Suchergebnisse

Abstract False recognition in children aged 5, 8, and 11 years was investigated using the standard version of the Deese‐Roediger‐McDermott (DRM) procedure and an alternative version in which the DRM stimuli were embedded in stories designed to emphasize their overall theme. Relative to the 8‐ and 11‐year‐olds, the 5‐year‐olds falsely recognized fewer critical lures when the DRM stimuli were presented in lists, but falsely recognized more critical lures when the stimuli were presented in stories. Levels of false recognition in the 8‐ and 11‐year‐olds were not affected by study format. We argue that the story context enhanced the ability of the 5‐year‐olds to make inferences based on the theme of the DRM stimuli. The 5‐year‐olds then showed higher levels of false recognition than the older children owing to their inability to reject lure words consistent with the stories.

In the scramble for an adjustable and effective copyright law mechanism that can successfully tackle the impediments created by the internet and other new technologies, China began exploring various legal reform models that are in alignment with international conventions and treaties and that is desirably relevant to the mounting demands of the developing Chinese socio cultural and economic setting. In the frantic search for an unassailable solution, China simply borrowed legislative approaches from developed societies, such as the U.S and the EU; China enacted a set of statutes, regulations, and judicial interpretations for the DRM regulatory model mainly through the domestic implementation of international obligations and legal transplant. The transplantation of the DRM model to advance the struggle of copyright protection in China seems somewhat futile owing to the daunting challenge of implementation which has been rather unsatisfactory. The unanticipated technological expansion that is marked by the advent and growth of internet and other groundbreaking innovations caught the legal system largely unprepared and has had many unintended ramifications on copyright laws creating many complications that jeopardizes the efficacy of the most comprehensive international copyright regulatory model. The transplantation and implementation of international copyright regulatory framework by China has been rendered leading to escalating concerns about borrowed laws from other jurisdictions. More than ever, there is an overwhelming need for careful evaluation and scrutiny of foreign regulatory model against the extent of its applicability and relevance in local context. Based on the comparative analysis and the research outcomes, This thesis tries to figure out Direct and indirect strategies for predicament in which China's legal system has been trapped and also explores to sketch the outline of tentative DRM regulatory model in China to consider.

This paper looks at three key cases; UsedSoft (C-458/13), PC Box (C-355/12) and Grund (C-458/13), on the topic of the extent and nature of a copyright holders abilityto constrain future uses of their copyrighted works in the field of software and critically considers the interaction between copyright and competition law in these judgements. In UsedSoft, the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereafter CJEU) shook the common-law world by suggesting that under certain circumstances the licensing of a piece of software could constitute a sale, they achieved this by focusing on the balance of right between the user and the vendor and more importantly, on the "specific subject matter" of the right granted. In PC Box, a more economically cautious judgement, but one with intellectual consonance with UsedSoft, the CJEU looked at the issue of 'modchips' to permit homebrew and other non-approved games to be played on Nintendo consoles. They decided that the TPM (technological protection measures) embedded in the consoles were analogous to the other more traditional methods of encryption and DRM (digital rights management) employed in standard software. However, the judgement also highlighted that the use of a balancing test with regard to the appropriateness of the TPM devices in consoles was necessary. Furthermore, the Court judged that the national courts should carry out a 'real world' market test to see if the use of modchips truly adversely affected the interests of the copyright holder i.e. how of then they were used for infringing as opposed to non-infringing uses. Finally, we shall consider the key case that never was - Grund. This case was, and remains, something of an enigma as the preliminary reference questions were difficult to comprehend but nevertheless promised important clarifications in the law. However, we will consider it in this discussion largely because the reference was ultimately withdrawn because the parties were convinced that the issue was resolved by the judgement in PC Box. Thus it offers an insight into the future utility of the UsedSoft and PC Box judgements.

From a strict technological perspective copyright holders can today truly enforce their rights ex ante by creating closed environments in which the consumption of digital works is strictly controlled by DRM systems. The scope of such control is however usually attributable to a given business model rather than legal compliance because the copyright framework (and particularly Art. 6 InfoSoc Directive or Art. 11 WCT) does not regulate the use of self-enforcement technology other than generally prohibiting others from circumventing it. Although such protection of DRM systems is, arguably, needed to deter piracy and encourage rightholders to digitally distribute content, once a digital work has been acquired from a (legitimate) source, there is little to nothing that an acquirer (consumer) can do to arrange consumption around their own preferences. Instead, their consumption is subject to complicated, sometimes equivocal, terms regulating the legal relationship and device limitations which are imposed by the DRM system. The reasonable expectations of acquirers can often get misaligned with what they are actually allowed to do (both legally and technologically) and potential remedies available vary across the EU. Copyright law, both international and EU, does currently little to address this and to maintain a balance between the legitimate interests of rightholders and the legitimate interests of bona fide digital consumers (note for example the discretionary character of Art. 6(4) paragraph 2). Against this background is a framework of consumer protection law whose underlying aim is indeed to maintain a balance between contracting parties where one is in a clearly weaker (bargaining) position. The intersection of copyright and consumer protection law is however especially problematic because not only is there insufficient, or a general lack of subject-specific, legislation but, high costs of litigation in conjunction with small sums relating to disputes do not incentivise pursuing legal action. This potentially creates market failures on many levels and reinforces the unrestricted use of DRM systems, even though certain informational requirements were introduced by the Consumer Rights Directive in 2011. Although the EU Commission's copyright reform (DSM Agenda)in this context is commendable to the extent that it purports to encapsulate digital consumers into the consumer protection framework (proposal for a Directive on the supply of digital content) and clearly fill an existing gap, the question that transpires is whether the response ought lie in the 'simple' modernisation of consumer protection law only or instead in the clearer alignment of consumer protection law and copyright law (such as is indirectly done in the current proposal for a Regulation ensuring the cross-border portability of online content services), for example through more direct regulation of the use of DRM systems. The paper addresses consumer expectations and the change in the consumption pattern before the arrival of the 'digital market proper', the functioning and use of DRM systems in the 'digital market proper', the regulation of the use of DRM systems in copyright law, and finally the EU Commissions recent proposals in light of some of the failures of the legal framework concerning the use of DRM. See generally: Kubesch, A.S., Wicker, S., Digital Rights Management: The Cost to Consumers (2015) 103(5) Proceedings of the IEEE 726 Dussolier, S., The protection of technological measures: Much ado about nothing or silent remodelling of copyright? In Dreyfuss, R.C. and Ginsburg, J.C. (eds), Intellectual Property at the Edge. The Contested Contours of IP, Cambridge University Press (2015), pp.253-268 Loos, M., et. al., Analysis of the applicable legal frameworks and suggestions for the contours of a model system of consumer protection in relation to digital content contracts, Final Report Digital Content Contracts for Consumers, CSECL, IViR and ACLE, 2011, Chapter 6 Bradgate, R., Consumer Rights in Digital Products, Research and Analysis Report, Department for Business Innovation and Skills, 2010 European Commission, Staff Working Document, Report to the Council, the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee on the application of Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society SEC(2007) 1556 Guibault, L., et. al., Study on the Implementation and Effect in Member States' Laws of Directive 2001/29/EC on the Harmonisation of Certain Aspects of Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society, IViR, 2007, Chapter 4 Helberger, N., Hugenholtz, P. B., No place like home for making a copy: private copying in european copyright law and consumer law (2007) 22(3) Berkeley Tech. L.J. 1062 Guibault, L., Accommodating the Needs of iConsumers: Making Sure They Get Their Money's Worth of Digital Entertainment (2008) 31 J Consum Policy 409 Helberger, N., Digital Rights Management from a Consumer's Perspective [2005] 8 IRIS Plus