Extraterritorial application of copyright regulations in Ecuador due to cloud computing services: terms of service of Twitter and YouTube

Eugenia Novoa

doi:10.22235/rd26.2681

Authors

Eugenia Novoa Universidad Central del Ecuador https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5098-6304

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22235/rd26.2681

Keywords:

copyright, artistic work, cloud computing, Twitter, YouTube

Abstract

The internet is transforming society on a global level, especially due to the increasing popularity of social media services such as Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. Because cloud computing characteristics have tangible effects on enterprises and economics growth globally, it is necessary to create an understanding of cloud computing’s cross-border nature and the effects of and such paradigm for social media artists located in Ecuador. Therefore, this paper seeks the following objectives: firstly, to establish how Ecuadorian artists can be bound by extraterritorial copyright laws by posting their works in YouTube or Twitter. Secondly, to define the benefits and drawbacks of the relation of Ecuadorian artists with YouTube and Twitter. Lastly, this article shows how U.S. copyright laws bind Ecuadorian users of YouTube and Twitter transnationally.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Aalbers, H. (2013). Una Introducción al Cloud Computing. Marcial Pons.

Acuña Navas, A., & Cordero Esquivel, E. (2014). Los contratos de shrinkwrap, clickwrap y browsewrap: Un enfoque desde la perspectiva del Derecho del Consumidor [Tesis de grado, Universidad de Costa Rica]. Kerwá Repositorio. https://www.kerwa.ucr.ac.cr/handle/10669/28999

ALS Scan, Inc. vs. RemarQ Communities, Inc., 239 F. 3d 619 (2001).

Andean Community. (1993). Decisión 351 Régimen Común sobre Derecho de Autor y Derechos Conexos. http://www.sice.oas.org/trade/junac/decisiones/dec351s.asp

Baker vs. Selden, 101 U.S. 99, (1879).

Barnitzke, B. (2011). Aspectos Legales de la Computación en la nube. Albermática.

Berkson vs. Gogo LLC, 97 F. Supp. 3d 359 (2015).

Berne Convention. (1886). Berne Convention for the protection of literary and artistic works. Amended at Stockholm on 14 July, 1967.

Brehn, A., & Lee, C. (2015). Click Here to Accept the terms of service. 31-WTR Comm. Law. 4, 6–7 (2015)

Buxbaum, H. (2006). Transnational Regulatory Litigation. Maurer Faculty, 290. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub/290

Copyright Law Revision, U.S.C.C.A.N 5659, 5664, (1976).

Cruz, K. (2012). Historia del Cloud Computing. RITS.

Digital Millennium Copyright Act, H.R.2281 - 105th Congress (1998). https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-bill/2281

Ecuador. (2008). Constitución de la República del Ecuador. https://www.asambleanacional.gob.ec/sites/default/files/documents/old/constitucion_de_bolsillo.pdf

Hague Conference on Private International Law. (1965). Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters. https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/status-table/

Hamilton, L. (2022, July 1) . 3 Key Legal Cases on Clickwrap. Terms Feed. https://termsfeed.com/blog/3-key-legal-cases-on-click-wrap/

Hancock vs. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 701 F.3d 1248 (2012).

Hayes, D. (1998). Advanced Copyright Issues on the Internet. https://www.fenwick.com/insights/publications/advanced-copyright-issues-on-the-internet

Hurwitz, J., Kaufman, M., & Halper, F. (2012). Cloud Services for Dummies. Jhon Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://www.ibm.com/cloud-computing/files/cloud-for-dummies.pdf

i.Lan Sys. Inc. vs. Netscout Serv. Level Corp., 183 F. Supp. 2d 328, 329 (2002).

Instituto Nacional de Tecnologías de la Comunicación. (2011). Guía para empresas: seguridad y privacidad del cloud computing. https://www.aec.es/wp-media/uploads/DPD-00265.SEG-GUI-002-INTECO_guia_cloud_computing_ES_56p.pdf

Joyanes, L. (2012). Computación en la nube: estrategias del cloud computing en las empresas. Alfaomega.

Kur, A., & Maunsbach, U. (2019). Choice of Law and Intellectual Property Rights. Oslo Law Review, 6(1), 43-61. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.2387-3299-2019-01-07

Lenz vs. Universal Music Corp., 801 F. 3d 1126 (2015).

Martin, J., & Cendrowsky, H. (2014). Cloud computing and electronic discovery. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Melaños, C. (2013). Análisis de riesgos técnicos y legales de la seguridad en el cloud computing [Tesis de maestría]. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid.

Mell, P., & Grance, T. (2011). The NIST Definition of Cloud Computing. Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. National Institute of Standards and Technology U.S. Department of Commerce. http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-145/SP800-145.pdf

Menell, P. S., Lemley, M. A., & Merges, R. P. (2016). Intellectual Property in the New Technological Age: 2016: Vol. I Perspectives, Trade Secrets and Patents. Clause 8 Publishing.

MGM Studios, Inc. vs. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, (2005).

Millard, C. (2013). Cloud Computing Law. Oxford University Press.

National Board of Trade. (2012). How borderless is the Cloud? An introduction to cloud computing and international trade. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/wkshop_june13_e/how_borderless_cloud_e.pdf

Novoa, E. (2015). El Derecho a la Protección de Datos de Carácter Personal Ecuatoriano Analizado a Partir de la Relación B2C (Business to Consumer) en la Prestación de Servicios de Cloud Computing: Caso de Políticas de Privacidad de Dropbox. Universidad de las Americas.

Religious Tech. Center vs. Netcom On-Line Comm., 907 F. Supp. 1361 (1995).

Reul Lab. (2016, September 5). What are EULAs? A quick guide. http://www.reullab.gatech.edu/eulas-defined/

Salas-Zárate, M., & Colombo-Mendoza, L.(2012). Cloud Computing: A Review of Paas, Iaas, Saas Services and Providers. Lámpsakos, (7), 47-57.

Sony Corp. of America vs. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984).

Strickland, J. (2008). How Cloud Computing Works. Howstuffworks. Rhttp://computer.howstuffworks.com/cloud-computing/cloud-computing.htm

Tellez, J. (2013). Lex cloud computing. Estudio jurídico del cómputo en la nube de México. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

The Department of Commerce Internet Policy Task Force. (2013). Copyright Policy, Creativity, and Innovation in the Digital Economy. https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/news/publications/copyrightgreenpaper.pdf

Title 17 of United States Code Copyright Act., 17 U.S.C.A. § 102 (West), (1976).

Twitter. (2022, June 10). Terms of Service. https://twitter.com/tos?lang=en

Word Intellectual Property. (2017). Ecuador. http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/profile.jsp?code=EC

YouTube. (2022, January 5). Terms of Service. https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms&gl=US