†1997 Julie E. Cohen.
† Assistant Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh School of Law. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org. J.D. 1991, Harvard Law School. An earlier version of this paper was presented at a March 1997 conference on the WIPO Copyright Treaty co-sponsored by the American Committee for Interoperable Systems and Santa Clara University School of Law. I would like to thank the participants in that conference, in particular Peter Jaszi and Pamela Samuelson, for their thought-provoking comments, and Tom Zagorsky for research assistance.
1. See, e.g., U.S. DEP'T OF COMMERCE, INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE TASK FORCE, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND THE NATIONAL INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE: THE REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUP ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS 10-12, 177-78, 230 (1995) [hereinafter NII WHITE PAPER]; Jon Bing, The Contribution of Technology to the Identification of Rights, Especially in Sound and Audio-Visual Works: An Overview, 4 INT'L. J. L. & INFO. TECH. 234, 235-36 (1996); CHRISTOPHER BURNS, INC., COPYRIGHT MANAGEMENT AND THE NII: REPORT TO THE ENABLING TECHNOLOGIES COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN PUBLISHERS 15-16 (1996); Mark Stefik, Letting Loose the Light: Igniting Commerce in Electronic Publication, in INTERNET DREAMS: ARCHETYPES, MYTHS, AND METAPHORS 219, 220-22 (Mark Stefik, ed., 1996) [hereinafter Stefik, Letting Loose the Light] ("[C]omputers need not be blind instruments of copyright infringement. Properly designed digital systems can be more powerful and flexible instruments of trade in publications than any other medium.").
2. See Charles Clark, The Publisher in the Digital World, in INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES: PROCEEDINGS OF THE KNOWRIGHT '95 CONFERENCE 85, 97-101 (Klaus Brunnstein & Peter Paul Sint, eds., 1995); Stefik, supra note 1, at 226-34; Mark Stefik, Shifting the Possible: How Digital Property Rights Challenge Us to Rethink Digital Publishing, 12 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 138, 139-40 (1997) [hereinafter Stefik, Shifting the Possible]; INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF REPRODUCTION RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, COMMITTEE ON NEW TECHNOLOGIES, DIGITAL RIGHTS MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGIES, (visited April 17, 1997) <http://www.ncri.com/articles/rights_management/> [hereinafter IFRRO REPORT].
3. See Bing, supra note 1, at 261-66; BURNS, supra note 1, at 17-21, 30-35; Clark, supra note 2, at 97-101; Stefik, Shifting the Possible, supra note 2, at 142; IFRRO REPORT, supra note 2.
4. See, e.g., National Information Infrastructure: Hearing on S. 1284 Before the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 104th Cong. (May 7, 1996) (testimony of Kenneth R. Kay, Executive Director, Creative Incentive Coalition), available in WESTLAW, USTestimony database; Copyright Protection on the Internet: Hearings on H.R. 2441 Before the Subcomm. on Courts and Intellectual Property of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 104th Cong. (Feb. 7-8, 1996) (statements on Feb. 7, 1996 of Barbara A. Munder, Senior Vice President, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.; Frances W. Preston, President and CEO, Broadcast Music, Inc.; Jack Valenti, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Motion Picture Association of America, Inc.; and statement on Feb. 8, 1996 of the Association of American Publishers), available in WESTLAW, USTestimony database; see also NII WHITE PAPER, supra note 1, at 230 (endorsing anti-tampering legislation for that reason).
5. NII WHITE PAPER, supra note 1.
6. National Information Infrastructure Copyright Protection Act, S. 1284 & H.R. 2441, 104th Cong. (1995) [hereinafter NIICPA].
7. See Digital Future Coalition, collected position statements, letters, and press releases (visited April 5, 1997) <http://www.ari.net/dfc/>.
8. NIICPA, supra note 6, at § 4 ( proposed § 1201 of the Copyright Act).
9. Id. § 1202.
10. Id. § 1203(c)(2).
11. Id. § 1203(c)(3).
12. Id. § 1203(c)(4).
13. Id. § 1203(b)(4)-(5).
14. Id. § 1203(b)(2).
15. Id. § 1203(b)(6).
16. Id. § 1204.
17. U.S. Department of Commerce, Protocol to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (proposed), Submitted to Committees of Experts by Bruce Lehman, Ass't Sec. of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, November 29, 1995 (on file with author); see Pamela Samuelson, Big Media Beaten Back, WIRED, Mar. 1997, at 61, 62-64 (quoting statement by Bruce Lehman, chair of the working group that produced the NII White Paper and head of the United States delegation to WIPO, that characterized the treaty process as "a second bite at the apple").
18. World Intellectual Property Organization, Chairman of the Committees of Experts on a Possible Protocol to the Berne Convention and on a Possible Instrument for the Protection of the Rights of Performers and Producers of Phonograms, Basic Proposal for the Substantive Provisions of the Treaty on Certain Questions Concerning the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works to be Considered by the Diplomatic Conference, Art. 13 (Aug. 30, 1996) [hereinafter WIPO Basic Proposal].
19. Id. Art. 13, cmt. 13.03.
20. Id. Art. 13, cmt. 13.05.
21. Id. Art. 13, cmt. 13.06.
22. Seth Greenstein, News from WIPO: Day Seven-The Audio Visual Debate, and What's Fair Is Fair Use (visited Apr. 5, 1997) <http://www.hrrc.org/wr_12-10.html> (reporting comments by delegates).
23. Id.; John Browning, Africa 1 Hollywood 0, WIRED, Mar. 1997, at 61, 186 ("Japan and other Asian nations were up in arms about proposals that would effectively have turned the consumer electronics industry into a branch of publishing.").
24. World Intellectual Property Organization, Provisional Treaty on Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, Art. 11, 53 PAT. TRADEMARK & COPYRIGHT J. 155, 156 (1997) [hereinafter WIPO Provisional Treaty]. This language was drafted by the African delegates, who emerged during the negotiations as a critical, and thoughtful, voting bloc. See Browning, supra note 23, at 186.
25. WIPO Basic Proposal, supra note 18, Art. 14.
26. Id. Art. 14, cmt. 14.04.
27. Id. Art. 14, cmt. 14.05.
28. See Greenstein, supra note 22.
29. WIPO Provisional Treaty, supra note 24, Art. 12, at 156.
30. This appears to be the consensus view. See Samuelson, supra note 17, at 180; Clinton Administration is Undecided on Implementing Steps for WIPO Treaties, 53 PAT. TRADEMARK & COPYRIGHT J. 241, 242 (1997) [hereinafter Implementing WIPO Treaties].
31. According to Prof. Samuelson, implementing legislation would be necessary only for Article 12, regarding RMI. Samuelson, supra note 17, at 180. Article 12 defines RMI to include "information which identifies the work, the author of the work, the owner of any right in the work, or information about terms and conditions of use of the work . . . " WIPO Provisional Treaty, supra note 24, at 156. Removal or alteration of the first three items would be actionable under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, which prohibits the use in commerce of "any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact" that is likely to confuse consumers as to the origin or sponsorship of a product or service. 15 U.S.C.A. § 1125(a)(1) (West, WESTLAW through P.L. 105-4, approved Mar. 3, 1997). However, § 43(a) does not appear to cover removal of information about terms and conditions of use.
As to Article 11, Prof. Samuelson believes that the doctrine of contributory copyright infringement already provides the required "adequate and effective" remedy against circumvention of CMS. Conversation with Pamela Samuelson, Law Professor, Univ. of Cal. at Berkeley (Mar. 14, 1997). The doctrine extends infringement liability to knowing purveyors of technologies that have no "substantial noninfringing use." Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 441-42 (1984); Fonovisa, Inc. v. Cherry Auction, Inc., 76 F.3d 259, 264 (9th Cir. 1996); Casella v. Morris, 820 F.2d 362, 365 (11th Cir. 1987); Gershwin Pub. Corp. v. Columbia Artists Management, Inc., 443 F.2d 1159, 1162 (2d Cir. 1971). For the reasons discussed in part III.B, infra, I do not believe that the "substantial noninfringing use" doctrine alone can resolve the problem of tampering with CMS.
32. Implementing WIPO Treaties, supra note 30, at 242.
33. STAFF OF HOUSE SUBCOMM. ON COURTS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, 104th Cong., NII Copyright Protection Act of 1995, H.R. 2441 § 106 (Draft Comm. Print 1996) (on file with author) [hereinafter NIICPA Draft Committee Print].
34. Id. § 1201.
35. Id. § 1202.
36. Id. § 1203(d).
37. Id. § 1204(a)-(b).
38. WIPO Provisional Treaty, supra note 24, at 156.
39. NIICPA, supra note 6, § 1201.
40. NIICPA Draft Committee Print, supra note 33, § 1201(a) (emphasis added).
41. See NIICPA, supra note 6, §§ 1201-02. The draft committee version tightens this standard slightly, but not far enough. See text accompanying notes 54-55, infra.
42. See Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 440-41 (1984).
43. Id. at 441.
44. Id. at 442.
45. See, e.g., David Chaum, Achieving Electronic Privacy, SCI. AM., Aug. 1992, at 96, 96-97 (visited Apr. 26, 1997) <http://ganges.cs.tcd.ie/mepeirce/Project/Chaum/sciam.html>; A. Michael Froomkin, Flood Control on the Information Ocean: Living with Anonymity, Digital Cash, and Distributed Databases, 15 J.L. & COM. 395, 453-71 (1996).
46. See Sega Enterprises, Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510, 1521-28 (9th Cir. 1992); DSC Communications Corp. v. DGI Technologies, Inc., 898 F. Supp. 1183, 1188-91 (N.D. Tex. 1995), aff'd on other grounds, 81 F.3d 597 (5th Cir. 1996); Julie E. Cohen, Reverse Engineering and the Rise of Electronic Vigilantism: Intellectual Property Implications of "Lock-Out" Programs, 68 S. CAL. L. REV. 1091, 1104-34 (1995) [hereinafter Cohen, Reverse Engineering].
47. See Browning, supra note 23, at 186 (noting objections to proposed Article 13 of the WIPO treaty on this basis).
48. 17 U.S.C. § 1002(c) (1994).
49. 47 U.S.C.A. § 605(e)(4) (West, WESTLAW through Nov. 1996).
50. Thomas C. Vinje, A Brave New World of Technical Protection Systems: Will There Still Be Room for Copyright?, 8 EUR. INTELL. PROP. REV. 431, 433 (1996).
51. See, e.g., Greenstein, supra note 22 (reporting on proposals made during the WIPO Diplomatic Conference by the African Group-Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cote d'Ivoire, Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sudan, Togo, Tunisia, and Zambia-and by Singapore); Vinje, supra note 50, at 435. The European Community's directive on the legal protection of computer software, which contains a provision regarding circumvention of devices used to protect computer programs, employs a "sole intended purpose" test. See Council Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the Legal Protection of Computer Programs, art. 7(c), 1991 O.J. (L 122) 42.
52. See 17 U.S.C. § 501(a) (1994).
53. See WIPO Basic Proposal, supra note 18, Art. 13, cmt. 13.03.
54. NIICPA Draft Committee Print, supra note 33, § 1202(a).
55. Id. § 1201(a).
56. 17 U.S.C. § 106 (1994).
57. See Id. § 107 (1994).
58. See Id. § 108 (1994).
59. See Id. § 110 (1994).
60. 499 U.S. 340, 347-50 (1991) (requiring originality in "selection or arrangement" of data in order for a compilation to gain copyright protection).
61. WIPO Provisional Treaty, supra note 24, Art. 11, at 156.
62. NIICPA, supra note 6, § 1201.
63. See NII WHITE PAPER, supra note 2, at 231-32 (noting that proposed legislation targets circumvention "without authority" and that the applicable "authority" may be the author's permission or limitations upon the author's rights under the Copyright Act).
64. See, e.g., BURNS, supra note 1, at 17-21, 29-36; Clark, supra note 2, at 99; Carol Risher, Libraries, Copyright and the Electronic Environment, Position Paper on Behalf of the International Publishers Copyright Council on the Occasion of the IPA 25th Congress, Barcelona, April 1996 (visited Apr. 5, 1997) <http://www.ipa-uie.org/ipcc_bcn.html>; see also Stefik, Shifting the Possible, supra note 2, at 147-49.
65. NII WHITE PAPER, supra note 2, at 58, 191-92.
66. See J.H. Reichman & Pamela Samuelson, Intellectual Property Rights in Data?, 50 VAND. L. REV. 51, 66-69, 137-63 (1997) (noting the vulnerability of noncopyrightable information products to appropriation by others, and arguing for the creation of a new intellectual property paradigm designed to balance the competing considerations of incentives to innovate and public access to information); J.H. Reichman, Charting the Collapse of the Patent-Copyright Dichotomy: Premises for a Restructured International Intellectual Property System, 13 CARDOZO ARTS & ENT. L.J. 475, 517-20 (1995) (same).
67. Regarding the "equitable rule of reason" that governs in fair use cases, see H.R. REP. 94-1476, at 65-66, reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5659, 5678; Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 577-78 (1994).
68. See Stefik, Shifting the Possible, supra note 2, at 156 (observing that the "stakeholders in digital property" include consumers and librarians).
69. 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) (1994); Stefik, Shifting the Possible, supra note 2, at 145-46; see also, id. at 152-53 (noting that CMS could be designed to release digital works when the term of copyright expires).
70. See BURNS, supra note 1, at 34-35; see also id. at 16 (noting that CMS "might be resisted by users who . . . get no benefit from" them, without acknowledging that "users"-i.e., the public-may suffer any losses other than "functional disadvantages" and "complexity").
71. See Stefik, Shifting the Possible, supra note 2, at 149.
72. The White Paper observes that "the fair use doctrine does not require a copyright owner to allow or to facilitate unauthorized access or use of a work." NII WHITE PAPER, supra note 1, at 231. This formulation avoids (or perhaps evades) the real question: whether copyright owners may obstruct lawful access or use of a work. For more discussion of this point, see Niva Elkin-Koren, Copyright Policy and the Limits of Freedom of Contract, 12 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 93, 111-12 (1997).
73. See 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1030(a)(5), 2701 (West, WESTLAW current through P.L. 104-333, approved Nov. 12, 1996).
74. I am indebted to Professor Larry Lessig of The University of Chicago Law School for naming this proposition the "Cohen Theorem." Electronic mail from Larry Lessig to recipients of list CO-E-CONF (Nov. 11, 1996) (proceedings of 25-person online focus group convened by the United States Copyright Office, as part of its "Project Looking Forward," to discuss the future course of Internet technology and its implications for copyright) (on file with author).
75. NIICPA, supra note 6, §§ 1203(b)(2), (b)(6).
76. Id. §§ 1203(c)(2); see Julie E. Cohen, A Right to Read Anonymously: A Closer Look at "Copyright Management" in Cyberspace, 28 CONN. L. REV. 981, 991 (1996) [hereinafter Cohen, Right to Read Anonymously].
77. NIICPA, supra note 6, §§ 1204(a).
78. See 17 U.S.C. § 506(a) (1994); 18 U.S.C.A. § 2319 (West, WESTLAW through P.L. 104-333, approved Nov. 12, 1996).
79. One of the first discussions of CMS to appear in the popular media was Pamela Samuelson, The Copyright Grab, WIRED, Jan. 1996, at 134, 188-89.
80. See, e.g., Stefik, Shifting the Possible, supra note 2; IFRRO Report, supra note 2.
81. NIICPA, supra note 6, §§1201-1202.
82. See, e.g., David A. Einhorn, Box-Top Licenses and the Battle-of-the-Forms, 5 SOFTWARE L.J. 401 (1992); Robert W. Gomulkiewicz & Mary L. Williamson, A Brief Defense of Mass Market Software License Agreements, 22 RUTGERS COMPUTER & TECH. L.J. 335 (1996); Mark A. Lemley, Intellectual Property and Shrinkwrap Licenses, 68 S. CAL. L. REV. 1239 (1995) [hereinafter Lemley, Shrinkwrap Licenses]; Mark A. Lemley, Shrinkwraps in Cyberspace, 35 JURIMETRICS J. 311 (1995); Gary H. Moore & J. David Hadden, On Line Software Distribution: New Life for 'Shrinkwrap' Licenses?, COMPUTER LAW., Apr. 1996, at 1; Michael Rustad & Lori E. Eisenschmidt, The Commercial Law of Internet Security, 10 HIGH TECH. L.J. 213, 290-93 (1995); Michael G. Ryan, Offers Users Can't Refuse: Shrink-Wrap License Agreements as Enforceable Adhesion Contracts, 10 CARDOZO L. REV. 2105 (1989); Richard H. Stern, Shrink-Wrap Licenses of Mass Marketed Software: Enforceable Contracts or Whistling in the Dark?, 11 RUTGERS COMPUTER & TECH. L.J. 51, 55 (1985).
83. But see David A. Rice, Public Goods, Private Contract, and Public Policy: Federal Preemption of Software License Prohibitions Against Reverse Engineering, 53 U. PITT. L. REV. 543 (1992) (providing exhaustive analysis of the copyright preemption issue).
84. See National Basketball Association v. Motorola, Inc., 105 F.3d 841, 848-53 (2d Cir. 1997) (upholding defense of copyright preemption of state law misappropriation claim); ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447, 1454-55 (7th Cir. 1996) (rejecting defense of copyright preemption of state law breach of contract claim); I. Trotter Hardy, Contracts, Copyright and Preemption in a Digital World, 1 RICH. J.L. & TECH. 2 (April 11, 1995) <http://www.urich.edu/~jolt/v1i1/hardy.html>; Lemley, Shrinkwrap Licenses, supra note 82, at 1255-59, 1266-74; Maureen A. O'Rourke, Drawing the Boundary Between Copyright and Contract: Copyright Preemption of Software License Terms, 45 DUKE L.J. 479 (1995); Elkin-Koren, supra note 72.
85. See U.C.C. Art. 2B: Licenses § 2B-308 (Proposed Draft March 21, 1997), available from the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (visited April 18, 1997) <http://www.law.upenn.edu/library/ulc/ucc2/ucc2b397.htm> [hereinafter Draft Article 2B]; Dan Goodin, Seeking New Rules for a New Game: Commercial Code Meets the Digital Age, LEGAL TIMES, Nov. 4, 1996, at 2; Raymond T. Nimmer, UCC Revision: Information Age in Contracts, in AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE-AMERICAN BAR A