Return to Cyberlaw Home Page and Contents
Return to Nicholas Johnson Home Page
This paper explores legal issues relating to the increasing use of video technologies in communication. The potential issues discussed might arise out of a fictional proposed plan for a joint venture between two major corporations, Concert and Global Telecom, Media and Electronics, Inc. (GTME), to provide videoconferencing services in Taiwan.
First, background information on Taiwan is presented, followed by a look at of some of the companies currently doing business in Taiwan.
Next, the telecommunications company Concert, a company that joins MCI and British Telecom (BT) is discussed.
Then a basic explanation of the techniques used in videoconferencing is followed by a presentation of legal issues, focusing on copyright, that may arise from the technology and services provided.
Taiwan , formally the Republic of China on Taiwan, possesses an interesting history as well as a promising future. Its twenty-one and a half million citizens[1] contribute to one of the world's strongest economies, ranked thirteenth among the industrialized nations.[2] Moreover, Taiwan has transformed its government into one of Asia's most open democracies.[3]
Economy. Taiwan has quickly transformed its economy from a primarily agricultural based economy in the 1950's to a highly industrialized one today.[4] Currently over seventy-five percent of the population lives in urban areas,[5] with most of the population living on the western side of the island.[6] Corresponding to the population density pattern, the industrial and service sectors employ roughly seventy-five percent of the workforce.[7] Over ninety-five percent of Taiwan's substantial exports consist of industrial goods, mainly electronics and appliances.[8] With this rapid industrialization, the standard of living of the Taiwanese has quickly and steadily increased; the current average household income is $35,000.[9] The country's Gross Domestic Product is rapidly increasing while the rate of inflation remains relatively low.10 Virtually nonexistent unemployment currently stands at a steady 1.3%.[11]
Culture. The Taiwanese value education[12] and accordingly the literacy rate is ninety-three percent.[13]
Transportation and "virtual meetings." Transportation and other infrastructures such as utility services are highly developed, often thought to be second only to Japan in southeast Asia.[14] However, similar to Japan, the dense population continues to create difficulties for travel in general and commuting in particular.[15] Few people own a car, but motorbikes are common.[16] The government is building a new public rail system, both above and below ground, to help combat congestion and facilitate commuting, but construction delays are significantly increasing the cost while doing little to ease the problem.[17] A recent crisis involving taxis adds to the transportation problem. Over thirty-seven percent of the licensed taxi drivers are released felons.[18] This situation has resulted in a number of missing persons -- and even a murder attributed to a taxi driver,[19] which has discouraged the use of taxis and increased the burden on other modes of transportation.
For these reasons, the use of "virtual" meetings instead of "physical" meetings should prove popular in Taiwan.
The Political Situation. An intriguing aspect of Taiwan lies in its political history and current political situation.[20]
Throughout history, Taiwan has been ruled by the Imperial Chinese, the Japanese, and then again by Chinese nationals, not to mention attempts by Europeans to colonize the island.[21] Japan controlled the island until the end of World War II when the Communists took control of China, forcing the Chinese Nationalists to set up a government-in-exile on Taiwan, claiming to be the government of mainland China.[22]
This Taiwanese government, one of the founders of the United Nations holding a permanent seat on the Security Council, was recognized internationally for years as the legitimate government of China and attempted to operate in that capacity.[23] However, in the 1970's the international community slowly began to recognize the People's Republic of China as the rightful government of mainland China.[24] Taiwan lost its seat in the United Nations to the Communist regime in 1971,[25] and the United States severed diplomatic relations with Taiwan upon its recognition of the People's Republic in 1978.[26]
Curiously, both Taiwan and China maintain that Taiwan is an integral part of China.[27] The western press frequently characterizes China's attitude toward Taiwan as one of a rogue province. The government of Taiwan recently abandoned its claim as the legitimate government for all of China and is currently practicing "pragmatic" diplomacy with China, establishing independent diplomatic relations, and trying to regain membership at the United Nations.[28]
Currently Taiwan is opening its telecommunications industry to competition and foreign investment.[29] On January 14, 1997, the government awarded cellular phone network licenses to AT&T, GTE, Sprint, Deutsche Telekom, and SBC[30] -- each with a Taiwanese partner[31] -- and it is preparing to sell shares in the government-run Chung Hwa Telecommunications Corporation, allowing up to sixty percent foreign ownership.
Since Taiwan is an important growing market in Asia, many "global" corporations have some type of presence on the island. One company with a current "token" presence and future expansion plans is MCI. MCI maintains an office in Taipei that offers limited services, but it did not win one of the new cellular licenses. In order to bolster its image as a truly global telecommunications company, MCI must expand its position in Taiwan.
On November 3, 1996, British Telecom (BT) and MCI announced a carefully constructed merger under the name Concert, the name used by their current international joint venture.[32] A "takeover" of MCI by BT may be a more accurate description since BT is buying the remaining eighty percent of MCI that it does not already own. This "merger" creates the first truly global telecommunications company "with 43 million customers in 72 countries, ventures in 15 countries, and . . . services [in] every country in the world."[33] This new company "will offer an integrated set of products and services including local calling, long distance, wireless, Internet/intranet, global communications, conferencing, systems integration/consulting, call center services, multimedia and trading systems."[34]
The companies characterize the transaction as a merger for several reasons. First, each company wants to reassure its customers; MCI wants its customers to know that MCI will have an equal voice in the new company while BT wants its customers to know that the merged company will retain MCI's reputation for spirited customer service orientation and quick integration of new technologies. Second, each company has an equal number of customers, with MCI's growth rate and profit per employee much higher than those of BT.[35] Finally, both companies hope that by calling the acquisition a merger the regulatory authorities will be more likely to approve the transaction.
The merger requires approval by the English and American governments as well as the European Union.[36] A deal of this size involving transatlantic companies will be closely analyzed by the authorities. There are many hurdles to clear, but the merger has a good chance of approval[37] and has already been approved by the European Union.[38] The new company, Concert, is optimistically projected by the partners to begin operations on January 1, 1998, the date of the opening of European telecommunications markets.[39]
There are several reasons behind the proposal to furnish videoconference services to Taiwan. These factors include Taiwan's high level of technology, technological acceptance and skill of the citizens, and well-developed telecommunications infrastructure.[40] When combined with its expanding export market and its semi-isolated geographic location, increased use of video conferencing will likely prove popular. Taiwanese companies with offices and plants on mainland China or other countries will benefit from the use of video technologies in lieu of the frequently difficult and always time-consuming travel.
Videoconferencing comes in many forms with various levels of quality, cost, and methods of delivery.[41] Currently, setting up a quality video conference can be a long, involved and expensive process. Specialized equipment must be either bought, rented, or provided and set up by a video conference provider. The equipment is costly and still prone to less than ideal operation.[42]
NetworkMCI currently provides video conferencing services. MCI's technology labs have developed a technique to compress four channels of information into one signal so that a single phone line can carry voice, picture, documents, and other data simultaneously. Videoconferencing can currently be configured to include all of these elements. With document conferencing, users at all sites can collaborate on a single document, each making changes. The basic advantage of MCI's new technology is that it makes these services easier and cheaper to provide by using only one line instead of four.
With the increasing availability and affordability of computer cameras and Internet phoning, the day will arrive when users can call up anyone in the world and see the other person while talking to him or her, all at a low cost. Until these services are implemented and available to less technically sophisticated consumers at a higher quality, a company can provide the service to the public at a lower cost by building videoconferencing centers in business districts to allow customers to talk "face to face" with people around the globe.
Given the level of 1997 technology, the proposal involves the creation of several video conferencing centers within a few blocks of the major business offices in Taipei. Of course, these videoconferencing centers could also provide on-site service to the business offices. But most of the emphasis would be on attracting people to the Concert videoconferencing stores containing high quality video meeting rooms.
An increased use of videoconferencing through the Internet and other channels raises a range of potential legal problems, the largest dealing with privacy and copyright.[43] There are privacy issues that stem from increasing use of videocameras to observe others, such as the "webcam" that was pointed at a street corner 24 hours a day, enabling anyone to visit the web page and see what is happening. While it is true that it is a public street corner and there should be no expectation of privacy, these webcams can be anywhere and watching anything.
As computers and networks become faster, bandwidth wider, and storage space larger, people will use communication technologies to contact and meet with others regardless of location. The video data generated, like all digital media, can be captured and stored in various forms. If a "traditional" video conference is taking place, either party can easily record the session on videotape using an inexpensive and widely available videocassette recorder (VCR). If the videoconference occurs between desktop computers equipped with video cameras, the digital signal could be preserved on a hard drive. In the majority of cases, such "videophone" conversations would be no more likely to be preserved than conventional voice phone conversations are likely to be audio tape recorded today.
However, the technology lends itself to easy broad or point to point distribution of a "speech" or other quasi-formal presentation. In this context, videoconferencing can create various thorny issues involving copyright and privacy issues. First, the issues will be discussed under United States law, and then some differences under Taiwanese law will be noted.
Privacy. "Virtual meetings" may raise privacy problems that would not occur in a conventional face-to-face meeting.
Videoconferencing facilities are still relatively crude. Most do not enable either side the ability to view the whole room in the other location. Some facilities have multiple cameras that can be manipulated to a limited degree by the absent party, but they do not provide the range of vision of "being there."
At the same time, the experience may lull an inexperienced participant into the illusion that the experience is the same. This could lead to difficulties. For example, imagine two business associates in different locations videoconferencing on their desktop computers. One of them thinks that the other is in a closed office and the conversation is private. In fact, someone walks into one of their offices but is not on camera and therefore unknown to the other party. What are the implications if a potentially defamatory remark is made that was meant to be private, but is overheard by a third party? Is the unknowing speaker liable for slander?[44]
Further, the increasing ease of manipulation of digital data allows people with little technical knowledge or skill to alter and instantaneously distribute all types of data to many users with little effort. A person could edit a video clip, either on a VCR or a computer, choose inappropriate comments, and reassemble sequences altering the intended message. Such possibilities raise both copyright and privacy rights.
However, this paper focuses on copyright issues. The basic example consists of a videoconference presentation of a proposal to a potential customer by another firm (for example, an ad campaign or new production technique). Even though it may not consist of extremely novel ideas, it still qualifies as an original work of authorship.[45] Or perhaps an outside expert gives a speech. Or a consultant provides a training session to the company's employees. Copying and rebroadcasting this type of videoconference by a company involves obvious copyright issues.
Copyright Issues Under United States Law
First, is a recording of a videoconference copyrighted and if so, by whom? Under United States law,[46] a work is automatically protected by copyright as soon as it is recorded.[47] This protection applies to "audiovisual works," which includes video recordings.[48]
However, in order to ascertain whether the work is actually protected by an enforceable copyright, a deeper analysis is necessary. A videotaped presentation in a videoconference is arguably an original work "of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which [it] can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device."[49] Therefore, a recorded videoconference would enjoy copyright protection. It should be noted that the statute requires a work to be fixed in a tangible medium, so an unrecorded videoconference would not be protected by the act. Of course, a transcript of the presentation as delivered, or the speech text, could be considered "fixed in a tangible medium" and protected by copyright. Further, "[i]n no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work [emphasis added]."[50]
From this definition of works protected by copyright, a recorded presentation may be covered by copyright, but the ideas presented are not.
An argument can be made that any work of authorship that is recorded is intended to be covered under the copyright law. However, with the increasing ease and numerous ways of recording data, it can be argued that such protection will become unwieldy and generally unenforceable.
For example, concert-goers recording music concerts violate copyright protection laws.[51] This is why concert tickets inform the purchaser that video and tape recorders as well as cameras are prohibited and will be confiscated. Even with this protection, a widespread practice of secretly recording (or "bootlegging") a concert exists. After years of strict enforcement of their rights in this area, music groups are beginning to waive their copyright protections. Some actually encourage fans to record the concert and then sell or trade copies of the tapes.[52]
This type of situation might extend to other areas of recording. Because of increasing amounts of copying and the low transaction costs involved in copying, the enforcement of a copyright against an "insignificant" violator will likely be ignored. This looming issue grows from the increasing ease and speed of transferring electronic data around the world.[53] Currently, video information can be placed on the internet as a QuickTime file[54] and downloaded from the World Wide Web (the Web) through browser software. These files can easily be sent to or retrieved from virtually anywhere in the world.[55] A company could place a video file containing a copyrighted presentation on its computers for the employees to view. The file might be accessed by someone from outside the company due to the generally insecure nature of the Internet. Or an employee might send the video file to others. These methods may constitute unauthorized "distribution" of the copyrighted material and violate the copyright law.[56]
Similarly, some music groups currently place QuickTime files of their performances on the web. They hold the copyright to the performance and therefore have the right to distribute the file by allowing others to view it on their web site. However, when someone views it on the web, the file is normally transferred to his or her computer. It is then possible to send the file to a Listserv[57] which in turn copies and sends the file to thousands of people. That person is probably violating copyright laws by publicly distributing the copyrighted material even though everyone who receives the file could easily view the file by visiting the web site if the offender had simply provided the web address to everyone.
Internet users may not consider actions such as the one described as breaking the law, or more likely it may be viewed as a small, possible infringement. Perhaps actions like this should not be a violation of the law because it may contribute to a large number of law-breakers. Unless greater instances of casual, non-profit use of copyrighted materials are allowed under the law, the law may become frequently ignored and practically irrelevant. Perhaps the "fair use" provision[58] will need to be loosely interpreted by the courts to accommodate new technologies and usage patterns or the fair use language broadened by the legislature to allow limited usage of copyrighted material in more situations.
As noted, there are several difficulties in protecting recorded videoconference presentations. The preliminary question regarding protection relates to ownership and therefore the right of enforcement of the copyright.
Copyright Ownership
Generally, the owner of a copyright is the author who created the work.[59] However, generally the employer, and not the presenter, may be the copyright owner. If an employer is paying for the employee to create and give a presentation, both the work product and any resulting copyrights belong to the employer[60] and under the copyright act is called work made for hire.[61]
In a presentation of a business proposal by an outside firm, the facts control the analysis. If one company hires another to submit a proposal on a certain topic, or to provide a consultancy report, although the consultant would be the "author" of the videotaped presentation, the contract may well specify otherwise.[62] If not, since the outside consultant is not an employee, the rights remain with him or her. Similarly, if an outside company contacts a business and sets up a videoconference in order to present a proposal, the ownership rights are the author's. The recorded videotape cannot be used by the company being solicited in a way that would violate the copyright act.
Joint Work
Frequently, a recorded videoconference session will contain segments from different presenters who speak about different topics. Also, as the use of video conferencing increases and people become more comfortable with the technology, it is possible for competing companies to make successive initial proposals, such as advertising campaigns, from their offices across the country or the globe to a prospective client in another location. If the client records the presentations on one videotape, can the client show the entire tape to the firm that ultimately wins its business?
When more than one author creates a work, as may be the case in a videoconference, joint authorship may create co-ownership of the copyright.[63] However, the interpretation of joint ownership by the courts often make it a tricky right to create. The act defines joint work as "work prepared by one or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole."[64] The creation of a joint work under this definition creates a problem since courts often require that each persons contribution be a separate copyrightable work and that the parties have the intent to create a joint, unitary work.[65] If a videoconference essentially contains only a presentation broadcast to other sites without interaction -- the most common use today -- then joint work problems are not likely to arise.
Of course, the situation becomes more complex when dealing with interactive presentations involving other companies and also people from other countries. The issue becomes whether the company intends to create a joint work with the other company. If two or more companies collaborate on a project and become joint owners of the copyright, then anyone wishing to rebroadcast or distribute the recorded copy of the video would have to get each copyright owner's permission. In the international setting, a detailed analysis based upon the citizenship of the parties and the agreements between the countries involved is necessary to determine the rights and duties involved in the international creation or use of copyright protection.
Copyright Issues Under Taiwanese Law
Taiwan recently strengthened its copyright protections, passing new laws in 1992[66] and agreeing to a separate and additional, more protective treaty with the United States in 1993.[67] These new laws are generally similar to world conventions such as the Berne Convention and were instituted to facilitate Taiwan's relationships and dealings with other nations.[68] However, Taiwan is not a member of the Berne Convention, nor of the Uniform Copyright Convention. Taiwan's lack of participation in these agreements may be due to its uncertain status as a political entity in international affairs.
In order to understand this relatively recent Taiwan law, a step-by-step analysis of copyright protection for a videotape under the law follows.
First, under Chapter I, Article 5, "works" which can be copyrighted are defined.[69] Video recording falls under number seven, audiovisual works, as shown in the illustrations.[70] This broad description attempts to cover technologies that may be developed in the future by describing "images which could be fixed to any medium with or without sound to be shown by a mechanical device or equipment."[71] So video recordings are covered by copyright. Next, a copyright fixes "upon completion of a work,"[72] which is similar to United States law. At this point, differences begin to show. The Taiwanese law recognizes copyright as having both moral and economic rights,[73] following the civil law model.[74] The moral rights deal with integrity issues related to the work and are non-transferable and also non-destructible in Taiwan.[75] What the Taiwanese law refers to as the economic rights are the sole focus of United States copyright law, and involve the right to control the distribution of the work.[76]
Taiwanese law defines a joint work as "work completed by two or more persons, where their contributions can not be used separately."[77] This construction leads to a different analysis of the situation presented than under United States law. The intention to create a joint work is not necessary, and the ability to distinguish separate copyrightable parts is not required, unlike the current United States law. However, in transactions with the United States, the agreement between the countries was made to "enhance the rights of authors"[78] and increases protection above those of each respective country. The base applicable law is that of either country, and the rights of a United States citizen rest in United States law, and similarly, Taiwanese law is the starting point for Taiwanese citizens.
There are many unanswered questions regarding copyright law in the face of new technologies that facilitate copying and transferring data. This paper has focused on a small issue that could arise from trying to apply existing copyright laws to the expanding use of digital video transmissions resulting from video conferencing technologies. The enforceability of copyrights has always been difficult, with enforcement actions being pursued against only the most egregious offenders. With the increasing pace of technological development, the burden of copyright enforcement will only increase, resulting in a practically complete inability to preserve present day copyrights. Yet copyright protection is necessary to encourage creativity by offering an economic incentive to the author. An acceptable solution that can encompass and expand to embrace new developments in technology is needed to solve this dilemma. Perhaps some new technology will also provide the solution.
NOTE: All web sites were last visited on May 26, 1997.
1 1996 CIA Factbook, The World Factbook page on Taiwan at <http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/nsolo/factbook/tw.htm> [hereinafter Factbook].
2 Brent Hannon, Taipei in Transition, Asia, Inc., March 1996. <http://www.asia-inc.com/archive/1996/0396taipei.html>
3 Taiwan: Less provincial, The Economist, Jan. 25, 1997 at 35.
4 See Factbook, supra note 1.
5 Id.
6 Id.
7 More specifically, 53% of workers are in the industrial sector and 22% in services. The World Almanac and Book of Facts 1997, at 823 (Robert Famighetti ed. 1996).
8 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., Taiwan in 28 The New Encyclopaedia Britannic 387, 391 (1988).
9 See Factbook, supra note 1.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 See Encyclopaedia Britannica, supra note 8, at 392.
13 See Factbook, supra note 1
14 Id.
15 See 14. Transportation - 1996 R.O.C. YearBook: Urban Traffic at <http://www.gio.gov.tw/info/yearbook/f_html/ch14_5.html#ch14_0>
16 Encyclopaedia Britannica, supra note 8, at 391.
17 See Hannon, supra note 2.
18 See Taiwan's Dangerous Cab Drivers, Asia Times, Dec. 6, 1996 at <http://www.asiatimes.com/96/12/06/06129607.html>
19 Id.
20 See generally, 4. History - 1996 R.O.C. YearBook at <http://www.gio.gov.tw/info/yearbook/ch04.html>
21 See Encyclopaedia Britannica, supra note 8, at 391.
22 Id.
23 Id.
24 Id.
25 Id.
26 See World Almanac, supra note 7.
27 Id.
28 In 1995, Taiwan offered the United Nations $1 billion for membership after two prior failed attempts at acceptance. Political Handbook of the World: 1995-1996, at 193, 196 (Aruthur S. Banks et al. eds., 1995).
29 See generally, 16. Mass Media -- 1996 R.O.C. Year Book: Telecommunications at <http://www.gio.gov.tw/info/yearbook/f_html/ch16_4.html#ch16_0>
30 See AT&T Unit's Venture Wins Two Licenses For Taiwan Networks, Wall St. J., Jan. 14, 1997 at B9.
31 The joint ventures include the Far EasTone group of Taiwan with AT&T joined with the Far Eastern Group; a joint venture between Pacific Electric Wire & Cable of Taiwan and GTE Corp.; Taiwan's Koos Group and Sprint Corp.; Tuntex Group, a Taiwanese petrochemical company, and the First Pacific group from Hong Kong; a Taiwanese appliance maker, Teco Electric & Machinery and Deutsch Telekom; and Formosa Plastics Group with SBC Corp. Id.
32 The joint venture is called Concert Communication Services. See Concert Homepage <http://www.concert.com/english/index.htm>. See also CONCERT <http://www.concert.com>.
33 BT-MCI Merger Fact Sheet at <http://investor.mci.com>
The countries where MCI currently has a presence include: Argentina, Australia, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Germany, Greece, Guam, Guatemala, Haiti, Hong Kong, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Korea, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Netherlands Antilles, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Puerto Rico, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Taiwan, Thailand, Trinidad/Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, United Kingdom, Uruguay, and Venezuela. MCI Worldwide Locations at <http://investor.mci.com/annual_reports/ar_1996/Locations.html>.
International Joint Ventures through Concert include:
Avantel in Mexico, Clear Communications in New Zealand, VIAG Interkom in Germany, BT Telecommicaciones in Spain, Albacom in Italy, CEGETEL in France, Telenor in Norway, TeleDanmark in Denmark, Telenordia in Sweden, Telfort in the Netherlands, Network Information Service Company Ltd (NIS) and ITJ in Japan, DACOM in South Korea, WIPRO in India, Belize Telecommunications Limited (BTL) in Belize. About Concert: Distributors at <http://www.concert.com/english/about/ally.htm>.
MCI has further investments in, or joint ventures with: Stentor in Canada, The News Corporation Limited, Nationwide Cellular Service, Inc., In-Flight Phone Corporation, Inc., ICS Communications, Inc., Darome Teleconferencing, Inc., and SHL Systemhouse Inc. MCI Worldwide Locations <http://investor.mci.com/annual_reports/ar_1995/worldwide.html>.
34 Id.
35 John J. Keller et al. Phone Tag: BT Secures Its Place Among Telecom Titans With MCI Takeover, Wall St. J., Nov. 4, 1996, at A1.
36 Id.
37 Id.
38 Business This Week, The Economist, May 17, 1997 at <http://www.economist.com/issue/17-05-97/bw0787.html> ("Although it attached some conditions, the European Union cleared the $20 billion transatlantic merger between BT and MCI that will create a telecom group called Concert. Now the deal must clear American regulatory hurdles").
39 Keller, supra note 35.
40 See Factbook, supra note 1.
41 For instance, computer users can use relatively inexpensive software and hardware products such as CU-See Me <http://www.cu-seeme.com> and a Connectix QuickCam <http://www.quickcam.com> to communicate using video technology and the Internet. See Stephen H. Wildstrom, Desktop Video: No Longer A Toy, Business Week, June 2, 1997 at <http://www.businessweek.com/1997/22/b352952.htm>.
The options progress through higher quality equipment and the use of proprietary networks up to a professional-level service such as NetworkMCI.
42 For example, the University of Iowa International Business Student's Association organized a videoconference between Hong Kong and Iowa using a professional service. However, the video signal continually cut out until finally the presentation ended as audio-only.
43 See generally Information Infrastructure Task Force Bruce A. Lehman, Chair, The Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure: The Report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights (also known as the White Paper) [hereinafter White Paper] at <http://www.law.vill.edu/chron/articles/nii/nii.htm> (proposing needed changes to the copyright law because of unforeseen technological development).
44 See generally Todd Woody, When Liable Goes Digital, Intellectual Property (1996) <http://www.ipmag.com/woodyng.html>.
45 See generally Michael A. Epstein, Modern Intellectual Property, ch. 7 (2d ed. 1992).
46 The Copyright Act of 1976, as amended, codified at 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq. (1988) [hereinafter 17 U.S.C. ] and available on-line at 17 USC TITLE 17 (01/24/94) at <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/>.
47 See 17 U.S.C. 401; 17 USC Sec. 4 (01/24/94) at <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/401.html>.
48 17 U.S.C. 102(a)(6), 17 USC Sec. 102 (01/24/94) at <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/102.html>.
49 17 U.S.C. 102(a), 17 USC Sec. 102 (01/24/94) at <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/102.html>.
50 17 U.S.C. 102(b), 17 USC Sec. 102 (01/24/94) at <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/102.html>.
51 The artist has the exclusive right to control the fixing of the performance in a permanent medium and the distribution of the recording. See 17 U.S.C. 102(b), 17 USC Sec. 102 (01/24/94) at <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/102.html>.
52 See Melanie Mesaros, Bootleg Live Recordings Available to Wider Audience, Daily Iowan, Mar. 5, 1997, at 5B.
53 See generally Internet Piracy of Copyrighted Works Signals Need for Legislation, at <http://www.cic.org/press5.html> (discussing a demonstration of the ease of transferring and copying data).
54 Apple QuickTime Home at <http://www.quicktime.apple.com>.
55 Id. See also White Paper, supra note 43.
56 What type of activities constitute "distribution" under the act has not been entirely settled. See, e.g., White Paper, supra note 43 at <http://www.law.vill.edu/chron/articles/nii/recom.htm#IVA1a> (discussing the current lack of clarity concerning whether transmission of electronic data is considered distribution).
57 A "Listserv" is the generic term for an electronic mailing list that users can subscribe to and receive information and participate in discussions relating to particular topics. Recorded video files are currently too large to efficiently send through a Listserv, but will not be in the near future.
58 17 U.S.C. 107, 17 USC Sec. 107 (01/24/94) at <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html>.
59 See 17 U.S.C. 201(a), 17 USC Sec. 102 (01/24/94) at <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/201.html>
60 See Paul D. Supnik, Works Made for Hire in the United States at <http://www.supnik.com/reid.htm> (discussing the work for hire doctrine and its application in the United States courts).
61 Work made for hire is defined as (1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or (2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work . . . if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire." 17 U.S.C. 101, 17 USC Sec. 101 (01/24/94) at <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/101.html>.
62 See Supnik, supra note 51.
63 Id. (The authors of a joint work are coowners [sic] of copyright in the work).
64 17 U.S.C. 101, 17 USC Sec. 101 (01/24/94) at <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/101.html>.
65 Anne Hiaring, Content and Control, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (1996) at <http://www.ipmag.com/hiar.html>.
66 See generally Copyright Committee, the Ministry of Interior, R.O.C., COPYRIGHT LAW at <http://www.moi.gov.tw/copright/html/e1-4-1a.htm> (last updated Dec. 25, 1995) [hereinafter Copyright Law].
67 See Agreement for the Protection of Copyright Between the Coordination Council for North American Affairs and the American Institute in Taiwan at <http://www.moi.gov.tw/copright/html/e1-4-1b.htm>.
68 See Berne Convention, As Revised at <http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html>. For example, Taiwan's law vests the rights for 50 years after the author's death or in certain other cases, for 50 years after the original publication. Copyright Law, Chapter III, 3(2) at <http://www.moi.gov.tw/copright/html/e1-4-1a3.htm>. This is the required term under the Berne Convention.
69 Copyright Law, Chapter II, 1, art. 5 at <http://www.moi.gov.tw/copright/html/e1-4-1a2.htm>.
70 "(7) Audio-visual works: shall include the images shown in any motion picture, videocassette, videodisc, on computer screen, and the other series of images which could be fixed to any medium with or without sound to be shown by a mechanical device or equipment." The Illustrated Contents of Each Kind of Works in Paragraph One, Article 5, of the Copyright Law at <http://www.moi.gov.tw/copright/html/e1-4-1d.htm> (last update Dec. 12, 1995).
71 Id.
72 Copyright Law, Chapter III, 1, art. 13 at <http://www.moi.gov.tw/copright/html/e1-4-1a3.htm>.
73 See generally Moral Rights, Copyright Law, Chapter III, 2 at <http://www.moi.gov.tw/copright/html/e1-4-1a3.htm#b> and Economic Rights, Copyright Law, Chapter III, 3 at <http://www.moi.gov.tw/copright/html/e1-4-1a3.htm#c>.
74 For a good discussion of the history and differences between moral and economic rights, see White Paper, supra note 43 at <http://www.law.vill.edu/chron/articles/nii/law6.htm#fn427>.
75 See Copyright Law, Chapter III, 2 art. 18, 21 at <http://www.moi.gov.tw/copright/html/e1-4-1a3.htm> (stating that the moral rights exist infinitely and cannot be transferred. After the author's death, they can be generally enforced following the intent of the author).
76 See Copyright Law, Chapter III, 3 at <http://www.moi.gov.tw/copright/html/e1-4-1a3.htm>.
77 Id.
78 Copyright Law, Chapter II, 1, art. 8 at <http://www.moi.gov.tw/copright/html/e1-4-1a2.htm>.
Return to Cyberlaw Home Page and Contents
Return to Nicholas Johnson Home Page