Global Approaches to Intellectual Property (IP) Protection in Digital Realm and Cyberspace Governance
Keywords:
Intellectual Property (IP), Protection, Digital Real, Cyberspace Governance, Technological Advancement
Abstract
Globally, there have been several issues, problems and obstacles that have been labelled as “current hot topics”, “most discussed topics” and “burning issues” amongst which the most challenging one is the intellectual property (IP) protection in cyberspace in today’s era of technological advancement. Usually, the study of research is narrowed down to particular jurisdictions (countries/areas/regions) but this particular study is focused on studying the global approaches altogether to understand how various countries are working on protecting the intellectual properties in the cyberspace where they are most vulnerable to cyber attacks as well as theft. There are several approaches adopted by various countries be it the developed countries like U.S.A., and the developing countries like India. This study from a global perspective will be an insightful one as it’ll shed light on all the hidden as well as the least explored aspects of intellectual property protection in cyberspace as well as cyberspace governance. This paper will be a great way to understand how various nations work on protecting intellectual properties in the digital realm and cyberspace governance.
References
Malik, J.K. and Choudhury, S., 2019. Cyber Space-Evolution and Growth. East African Scholars Journal of Education, Humanities and Literature, 2(3), pp.170-190.
Supra Note 3.
Malik, J.K. and Choudhury, S., 2019. Cyber Space-Evolution and Growth. East African Scholars Journal of Education, Humanities and Literature, 2(3), pp.170-190.
Id.
Malik, J.K. and Choudhury, S., 2019. Cyber Space-Evolution and Growth. East African Scholars Journal of Education, Humanities and Literature, 2(3), pp.170-190.
Id.
Id.
Malik, J.K. and Choudhury, S., 2019. Cyber Space-Evolution and Growth. East African Scholars Journal of Education, Humanities and Literature, 2(3), pp.170-190.
Id.
Supra note 5.
Id
Id.
Supra note 10
Id
Id
Malik, J.K. and Choudhury, S., 2019. Cyber Space-Evolution and Growth. East African Scholars Journal of Education, Humanities and Literature, 2(3), pp.170-190.
Id
Malik, J.K. and Choudhury, S., 2019. Cyber Space-Evolution and Growth. East African Scholars Journal of Education, Humanities and Literature, 2(3), pp.170-190.
Id
Id
Supra note 15
Id
Id
Id
Supra note 23
Supra note 23
Id.
Predictive Intelligence in Action: Evaluating the Impact of AI-Powered Analytics on Digital Marketing Performance in India. AEIDA [Internet]. 2024 Jul. 1 [cited 2025 Jul. 8];1(2):17-24. Available from: https://aeidajournal.org/index.php/AEIDA/article/view/8
Copyright in the Digital Age, WIPO, https://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/ (last visited May 28, 2025).
Intellectual Property and the U.S. Economy, U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, https://www.uspto.gov (last visited May 28, 2025).
Digital Transformation and IP, WIPO, https://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/digital.html (last visited May 28, 2025).
Dr. S.R. Myneni, Law of Intellectual Property, Page Number 2, Asia Law House 2021-22.
Supra note 23, Pg. No. 3
Id.
Dr. S.R. Myneni, Law of Intellectual Property, Pg. No. 3, Asia Law House 2021-22.
Simran R. Gurnani, Intellectual Property Rights, Pg. No. 3, C. Jamnadas & Co. 2024.
Id.
Id.
Supra note 36
Id
Id
Supra note 40.
Id.
Id.
Dr. S.R. Myneni, Law of Intellectual Property, Pg. No. 4-5, Asia Law House 2021-22.
Chhtrapati, D., Chaudhari, S. P., Mevada, D., Bhatt, A., & Trivedi, D. (2021). Research Productivity and Network Visualization on Digital Evidence: A Bibliometric Study. Science & Technology Libraries, 40(4), 358–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/0194262X.2021.1948486
Oxford English Dictionary Online, Cyberspace (3d ed. 2023), https://www.oed.com.
Dep’t of Def., Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms 60 (Nov. 8, 2010), https://irp.fas.org/doddir/dod/jp1_02.pdf.
Orin S. Kerr, Cybercrime’s Scope: Interpreting “Access” and “Authorization” in Computer Misuse Statutes, 78 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1596, 1605 (2003).
Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations 564 (Michael N. Schmitt ed., 2d ed. 2017).
Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 870 (1997).
Jack Goldsmith & Tim Wu, Who Controls the Internet? Illusions of a Borderless World 3–5 (2006).
Orin S. Kerr, Cybercrime’s Scope: Interpreting “Access” and “Authorization” in Computer Misuse Statutes, 78 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1596, 1603–04 (2003).
U.N. Secretary-General, Group of Governmental Experts on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security, ¶ 19, U.N. Doc. A/70/174 (July 22, 2015).
Julie E. Cohen, Cyberspace as/and Space, 107 Colum. L. Rev. 210, 214–15 (2007).
U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., Cyberspace Policy Review 3–4 (2009), https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=28690.
Michael N. Schmitt, ed., Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations 3–4 (2d ed. 2017).
NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence (CCDCOE), Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare 23 (Michael N. Schmitt ed., 2013).
David D. Clark et al., Tussle in Cyberspace: Defining Tomorrow’s Internet, 13 ACM SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. 347, 348–49 (2002).
Orin S. Kerr, Cybercrime’s Scope: Interpreting “Access” and “Authorization” in Computer Misuse Statutes, 78 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1596, 1603–06 (2003).
Convention on Cybercrime, Nov. 23, 2001, E.T.S. No. 185.
U.N. Secretary-General, Group of Governmental Experts on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security, ¶ 21, U.N. Doc. A/70/174 (July 22, 2015).
Jane C. Ginsburg, Putting Cars on the Information Superhighway: Authors, Exploiters, and Copyright in Cyberspace, 95 Colum. L. Rev. 1466, 1469–70 (1995).
Graeme B. Dinwoodie, Trademarks and Territory: Detaching Trademark Law from the Nation-State, 41 House. L. Rev. 885, 888–91 (2004).
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, 1869 U.N.T.S. 299; WIPO Copyright Treaty, Dec. 20, 1996, S. Treaty Doc. No. 105-17.
Jane C. Ginsburg, The Author’s Place in the Future of Copyright, 45 Willamette L. Rev. 381, 390–92 (2009).
Mark A. Lemley, IP in a World Without Scarcity, 90 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 460, 465–67 (2015).
Brookfield Commc’ns, Inc. v. W. Coast Ent. Corp., 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999).
Stacey L. Dogan & Mark A. Lemley, Trademarks and Consumer Search Costs on the Internet, 41 Hous. L. Rev. 777, 785–88 (2004).
Rochelle Dreyfuss, Are Business Method Patents Bad for Business? 16 Santa Clara High Tech. L.J. 263, 270–74 (2000).
David S. Almeling, Seven Reasons Why Trade Secrets Are Increasingly Important, 27 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 1091, 1096–99 (2012).
Orin S. Kerr, Cybercrime’s Scope: Interpreting “Access” and “Authorization” in Computer Misuse Statutes, 78 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1596, 1605–08 (2003).
WIPO Copyright Treaty, Dec. 20, 1996, S. Treaty Doc. No. 105-17; Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the WTO, Annex 1C, 1869 U.N.T.S. 299.
Julie E. Cohen, DRM and Privacy, 18 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 575, 583–87 (2003).
Jack Balkin, Old-School/New-School Speech Regulation, 127 Harv. L. Rev. 2296, 2301–03 (2014).
Yochai Benkler, Degrees of Freedom, Dimensions of Power, 145 Daedalus 18, 22–25 (2016).
47 U.S.C. § 230 (2018).
The Information Technology Act, No. 21 of 2000, § 79, India Code (2000).
Perfect 10, Inc. v. C.C. Bill LLC, 488 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2007).
Daphne Keller, Intermediary Liability 2.0: What Internet Intermediaries Can (and Can't) Do to Fight Online Infringement, 2 Am. U. Bus. L. Rev. 255, 265–68 (2013).
Viacom Int’l, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 2012).
Anupam Chander & Uyen P. Le, Breaking the Web: Data Localization vs. the Global Internet, 58 Emory L.J. 677, 690–93 (2009).
Kate Klonick, The New Governors: The People, Rules, and Processes Governing Online Speech, 131 Harv. L. Rev. 1598, 1633–35 (2018).
Digital Services Act, Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament; Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, G.S.R. 139(E), India.
Pamela Samuelson, Challenges in Mapping the Public Domain, 91 Law Libr. J. 365, 367–69 (1999).
Graeme B. Dinwoodie, Trademarks and Territory: Detaching Trademark Law from the Nation-State, 41 Hous. L. Rev. 885, 888–91 (2004).
Mark A. Lemley, IP in a World Without Scarcity, 90 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 460, 462–63 (2015).
David Nimmer, A Riff on Fair Use in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 148 U. Pa. L. Rev. 673, 678–79 (2000).
Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 512 (2018).
Graeme Dinwoodie & Rochelle Dreyfuss, A Neofederalist Vision of TRIPS: The Resilience of the International Intellectual Property Regime, 36 N.Y.U. J. Int’l L. & Pol. 763, 765–67 (2004).
Sandeep Kanak Rathod, Online Copyright Infringement and Jurisdictional Quandaries, 24 JIPR 139, 141–43 (2019).
Aditi Kulkarni, NFTs and IP Rights: Ownership, Enforcement and Legal Challenges, 64 JILI 112, 114–15 (2022).
Jane C. Ginsburg, The Concept of Authorship in Comparative Copyright Law, 52 DePaul L. Rev. 1063, 1068–69 (2003).
Bryan A. Ford, Ownership and Provenance in Digital Art and NFTs, 73 Stan. L. Rev. Online 41, 43–45 (2021).
Daphne Keller, Intermediary Liability 2.0, 2 Am. U. Bus. L. Rev. 255, 258–59 (2013).
Information Technology Act, No. 21 of 2000, § 79, India Code (2000); 17 U.S.C. § 512.
Julie E. Cohen, DRM and Privacy, 18 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 575, 582–84 (2003).
Urban, Karaganis & Schofield, Notice and Takedown in Everyday Practice, 64 J. Copyright Soc’y U.S.A. 634, 636–38 (2017).
17 U.S.C. § 512 (1998) (Digital Millennium Copyright Act - Safe Harbor Provisions).
Information Technology Act, No. 21 of 2000, § 79, India Code (2000).
Myspace Inc. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd., 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6382.
YouTube, How Content ID Works, https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797370 (last visited May 29, 2025).
Pamela Samuelson, Notice and Takedown: A Legal Analysis, 57 Comm. ACM 18, 22 (2014).
Star India Pvt. Ltd. v. Haneeth Ujwal, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9678
YouTube, How Content ID Works, https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797370 (last visited May 29, 2025).
Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019, on Copyright and Related Rights in the Digital Single Market, 2019 O.J. (L 130) 92.
Id. art. 17.
Mark A. Lemley & Eugene Volokh, Fair Use as Free Speech, 73 Law & Contemp. Probs. 1, 16–18 (2010).
Daphne Keller, Empirical Evidence of Overblocking in Content Moderation, 2021 Stan. Tech. L. Rev. 34, 39.
INDIA CONST. art. 19(1)(a).
Neil Weinstock Netanel, Copyright and a Democratic Civil Society, 106 Yale L.J. 283, 301–03 (1996).
Joe Karaganis & Aram Sinnreich, The Rise of Algorithmic Enforcement in Copyright Law, 34 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 219, 230 (2019).
Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012, 2012 O.J. (L 351) 1 (EU); see also Eleonora Rosati, Copyright and Blockchain Technology: Challenges for the EU Legal Framework, 51 IIC – Int’l Rev. Intell. Prop. & Competition L. 527, 534–36 (2020).
World Intellectual Property Organization, Blockchain Whitepaper: WIPO Blockchain Task Force, https://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/blockchain/.
State Council of the People’s Republic of China, Opinions on Accelerating the Construction of a National Intellectual Property Protection Work System, (2020), https://english.www.gov.cn/.
U.N. Comm’n on Int’l Trade Law [UNCITRAL], Technical Notes on Online Dispute Resolution, U.N. Doc. A/CN.9/989 (2017), available at https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/odr/technicalnotes/online_dispute_resolution.
Regulation 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on Online Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes, 2013 O.J. (L 165) 1.
NITI Aayog, Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India (2020), available at https://www.niti.gov.in/.
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/.
Panda, S. K., Bhatt, A., & Satapathy, A. (2024). ChatGPT and Its Role in Academic Libraries: A Discussion. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 30(4), 422–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2024.2381510
Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-153, 130 Stat. 376 (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1836).
Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Pub. L. No. 105-304, 112 Stat. 2860 (1998) (codified in scattered sections of 17 U.S.C.).
WIPO Copyright Treaty, Dec. 20, 1996, S. Treaty Doc. No. 105-17 (1997), 2186 U.N.T.S. 121; WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, Dec. 20, 1996, 2186 U.N.T.S. 203.
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, 1869 U.N.T.S. 299.
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, c. 48, § 9(3) (UK); U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence (2023), available at https://www.copyright.gov.
Regulation 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 Oct. 2022 on a Single Market for Digital Services (Digital Services Act), 2022 O.J. (L 277) 1; Regulation 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 Apr. 2016 (General Data Protection Regulation), 2016 O.J. (L 119) 1.
Supra Note 3.
Malik, J.K. and Choudhury, S., 2019. Cyber Space-Evolution and Growth. East African Scholars Journal of Education, Humanities and Literature, 2(3), pp.170-190.
Id.
Malik, J.K. and Choudhury, S., 2019. Cyber Space-Evolution and Growth. East African Scholars Journal of Education, Humanities and Literature, 2(3), pp.170-190.
Id.
Id.
Malik, J.K. and Choudhury, S., 2019. Cyber Space-Evolution and Growth. East African Scholars Journal of Education, Humanities and Literature, 2(3), pp.170-190.
Id.
Supra note 5.
Id
Id.
Supra note 10
Id
Id
Malik, J.K. and Choudhury, S., 2019. Cyber Space-Evolution and Growth. East African Scholars Journal of Education, Humanities and Literature, 2(3), pp.170-190.
Id
Malik, J.K. and Choudhury, S., 2019. Cyber Space-Evolution and Growth. East African Scholars Journal of Education, Humanities and Literature, 2(3), pp.170-190.
Id
Id
Supra note 15
Id
Id
Id
Supra note 23
Supra note 23
Id.
Predictive Intelligence in Action: Evaluating the Impact of AI-Powered Analytics on Digital Marketing Performance in India. AEIDA [Internet]. 2024 Jul. 1 [cited 2025 Jul. 8];1(2):17-24. Available from: https://aeidajournal.org/index.php/AEIDA/article/view/8
Copyright in the Digital Age, WIPO, https://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/ (last visited May 28, 2025).
Intellectual Property and the U.S. Economy, U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, https://www.uspto.gov (last visited May 28, 2025).
Digital Transformation and IP, WIPO, https://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/digital.html (last visited May 28, 2025).
Dr. S.R. Myneni, Law of Intellectual Property, Page Number 2, Asia Law House 2021-22.
Supra note 23, Pg. No. 3
Id.
Dr. S.R. Myneni, Law of Intellectual Property, Pg. No. 3, Asia Law House 2021-22.
Simran R. Gurnani, Intellectual Property Rights, Pg. No. 3, C. Jamnadas & Co. 2024.
Id.
Id.
Supra note 36
Id
Id
Supra note 40.
Id.
Id.
Dr. S.R. Myneni, Law of Intellectual Property, Pg. No. 4-5, Asia Law House 2021-22.
Chhtrapati, D., Chaudhari, S. P., Mevada, D., Bhatt, A., & Trivedi, D. (2021). Research Productivity and Network Visualization on Digital Evidence: A Bibliometric Study. Science & Technology Libraries, 40(4), 358–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/0194262X.2021.1948486
Oxford English Dictionary Online, Cyberspace (3d ed. 2023), https://www.oed.com.
Dep’t of Def., Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms 60 (Nov. 8, 2010), https://irp.fas.org/doddir/dod/jp1_02.pdf.
Orin S. Kerr, Cybercrime’s Scope: Interpreting “Access” and “Authorization” in Computer Misuse Statutes, 78 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1596, 1605 (2003).
Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations 564 (Michael N. Schmitt ed., 2d ed. 2017).
Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 870 (1997).
Jack Goldsmith & Tim Wu, Who Controls the Internet? Illusions of a Borderless World 3–5 (2006).
Orin S. Kerr, Cybercrime’s Scope: Interpreting “Access” and “Authorization” in Computer Misuse Statutes, 78 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1596, 1603–04 (2003).
U.N. Secretary-General, Group of Governmental Experts on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security, ¶ 19, U.N. Doc. A/70/174 (July 22, 2015).
Julie E. Cohen, Cyberspace as/and Space, 107 Colum. L. Rev. 210, 214–15 (2007).
U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., Cyberspace Policy Review 3–4 (2009), https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=28690.
Michael N. Schmitt, ed., Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations 3–4 (2d ed. 2017).
NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence (CCDCOE), Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare 23 (Michael N. Schmitt ed., 2013).
David D. Clark et al., Tussle in Cyberspace: Defining Tomorrow’s Internet, 13 ACM SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. 347, 348–49 (2002).
Orin S. Kerr, Cybercrime’s Scope: Interpreting “Access” and “Authorization” in Computer Misuse Statutes, 78 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1596, 1603–06 (2003).
Convention on Cybercrime, Nov. 23, 2001, E.T.S. No. 185.
U.N. Secretary-General, Group of Governmental Experts on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security, ¶ 21, U.N. Doc. A/70/174 (July 22, 2015).
Jane C. Ginsburg, Putting Cars on the Information Superhighway: Authors, Exploiters, and Copyright in Cyberspace, 95 Colum. L. Rev. 1466, 1469–70 (1995).
Graeme B. Dinwoodie, Trademarks and Territory: Detaching Trademark Law from the Nation-State, 41 House. L. Rev. 885, 888–91 (2004).
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, 1869 U.N.T.S. 299; WIPO Copyright Treaty, Dec. 20, 1996, S. Treaty Doc. No. 105-17.
Jane C. Ginsburg, The Author’s Place in the Future of Copyright, 45 Willamette L. Rev. 381, 390–92 (2009).
Mark A. Lemley, IP in a World Without Scarcity, 90 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 460, 465–67 (2015).
Brookfield Commc’ns, Inc. v. W. Coast Ent. Corp., 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999).
Stacey L. Dogan & Mark A. Lemley, Trademarks and Consumer Search Costs on the Internet, 41 Hous. L. Rev. 777, 785–88 (2004).
Rochelle Dreyfuss, Are Business Method Patents Bad for Business? 16 Santa Clara High Tech. L.J. 263, 270–74 (2000).
David S. Almeling, Seven Reasons Why Trade Secrets Are Increasingly Important, 27 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 1091, 1096–99 (2012).
Orin S. Kerr, Cybercrime’s Scope: Interpreting “Access” and “Authorization” in Computer Misuse Statutes, 78 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1596, 1605–08 (2003).
WIPO Copyright Treaty, Dec. 20, 1996, S. Treaty Doc. No. 105-17; Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the WTO, Annex 1C, 1869 U.N.T.S. 299.
Julie E. Cohen, DRM and Privacy, 18 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 575, 583–87 (2003).
Jack Balkin, Old-School/New-School Speech Regulation, 127 Harv. L. Rev. 2296, 2301–03 (2014).
Yochai Benkler, Degrees of Freedom, Dimensions of Power, 145 Daedalus 18, 22–25 (2016).
47 U.S.C. § 230 (2018).
The Information Technology Act, No. 21 of 2000, § 79, India Code (2000).
Perfect 10, Inc. v. C.C. Bill LLC, 488 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2007).
Daphne Keller, Intermediary Liability 2.0: What Internet Intermediaries Can (and Can't) Do to Fight Online Infringement, 2 Am. U. Bus. L. Rev. 255, 265–68 (2013).
Viacom Int’l, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 2012).
Anupam Chander & Uyen P. Le, Breaking the Web: Data Localization vs. the Global Internet, 58 Emory L.J. 677, 690–93 (2009).
Kate Klonick, The New Governors: The People, Rules, and Processes Governing Online Speech, 131 Harv. L. Rev. 1598, 1633–35 (2018).
Digital Services Act, Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament; Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, G.S.R. 139(E), India.
Pamela Samuelson, Challenges in Mapping the Public Domain, 91 Law Libr. J. 365, 367–69 (1999).
Graeme B. Dinwoodie, Trademarks and Territory: Detaching Trademark Law from the Nation-State, 41 Hous. L. Rev. 885, 888–91 (2004).
Mark A. Lemley, IP in a World Without Scarcity, 90 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 460, 462–63 (2015).
David Nimmer, A Riff on Fair Use in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 148 U. Pa. L. Rev. 673, 678–79 (2000).
Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 512 (2018).
Graeme Dinwoodie & Rochelle Dreyfuss, A Neofederalist Vision of TRIPS: The Resilience of the International Intellectual Property Regime, 36 N.Y.U. J. Int’l L. & Pol. 763, 765–67 (2004).
Sandeep Kanak Rathod, Online Copyright Infringement and Jurisdictional Quandaries, 24 JIPR 139, 141–43 (2019).
Aditi Kulkarni, NFTs and IP Rights: Ownership, Enforcement and Legal Challenges, 64 JILI 112, 114–15 (2022).
Jane C. Ginsburg, The Concept of Authorship in Comparative Copyright Law, 52 DePaul L. Rev. 1063, 1068–69 (2003).
Bryan A. Ford, Ownership and Provenance in Digital Art and NFTs, 73 Stan. L. Rev. Online 41, 43–45 (2021).
Daphne Keller, Intermediary Liability 2.0, 2 Am. U. Bus. L. Rev. 255, 258–59 (2013).
Information Technology Act, No. 21 of 2000, § 79, India Code (2000); 17 U.S.C. § 512.
Julie E. Cohen, DRM and Privacy, 18 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 575, 582–84 (2003).
Urban, Karaganis & Schofield, Notice and Takedown in Everyday Practice, 64 J. Copyright Soc’y U.S.A. 634, 636–38 (2017).
17 U.S.C. § 512 (1998) (Digital Millennium Copyright Act - Safe Harbor Provisions).
Information Technology Act, No. 21 of 2000, § 79, India Code (2000).
Myspace Inc. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd., 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6382.
YouTube, How Content ID Works, https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797370 (last visited May 29, 2025).
Pamela Samuelson, Notice and Takedown: A Legal Analysis, 57 Comm. ACM 18, 22 (2014).
Star India Pvt. Ltd. v. Haneeth Ujwal, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9678
YouTube, How Content ID Works, https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797370 (last visited May 29, 2025).
Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019, on Copyright and Related Rights in the Digital Single Market, 2019 O.J. (L 130) 92.
Id. art. 17.
Mark A. Lemley & Eugene Volokh, Fair Use as Free Speech, 73 Law & Contemp. Probs. 1, 16–18 (2010).
Daphne Keller, Empirical Evidence of Overblocking in Content Moderation, 2021 Stan. Tech. L. Rev. 34, 39.
INDIA CONST. art. 19(1)(a).
Neil Weinstock Netanel, Copyright and a Democratic Civil Society, 106 Yale L.J. 283, 301–03 (1996).
Joe Karaganis & Aram Sinnreich, The Rise of Algorithmic Enforcement in Copyright Law, 34 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 219, 230 (2019).
Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012, 2012 O.J. (L 351) 1 (EU); see also Eleonora Rosati, Copyright and Blockchain Technology: Challenges for the EU Legal Framework, 51 IIC – Int’l Rev. Intell. Prop. & Competition L. 527, 534–36 (2020).
World Intellectual Property Organization, Blockchain Whitepaper: WIPO Blockchain Task Force, https://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/blockchain/.
State Council of the People’s Republic of China, Opinions on Accelerating the Construction of a National Intellectual Property Protection Work System, (2020), https://english.www.gov.cn/.
U.N. Comm’n on Int’l Trade Law [UNCITRAL], Technical Notes on Online Dispute Resolution, U.N. Doc. A/CN.9/989 (2017), available at https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/odr/technicalnotes/online_dispute_resolution.
Regulation 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on Online Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes, 2013 O.J. (L 165) 1.
NITI Aayog, Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India (2020), available at https://www.niti.gov.in/.
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/.
Panda, S. K., Bhatt, A., & Satapathy, A. (2024). ChatGPT and Its Role in Academic Libraries: A Discussion. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 30(4), 422–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2024.2381510
Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-153, 130 Stat. 376 (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1836).
Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Pub. L. No. 105-304, 112 Stat. 2860 (1998) (codified in scattered sections of 17 U.S.C.).
WIPO Copyright Treaty, Dec. 20, 1996, S. Treaty Doc. No. 105-17 (1997), 2186 U.N.T.S. 121; WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, Dec. 20, 1996, 2186 U.N.T.S. 203.
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, 1869 U.N.T.S. 299.
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, c. 48, § 9(3) (UK); U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence (2023), available at https://www.copyright.gov.
Regulation 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 Oct. 2022 on a Single Market for Digital Services (Digital Services Act), 2022 O.J. (L 277) 1; Regulation 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 Apr. 2016 (General Data Protection Regulation), 2016 O.J. (L 119) 1.
Published
2025-07-01
How to Cite
Patel, M. S., & Raval, S. (2025). Global Approaches to Intellectual Property (IP) Protection in Digital Realm and Cyberspace Governance. GLS Law Journal , 7(2), 65 - 87. https://doi.org/10.69974/glslawjournal.v7i2.189
Section
Articles
