Did Japan And Korea Just Make Life Really Difficult For Any Cloud Service Provider?
from the does-the-length-of-the-wire-matter? dept
For a while we followed the important Cablevision remote DVR case, in which the entertainment industry argued that Cableivision offering a hosted DVR service for its users was infringing on their copyrights, even though DVRs are legal. The entertainment industry strained its credulity by arguing that because the DVR device was on Cablevision's property, rather than in someone's house (even though they functioned nearly identically), it completely changed the rules. They said that Cablevision required separate content licenses to offer such a service. Effectively, they were arguing that the length between the DVR and the TV determines whether or not there's infringement. That, of course, is ridiculous (though even more ridiculous was when they compared a DVR to murder).Thankfully, the Second Court agreed and put forth a pretty good, if slightly awkward, ruling, which pointed out that it didn't matter where the device was, that time shifting is legal, and this service really seemed no different than a DVR. The entertainment industry (of course) appealed, but the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, so the law stands in the 2nd Circuit -- though with such a high profile case, one hopes that other Circuits would tend to defer to this ruling (though, they certainly don't have to).
Separately, we covered a very similar case in Singapore, involving RecordTV, which had trouble at the lower courts, but eventually came to a similar ruling as the US. In that case, the court even noted that allowing remote DVRs seems to provide benefits to society.
However, courts in other areas of the world apparently aren't quite as enlightened. Wonil Chung, an IP lawyer in Korea, recently sent over his excellent review of a number of similar cases from Korea and Japan where the rulings eventually all went the other way. The cases there all have their own specific details, but the general point was that the courts seemed to feel that if the equipment is housed and "owned" by the service provider, then the actions are done by the service provider... even if the end user is the one clicking the button. Effectively, those courts are saying that the length of the cable matters. Chung's analysis is balanced, and he notes that this can be a tricky issue. I agree that it's a complex issue that requires thinking through a variety of issues, but in the end, I have no problem saying that I believe the Korean and Japanese rulings defy common sense, while the US and Singapore rulings make sense.
Where it gets really important is understanding the wider implications of these rulings. Based on the rulings in Korea and Japan, it just became a lot more expensive and risky to set up any cloud-based service in either country. That's because these rulings effectively say that liability is determined by the location of the equipment, rather than the location of the user. Cloud-based services have the equipment hosted far away from the user. But does that really mean that the service providers have now taken on the liability? In Korea and Japan apparently the answer is yes, and that should put a chill through anyone building cloud-based offerings in either country.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: dvrs, japan, korea, liability, remote dvr, service providers, singapore
Companies: cablevision, recordtv
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, these cases are narrow, because that's how cases work. But the underlying *REASONING* behind the rulings could easily apply to the cloud. If they say that hosting on premise makes you now responsible for the actions of your users, you're not paying attention if you don't think that'll later be used against remote storage or remote service operators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It adds to the pile though and is another case of the legal framework of individual countries not coping with the implications of technology and putting an almost imaginary wrapper round it (or trying to put a real wrapper around something essentially imaginary perhaps).
When you're talking about virtualisation and cloud just how do you determine jurisdiction? The natural reaction seems to be "Oh, well of course it's the country the server is in", except that can change minute to minute with current tech, possibly automatically in response to demand, load, time, or a host of other reasons. Or perhaps even running in all of them simultaneously, even more so if you're talking about a service rather than server. So location of the user then? Can be equally tricky to track through proxy or VPN.
It always seems that laws end up being shoe-horned to fit, some seem to fairly well, others look like the ugly sister trying on the glass slipper. It makes me wonder if what's needed is for the "internet" to be created as almost a separate country in its own right with perhaps a committee-like "government" that creates a (light) regulation based on international agreement and compromise of what is "acceptable". Utopian perhaps and obviously fraught with complications and dangers, but the question remains how do you sensibly apply the rule of (at least some) law where you have no real sense of location? Or do you need to at all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
These cases are all very narrow minded in what they deal with.
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
perhaps....
Of course that would be totally unenforceable, so it's just a mental exercise but it does make a point about the arbitrary boundaries put on content. Technology has already destroyed the lines and the artificial boundaries are the Emperor's New Clothes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But the koreans and japanese don't mind because if there is no legal alternatives they always have the other ones that are not legal but very popular.
Even after laws where passed criminalizing those options they still continue to be very popular there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blame shifting?
Hmm... So, if people in Korea and Japan use a remote desktop program to control a distant computer, they're not liable for anything done by that distant computer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blame shifting?
could be liable for something for the action of doing so if they didn't have apropriate permissions though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think as internet laws get more on the books we'll see a lot more data center tourism where places are picked based on local laws and political issues in that area. This will be a boom for anyplace with the right set of laws (say Triable land in the US) and downright destructive for country's that want to hyper regulate things like how long a cord is or the location of the machine doing the work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wise criminals have already gone down the process of trying to control all parts of a network to avoid prosecution and shutdown (please see Estdomains / Esthost and all that for more information). It is pretty reasonable to assume that criminal organizations will also "cloud" their activities in order to try to hide their actual operations. Owning your own cloud provider would make it even harder for people to find you out.
When you create a crack in the system, law breakers will move in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
However, the reasoning in my head is thus:
They are the ones essentially downloading/housing the content, not the end user that is requesting/watching that content.
Essentially, think of YouTube. If they have copyright infringed material on their server, they're liable for it and need to remove it.
Basically it comes down to whether or not the person storing that data has the rights for it or not. If not, they are indeed infringing on copyright.
Having the rights to show it on television at a schedualed time does not grant the same rights to make it available to a user whenever they want, that is a separate set/clause in the agreement. Which leads me to point to HULU. If you ever notice the disclaimers on HULU, you can see that they say they do not have the rights to make it available on TV or Mobile devices. Same concept. It all depends on what they've been given rights for on that particular piece of content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This isn't about downloading, it's about recording live TV yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The location is important in part because it is adding a third party to the deal, which means the content is no longer in your control. Does the third party allow other people to use it / download it? Do they in turn create backups?
There is plenty here that isn't cut and dry "fair use".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here we have a massive company that holds a *lot* of citizens data, government data, and likely even military data, admitting to a breach of their core network, and no investigation is done to determine the scope of the breach? Why is there no investigation to determine the full extent of this breach? Or the other 100+ companies that are suspected of the same breach?
Is not the nation's security at risk when such an important data repository is breached?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AWS does not actually know what content is on their servers, you can also encrypt your content if you like when loading it. In fact you can even stream content back off AWS if you feel like it.
Its almost trivial to set this service up now, my business already loads items onto AWS for streaming to our customers (self produced content in our situation).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]