon Internet Services Inc. 351 F.3d 1229 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
46. The MOU is to be found in BERR, Consultation on Legislative Options, 47.
47. For a discussion of such technologies, see Metro-Golden-Meyer Studios Inc. v. Grokster Ltd.,518 F.Supp. 2d 1197 (C.D. Cal., 2007).
48. For example, see http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=doMD-ORPPZA
49. Ransom, First Copyright Statute, 70-1
50. Kaplan, Unhurried View of Copyright.
51. G. Davies, K. Garnett and Harbottle, eds, Copinger and Skone James on Copyright (15th ed.) (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2005), 9-13.
52. N. Helberger and P. Hugenholtz, 'No Place Like Home for Making a Copy: Private Copying in European Copyright Law and Consumer Law', Berkeley Technology Law Journal 22, (2007): 1061 at 1061-2
53. B. Rosenblatt, B. Trippe and S. Mooney, Digital Rights Management: Business and Technology (New York: M&T Books, 2002), 3.
54. Rosenblatt Digital Rights Management, 3.
55. J. Griffin, 'The Rise of the Digital Technology Meritocracy: Legal Rules and Their Impact' Information and Communications Technology Law 15, no. 3 (2006): 211
56. J. Griffin, '300 Years of Copyright Law: Time for a Change?', John Marshall Journal of Computer and Information Law (forthcoming 2010).
57. N. Netanel, 'Impose a Non-commercial Use Levy to Allow Free Peer to Peer File Sharing', Harvard Journal of Law and Technology 17 (2003): 1.
58. Griffin, 'Rise of the Digital Technology'.
59. Enigmax, 'This is How We Catch You Downloading', http://torrentfreak.com/this-is-how-we-catch-you-downloading/
60. M. Piatek, T. Kohno, and A. Krishnamurthy, 'Challenges and Directions for Monitoring P2P File Sharing Networks', http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/uwcse_dmca_tr.pdf (last accessed 9 June 2010).
61. Bentham, Panopticon Writings.
62. Davies, Copinger and Skone James.
63. Consumer Focus, 'Time to Change the Tune', February 2010, available at http://www.consumerfocus.org.uk/assets/1/files/2010/02/Consumer-Focus-Time-to-change-the-tune1.pdf.
64. The report includes data from a sample of 2026 individuals. See also D. Worth, 'UK Public in the Dark Over Copyright Law', http://www.v3.co.uk/v3/news/2258445/british-public-remain-dark (last accessed 9 June 2010).
65. HM Treasury, Gowers Review, 68.
66. Designers Guild v. Williams [2001] 1 WLR 2416
67. Baigent and Leigh v. Random House Publishing [2007] FSR 247
68. for further detail see Davies, Copinger and Skone James, Ch. 7.
69. Kipling v. Genatosan Ltd (1917-23), MacG CC 203
70. Farnald v. Jay Lewis Production Ltd [1975] FSR 499.
71. Walter v. Lane [1900] AC 539 at 545.
72. Griffin, '300 Years of Copyright Law', forthcoming.
73. Universal City Studios Inc. v. Reimerdes 82 F.Supp.2d 211 (SDNY, 2000)
74. Universal City Studios Inc. v. Corley 273 F.3d 429 (2nd Circuit, 2001).
75. Particularly in relation to smaller Internet websites, who may not be able to afford to indemnify the ISP for costs. For general discussion see inter alia Anon, 'ISP Providers Outraged', http://8el.com/news/industry-news/isp-providers-outraged-at-digital-economy-19652564.html (last accessed 9 June 2010)
76. Anon, 'Youtube Under Threat from Digital Economy Bill Changes', http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/7368174/YouTube-under-threat-from-Digital-Economy-Bill-changes.html (last accessed 9 June 2010)
77. D. Meyer, 'ISPs Attack Misguided Site Blocking Plan', http://news.zdnet.co.uk/communications/010000000854007058300.htm (last accessed 9 June 2010).
78. Griffin, '300 Years of Copyright Law'.
79. See inter alia Netanel, 'Impose a Non-commercial Use Levy'; Fisher, Promises to Keep.
80. For example, Consider the case of Designers Guild [2001] 1 WLR 2416, which ran for 4 years.
81. C. Williams, Major Law Firm Drops Filesharing Threats.
82. Griffin, 'Rise of the Digital Technology'.
83. Gyles v. Wilcox 27 Eng. Rep. 682.
84. E. Barnett, 'TalkTalk Would Fight Digital Economy Bill in Court', http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/7079982/TalkTalk-would-fight-Digital-Economy-Bill-in-court.html (last accessed 9 June 2010)