The Legal Environment for Copyright Protection and Trust Management in China
This paper surveys the legal and regulatory environment surrounding copyright protection technologies, focusing on China in particular. The paper begins with a discussion of some of the interactions between law and technology in copyright protection, which has led to the creation of international treaties to protect the technologies that protect copyrights. A comparison of the various national responses to these conventions is presented, followed by a discussion of the structure and development of the relatively advanced Chinese system for copyright protection technology. The last section outlines some of the unique challenges that have arisen in China for copyright protection technologies and the businesses that depend upon them.
DRM Licensing Design for Interactive Rebuilding of DTV in China
Digital Rights Management (DRM) is an efficient method to protect digital content in various applications such as Digital TV, IPTV, Video on Demand, etc. In China, the legal and administration systems, business models and industrial chain are different from those of other countries and therefore have special requirements on DRM technologies. In this paper, we propose a new licensing design to extend the classic DRM architecture where the new system takes into account the commercial integrity, central monitoring, and potential user scalability. We propose a licensing method of secure audit report and Mass-License, with architecture of linked License Portals and License Issuers as basic insurance. The extension does not impact on the security of former DRM systems, and is compatible with the PKI-based trust model.
A "Wiseguy"'s Approach to Information Products: Muscling Copyright and Patent into a Unitary Theory of Intellectual Property
For a time, it was fashionable for copyright scholars to make their mark by questioning the relationship between the First Amendment and the Copyright Clause.' They began by pointing out the inherent inconsistency between these two provisions, the constitutional clause granting Congress power to create law suppressing expression; the amendment barring Congress from creating law suppressing expression. The authors then argued that although the latter could be read as overriding the former, history indicates that this was not the intent, and that there are indeed principles within copyright providing for enough access to expression to make the two provisions work compatibly. Typically cited were a series of limits on the ability to acquire exclusive rights in information and other necessities of speech, including the dichotomy between ideas