onlinelegaleducation Archives

Cloud computing has, so far, no clear definition. The physical difficulty in storing huge amount of data and recurring data breaches have impelled the development of a system wherein the information is not stored in the physical hardware but in cyberspace called cloud. It provides three types of services – (SaaS) Software as a Service, IaaS (Infrastructure as a Service) and PaaS (Platform as a service).

Iaas generally provide service to network architects. Here, the Cloud Service Providers (CSPs) provide infrastructures like storage, communication, firewalls and IP addresses thereby creating an environment where the platform developers can install and run a program. Amazon web service is one example that provides IaaS.

PaaS sets out a platform for the application developers to develop services and application without actually buying the physical hardware and software. Google App Engine provide platform for various companies to develop applications.

SaaS generally aimed at end users, is accessed through internet. Here, the user is not concerned about its installation and maintenance. Consumer pays only for the usage. Gmail, Microsoft 365 are all services utilised in the form of SaaS.

Laws on Cloud computing in USA, EU and India

In European Union, EU Software Directive and EU Copyrights Directive govern copyrights laws on cloud computing. Former recognises software as a literary work. EU Copyrights Directive provides copyright holder the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute and communicate the work to the public.

In USA, the laws on cloud are envisaged in S.109 of the Copyright Act 1976. The copyright owner has exclusive right to ‘distribute copies…to public and others by way of transfer of ownership…’. In the context of Internet, this means transfer of files from one computer to another. The Act of Stored Communication, 1986 and Health Insurance Probability and Accountability Act are two other legislations that deal with storing personal information within a cloud.

In India, laws on cloud computing are still growing. The Copyright Act, 1957 recognise data stored in electronic form as literary work. While the Information Technology Act, 2000 deals with electronic governance and electronic records, the Information Technology (Reasonable Practices) Rules, 2011 entails rules on storage of sensitive personal information in cyberspace.

Cloud Computing, Copyrights and European law

Here, the copyright violation mainly concerns online storage lockers for content uploaded by users. In Newzbin’s case of United Kindgom, Newzbin Ltd was liable for providing hyperlinks in their webpage to download movies from other websites; there exist a close relationship between primary infringer and authoriser. Arguments were raised as to charge them as secondary infringer as they did not obtain license from the rightful copyright owner. In such situation the CSPs are obliged to follow “notice and take down” procedure. In Google Ad words case, CJEU held that the CSPs should play a neutral role and ensuring knowledge about data stored.

In 2012, Pirate Bay Bit Torrents founders were prosecuted by Swedish Government as primary infringer for encouraging copyrights violations. Similarly, Google was also sued for publishing digitalised books for free without the permission of the copyright holders of various publishing houses.

Software Piracy

One of the most prominent services provided by the CSPs is SaaS. Many software companies are engaged in the business of providing cloud services to companies and other consumers. However, this poses various challenges. SaaS is believed to be the most efficient means to curb software piracy. This is because it is easy to track down the violators when data stored in cloud is being hacked compared to the difficulty of police force to seize bootlegged CDs in every nook and cranny. However, the problems of “black clouds” and “grey clouds” remain unanswered. Black cloud is presence of pirated SaaS. Grey cloud arises when a consumer (a Company) buys a license legally and then sells to members of company and even to outsiders.

Conclusion

Direct infringement can be levelled against CSPs only if they partook directly in the violation. Management and storage of data does not imply abetment to breach of copyrighted files,thus making the threshold to determine direct liability a high one and was pronounced so by the US Court in ‘Religious Technology Center v. Netcom Communication’. The plaintiff merely has to establish that the CSP is more than a ‘mere passive conduit’ for storage. But studies and reports suggest that storing data as SaaS is the best available method to counter software piracy. Enhanced protection of data and information from grey and black clouds are also the need of the hour.

By Hariharan Vignesh

Launching satellites into orbit, once the exclusive domain of the U.S. and Soviet governments, today is an industry in which companies in the United States, Europe, China, Russia, Ukraine, Japan, and India compete. In the United States, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) owns and launches its space shuttle. Private sector companies provide launch services for other NASA launches, and many of those for the Department of Defense (DOD). Commercial customers purchase launch services from the U.S. companies or their competitors. Since the early 1980s, Congress and successive Administrations have taken actions, including passing several laws, to facilitate the U.S. commercial space launch services business. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulates the industry

Several entrepreneurial U.S. companies have been attempting to develop RLVs through private financing. Many have encountered difficulties in obtaining financing from the financial markets, and some have sought government loan guarantees or tax credits. Some have received limited direct government funding through various contracts. One company, SpaceX, headed by Elon Musk (creator of PayPal), asserts that it will dramatically reduce the cost of reaching orbit with its partially reusable Falcon launch vehicle i.e The first Falcon launch, of small DOD communications satellites.

Europe, China, Russia, Ukraine, India, and Japan offer commercial launch services in competition with U.S. companies. Most satellites are manufactured by U.S. companies or include U.S. components and hence require export licenses, giving the United States considerable influence over how other countries participate in the commercial launch services market. The United States negotiated bilateral trade agreements with China, Russia, and Ukraine on “rules of the road” for participating in the market to ensure they did not offer unfair competition because of their non-market economies.

Europe: The European Space Agency (ESA) developed the Ariane family of launch vehicles. The first test launch of an Ariane was in 1979; operational launches began in 1982. ESA continued to develop new variants of Ariane. Ariane 5 is the only version now in use. ESA also is developing a smaller launch vehicle, Vega, whose first launch is expected in 2005. Operational launches are conducted by the French company Arianespace. Arianespace conducts its launches from Kourou, French Guiana, on the northern coast of South America. Arianespace also markets Russia’s Soyuz launch vehicle and ESA is planning to build a launch site for Soyuz at Kourou.

India: India conducted its first successful orbital space launch in 1980. Its ASLV and PSLV launch vehicles can place relatively small satellites in low Earth orbit. India is developing a larger vehicle (GSLV) capable of reaching geostationary orbit. The GSLV, which uses Russian cryogenic engines that were the subject of a dispute between the United States and Russia (discussed earlier), made its first operational flight in September 2004.

The U.S. Congress has been debating issues involving the domestic launch services industry for many years. Part of the debate has been focused on satellite export issues (discussed below). Another part concerns what the government should do to stimulate development of new launch vehicles by the private sector, particularly in a market that is stagnant or declining. That debate focuses on whether tax incentives or loan guarantees should be created for companies attempting to develop lower cost launch vehicles. Tax incentive advocates argue that loan guarantee programs allow the government to pick winners and losers; loan guarantee advocates argue that tax incentives are insufficient to promote necessary investment in capital intensive projects.

Thereby, it is evidently clear that competitive regime needs to established in order to feed both public and private partnership between governmental and non-governmental entities to survive and thrive in the market of the future.