A study is done on the protection of sound recordings in the decentralized peer-to-peer (DP2P) file sharing in the United States, the United Kingdom and South Africa. This study reveals that because sound recordings have unique features different from other copyright works, the illegal sharing of sound recordings can ordinarily be filtered, identified, and detected by the Internet service providers (ISPs) before granting access to users and without infringing the users‟ right to privacy. However, the ISPs have failed in this regard, hence, they are strictly held liable under the contributory, vicarious and inducing infringements notwithstanding the statutory law which prohibits ISPs from monitoring, and intercepting their networks. In fact and law, the terms filtering, identifying and detecting on the one hand and monitoring and intercepting on the other hand are different in relation to sound recordings and as such ISPs are not prohibited from filtering, identifying and detecting illegal sound recordings on their networks, thus, ISPs are not protected under the limitation law as it is generally believed. However, several recommendations are made for reform, inter alia: a review of the limitation law to include the terms filtering, identifying and detecting in pursuance of the terms monitoring, and intercepting, if the intention of the legislators was meant to include the latter terms; protection of access right in digital sound recordings, protection of the neighbouring rights of ISPs in the digital world, imposing levies on all recording equipment, the insurability of sound recordings and ISPs‟ signals, and bandwidth. / Mercentile Law / LL. M. (Mercantile Law)

L’appel au renforcement de la protection du droit d’auteur dans le but de mieux lutter contre la contrefaçon, surtout avec l’avènement et le développement incessant des nouvelles technologies, est-il justifié ? Le bilan des efforts déployés récemment sur la scène internationale pour réaliser un tel renforcement, ayant débouché sur l’élaboration du très controversé ACTA, démontre que la réponse à cette question ne peut être ni simple ni immédiate. Evaluer l’opportunité et déterminer la nécessité de renforcer cette protection ne peuvent se faire qu’après un examen approfondi des solutions juridiques, existantes déjà dans les dispositifs nationaux des deux Etats qui assurent chacun une protection efficace des droits des auteurs, tout en adoptant des approches diamétralement opposées en la matière à savoir, la France et les Etats-Unis. Une fois ces deux droits comparés, une inégalité dans le niveau de protection ressort, appelant des améliorations qui passent par une intégration d’institutions juridiques « venues d’ailleurs ». Cette intégration qui aura pour résultat d’harmoniser ces deux droits, dans le respect des particularismes nationaux, pourra se réaliser à l’aide du droit comparé. L’harmonisation des droits nationaux dans le respect de leurs différences est aussi l’oeuvre du droit international surtout lorsqu’il s’agit d’une matière qui ne peut être traitée qu’à l’échelle internationale, voire mondiale. Pour pouvoir comprendre les raisons de la persistance des différences entre les deux droits menant à cette inégalité, l’examen des instruments internationaux adoptés en la matière, censés harmoniser la protection du droit d’auteur, est indispensable. Le bilan de cet examen s’avère mitigé dans la mesure où, les spécificités nationales l’emportent, bloquant ainsi le processus d’harmonisation. Or, le droit comparé a comme rôle principal de préparer un terrain favorable à une harmonisation internationale réussie, en dégageant des solutions concrètes, pratiques et surtout adaptées puisque ne heurtant pas les traditions juridiques nationales qu’il aura réussi à identifier. / Is the call to strengthen the protection of copyright in order to better fight copyright infringement, especially with the advent and the constant development of new technologies, justified? The results of the recent efforts on the international stage to achieve such a purpose, which led to the drawing up of the very controversial ACTA, show that the answer to this question cannot be simple nor immediate. Assessing the appropriateness as well as determining the need to strengthen this protection can only be made after a thorough review of legal solutions that already exist in the domestic law of two states, each of which ensures effective protection of copyright while adopting diametrically opposite approaches in this field namely, France and the United States. Once these two domestic laws have been compared, inequality in the level of protection appears, calling for improvements that go through an integration of legal institutions "coming from somewhere else". This integration that will have as a result the harmonization of these two laws while taking into account the national specificities, can be realized using the comparative law. The harmonization of national laws while respecting their differences is the work of international law as well, especially when the subject matter could only be addressed on an international even global scale. To understand the reasons for the persistence of differences between these two laws leading to this inequality, review of international instruments adopted in this field which are supposed to harmonize the protection of copyright, is essential. The results of this review are mixed due to the fact that national differences prevail, thus blocking the harmonization process. However, comparative law's primary role is to prepare the ground for a successful international harmonization, by providing concrete, practical and appropriate solutions given the fact that they do not conflict with national legal traditions that the comparative law has managed to identify.

La faculté de copie privée, admise depuis longtemps et figurant à l’article L. 122-5 du Code de la propriété intellectuelle, est présentée par la doctrine majoritaire comme une exception au droit d’auteur. Elle permet à une personne de dupliquer une œuvre pour son usage personnel sans avoir à demander l’accord préalable de l’auteur et s’illustre dans deux cas : la copie pour son usage personnel faite par le propriétaire d’un exemplaire, laquelle est facile à admettre ; et celle faite par un tiers, notamment un emprunteur de l’exemplaire, laquelle s’impose aussi. On observe que la copie privée, parce qu’elle ne réalise pas une communication au public, doit être considérée comme étant hors du champ du droit d’auteur, qui trouve ici une de ses limites. Récemment, le législateur a considéré que, du fait de l’évolution des techniques, la copie privée entraînait un préjudice pour l’auteur. Il a prévu une rémunération pour le compenser. Puis, celle-ci a été cantonnée aux seules copies de source licite, en même temps qu’ont été incriminées les copies de source illicite. Mais cette pénalisation est mal vécue et peu appliquée. Et l’absence de rémunération est injuste pour l’auteur. Il serait bon de supprimer la distinction entre copie privée licite et illicite. On étendrait alors la compensation à toutes les copies privées et on se dispenserait ainsi d’assumer la charge de la répression de la copie privée illicite. On admettrait en même temps que l’auteur limite par voie contractuelle le nombre de copies privées, notamment en utilisant des mesures techniques de protection et d’information, mais sans pouvoir interdire totalement cette faculté de copie privée à l’utilisateur. / The private copying’s faculty, admitted for a long time and contained in article L. 122-5 of the Code of Intellectual Property, is presented by the majority doctrine as an exception to copyright. It allows a person to duplicate a work for his personal use without having to seek the prior consent of the author and it is illustrated in two cases : the copy for his personal use made by the owner of a copy, which is easy to admit ; and the one made by a third party, including a borrower of the copy, which is also required. It is observed that private copying, because it does not make a communication to the public, must be considered as being outside the field of copyright, which finds here one of its limits. Recently, the legislature considered that, due to the evolution of the techniques, the private copy entailed a prejudice for the author. He has provided compensation to compensate him. Then, it was confined to the only copies of lawful source, while were reprimanded the copies of illicit source. But this penalty is poorly lived and little applied. And the lack of remuneration is unfair for the author. It would be good to remove the distinction between lawful and unlawful private copying. Compensation would then be extended to all private copies and the repression’s burden of unlawful private copying would be dispensed with. In the same time, it should be admitted that the author limits the number of private copies by contractual means, especially by using digital rights management, but without being able to totally prohibit this private copying’s faculty for the user.

The present study examines General Deterrence Theory (GDT) and its "parent," Rational Choice Theory (RCT), in an information security setting, assessing the behavioral intent to violate organizational policy under varying levels of certainty, severity and celerity of negative sanction. Also assessed is the individual computer user's time orientation, as measured by the Consideration of Future Consequences (CFC) instrument (Strathman et. al, 1994). How does rational consideration of violation rewards influence the impact of sanctions on individuals? How does time orientation impact intent to violate security policy? How do these operate in an IS context? These questions are examined by assessing the responses of university students (N = 443) to experimental manipulations of sanctions and rewards. Answering vignettes with the factorial survey method, intent to violate is assessed in a setting of Internet piracy of electronic textbooks while being monitored by computer security systems. Findings show that, although traditional GDT variables and reward impact intent to violate, CFC does not cause the hypothesized moderating effect on these variables. However, post-hoc analysis reveals a direct effect of time orientation on behavioral intent, as well as a weak moderating effect opposite of the hypotheses, indicating increased time orientation positively moderates, rather than negatively moderates, the impact of reward on intent to violate. Implications for theory and practice, and future research directions, are discussed.