Page 112 - A Study on the Role of UGC Platforms in Copyright Law:An Intermediary-oriented Approach
P. 112

A Study on the Role of UGC Platforms in Copyright Law:                                                                                       Chapter 4 Formulating a Non-commercial UGC Access Levy Scheme
              An Intermediary-oriented Approach

              the first sale doctrine only allows the UGC creator to distribute, not to access, the work
                                                   46
              without the copyright owner’s permission.  Extensive scholarly debate has followed over
              whether the first sale doctrine allows a user to access an access-controlled work after gaining
                               47
              a lawful copy of it.  Testing this, a proposal was made concerning access under the digital
                                                                          48
              first sale doctrine. However, it was rejected by the Copyright Office.  Thus, the first sale
              doctrine is still limited to restricting copyright owners’ distribution rights, not their access
              control rights. As the first sale doctrine normally does not apply to users who access an
              access-controlled work to create UGCs, there is no conflict between the access control right
              and the first sale doctrine.
                 2) Freedom of speech
                 Another complaint about the access control right has been its potential intervention
              in freedom of speech. Circumvention software exists in the form of computer code that is
                                                                                 49
              recognised as ‘speech’, and is therefore entitled to First Amendment protection.
                 This is not the first time a law has been challenged on the grounds that it violates the
              First Amendment. For example, the landmark case of States v. O’Brien concerned a dispute
              over whether a law (50 U.S.C. § 462(b)(3)) stifling the speech of anti-war protesters violated
              the First Amendment. The Supreme Court distinguished the nonspeech element from
              the speech element of an expression, and proposed widely cited criteria under which the
                                               50
              regulation of speech could be justified.  It stated as follows: ‘First, the regulation is within
              the constitutional power of the government. Second, the regulation furthers an important
              or substantial governmental interest. Third, the governmental interest is unrelated to the
              suppression of free expression (content neutral). Fourth, the incidental restriction on alleged
              First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest’. 51
                 Following closely on the heels of O’Brien, in subsequent cases determining the
              constitutionality of the anti-circumvention clause, the courts distinguished the restriction
              on the functional elements of speech from the restriction on its expressive features.  The
                                                                                       52
              46  Victor F. Calaba, ‘Quibbles'n Bits: Making a Digital First Sale Doctrine Feasible’ (2002) 9 Michigan Telecommunications
                 and Technology Law Review 1, 2.
              47  Ibid 2 (held that the first sale doctrine inherently allows users to access the work upon obtaining a lawful copy); Ginsburg,
                 ‘From Having Copies to Experiencing Works’ (n 22) 130 (suggests that the initial access is still under copyright owners’
                 control).
              48  Though some scholars appeal for a digital first sale doctrine to address works that are tethered to a particular device and
                 cannot be accessed in other devices, the DMCA Section 104 Report rejected, claiming that “the practice of tethering a
                 copy of a work to a particular hardware device does not appear to be widespread at this time, at least outside the context of
                 electronic books. Given the relative infancy of digital rights management, it is premature to consider any legislative change
                 at this time.” US Copyright Office, DMCA Section 104 Report (n 40).
              49  Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429, 445 (2d. Cir. 2001); Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes, 111
                 F.Supp.2d 294, 327 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); States v. Elcom, Ltd., 203 F. Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (N.D. Cal.2002).
              50  United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 377 (1968).
              51  Ibid.
              52  Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes, 111 F. Supp.2d 294, 326 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley,
                 273 F.3d 429, 442 (2d Cir. 2001); Bernstein v. United States Dep't of State, 922 F. Supp. 1426, 1434-36 (N.D. Cal, 1996);
                 United States v. Elcom Ltd., 203 F. Supp.2d 1111, 1128 62 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1736 (N.D. Cal.2002).


              • 98 •
   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117