Who should own access rights? A game-theoretical approach to striking the optimal balance in the debate over digital rights management

Artificial Intelligence and Law 15 (4):323-356 (2007)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The development of access rights as, perhaps, a replacement for copyright in digital rights management (DRM) systems, draws our attention to the importance of ‚the balance problem’ between information industries and the individual user. The nature of just what this ‚balance’ is, is often mentioned in copyright writings and judgments, but is rarely discussed. In this paper I focus upon elucidating the idea of balance in intellectual property and propose that the balance concept is not only the most feasible way to examine whether past solutions to copyright problems are fair, but it also provides the ability to predict what will be the better solution for all affected parties. Based upon an envy-free contribution towards predicting the efficient balance, game theory is applied in a novel manner to the DRM problem to infer where and what might be the optimal balance in the debate over the nature of access right.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,349

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
81 (#202,255)

6 months
8 (#352,434)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The Tragedy of the Commons.Garrett Hardin - 1968 - Science 162 (3859):1243-1248.
Game Theory and Economic Modelling.David M. Kreps - 1990 - Oxford University Press UK.
The tragedy of the digital commons.Gian Maria Greco & Luciano Floridi - 2004 - Ethics and Information Technology 6 (2):73-81.
Economic Concepts for the Social Sciences.Todd Sandler - 2001 - Cambridge University Press.
Why non-monotonic logic is inadequate to represent balancing arguments.Jan-R. Sieckmann - 2003 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):211-219.

View all 6 references / Add more references