Computer Ethics, Fall 2010 Week 3
Corboy Law Room 523
4:15-6:45 Mondays
Fair Use
Sony v Universal
NET Act
RIAA lawsuits
Michael Eisner
DRM
Copyright law/cases
DMCA
Read: §2.1, 2.2 of Baase on privacy
Read http://cs.luc.edu/pld/ethics/garfinkel_RFID.pdf on privacy
Ethical arguments about copying
Baase p 228
- I can't afford CDs
- Because I can't afford CDs and so would never buy them, Big Music
loses nothing when I download instead.
- I'm only downloading isolated tracks, not entire CDs
- It's ok to take from large, wealthy corporations. (Baase dismisses
this. Is there any underlying justification?)
- I wouldn't be buying it regardless
- I have a right to give gifts (of tracks) to my friends
- personal file-sharing is so small as to be inconsequential.
- Everyone does it.
- I'd be happy to get permission to use zzzz, but don't know where.
This is the Eyes on the Prize
problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyes_on_the_Prize.
- I'm posting as a public service
- I'm posting to address some important social goal, not for sharing per se. (Legally,
this is called transformative
use)
- This is Fair Use.
What do you think of these?
Ethics of copyright: is it all about respecting the creator's right to
sell their product, that is, is it dependent on the creator's business
model?? Isn't this extremely utilitarian?
Bottom line: if we want the old rules to continue, we need to find ways
to ensure return on investment for creators of music, movies, and
books.
If.
And such ways to ensure ROI (Return On Investment, a standard B-school
acronym) can be legal, technical (eg DRM), or social.
Again, how did we get into a situation where our ethical decision making
involved analysis of ROI?
Fair Use
Legal basis for fair use
One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right
to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or
phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in
sections 107 through 118 of the copyright act (title 17, U.S. Code).
One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of "fair use."
Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the
doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions
over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the
copyright law.
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for
which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered "fair,"
such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and
research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in
determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
- the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use
is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
- the nature of the copyrighted work;
- amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to
the
copyrighted work as a whole; and
- the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value
of
the copyrighted work.
Factor 1 relates to how you are using
the work, and is not exclusively tied to the commercial/nonprofit
issue. It may help, for example, if your use is transformative:
transforming the original work into something new and at least
partially unrelated. Factor 2 relates to the work itself: is it
fiction? Nonfiction? Text? Video? Music? A performance?
Question: does the First Amendment imply some sort of fair-use right
to quote other works?
More often, Fair Use is seen as following from the "to promote useful
knowledge"
social-contract justification under the Copyright Clause of the
Constitution.
The standard example of fair use is quotes used in a book
review. Such quotes are essential to provide an example of the author's
style, which may
be a central issue in the review. However, asking permission clearly
sacrifices the critic's impartiality.
Factor 1 is traditionally used to justify all photocopying by schools,
but this is clearly overbroad.
PARODIES are also often considered as an Item 1 fair-use exemption,
although you should be parodying the work in question and not just
using the work in a parody of something else. (Maybe not; see 1964 MAD
case below)
Here are a few parodies:
- South Park (almost any episode)
- Weird Al
- www.xkcd.com/c78.html
- Bored of the Rings
- 2 Live Crew and the Campbell
case
Generally the creator of a parody does NOT need permission of the
original author.
Factor
2 refers to whether the work is nonfiction or fiction, etc. Fundamental
news facts (and even sometimes images, eg individual frames from the
Zapruder film of the Kennedy assassination) have been ruled "fair use".
(The film itself is still under copyright, held now by the Sixth Floor
Museum.)
Sports scores are still debatable.
Factor 3: "one chapter" is probably way over the fair-use boundary.
Quoting 400 words from Gerald Ford's biography was ruled not fair use.
(However, the 400 words in question were those where Ford explained his
pardon of Nixon.)
Music sampling, in the sense of 1-2 second
snips used in another work, might
be fair use. 10-20 seconds is a
lot longer.
Factor 4: This is the big one. See Sony v Universal. A tricky problem
with Factor 4, however, is that while there might not be a market now
for the use in question, such a market could potentially develop. That
is, a market for music sampling rights might develop (has developed!)
if sampling were not claimed as fair use. A market for prerecorded
television shows has definitely developed. Later we'll consider a case
in which the plaintiff claimed that they were considering marketing
thumbnail images, and thus images.google.com's "republication" of thumbnail images was not Fair Use.
Sony v Universal City Studios, 1984
SCOTUS decision: http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/464_US_417.htm,
by Justice Stevens.
This is the "Betamax" case, to at least some degree about fair use.
Universal Studios sued Sony for selling the betamax VCR, on the theory
that Sony was thus abetting copyright violation, and profiting from it.
District court found for Sony
Appellate court (9th circuit) found for Universal Studios
Supreme court, 5-4 decision, found for Sony
Paragraph 12 of the Supreme Court decision (emphasis added), addressing
the Four Factors of Fairness:
The District Court concluded that
noncommercial home use recording of material broadcast over the public
airwaves was a fair use
of copyrighted works and did not constitute copyright infringement. It
emphasized the fact that the material was broadcast free to the public
at large, the noncommercial character of the use, and the private
character of the activity conducted entirely within the home. Moreover,
the court found that the purpose of this use served the public interest
in increasing access to television programming, an interest that "is
consistent with the First Amendment policy of providing the fullest
possible access to information through the public airwaves. Even when
an entire copyrighted work was recorded, the District Court regarded
the copying as fair use "because there is no accompanying reduction in
the market for ‘plaintiff’s original work.‘"
Is that part about "broadcast free to the public" and the "private
character" explicit in the Four Factors? What about the part about
"serving the public interest"? Note the consideration of the effect on
the market. Note also that in 1984 there was no market for recordings
of TV shows; there is now.
The Supreme Court decision then went on to introduce the doctrine of Substantial Non-Infringing Uses,
still with us today and sometimes abbreviated SNIUs.
This case apparently legalized taping of TV programs for later viewing
(but NOT archiving). Universal did not show how it was damaged, which
didn't help their case any (presumably they thought it was obvious?).
Under the doctrine of SNIU, Substantial Non-Infringing Uses, a
distributor cannot be held liable for users' infringement (that is, for
contributory infringement) so long as the tool is capable of
substantial noninfringing uses. The precise role of "Fair Use" in the
court's reasoning is not as clear as it might be, but this certainly
DID play a role. It was actually the District Court that made that case.
SCOTUS does NOT really spell out "Fair Use" four-factor analysis,
though they hint at it in the section "Unauthorized Time-Shifting"
(paragraph 46). It was the District Court that came to the Fair Use
conclusion.
Paragraph 54: "One may search the
Copyright Act in vain for any sign that the elected representatives of
the millions of people who watch television every day have made it
unlawful to copy a program for later viewing at home"
However, there is also the following very interesting line from the
Sony decision, in paragraph 46:
Although every commercial use of copyrighted
material is presumptively an unfair exploitation of the monopoly
privilege that
belongs to the owner of the copyright, ...
This is a remarkably strong statement about commercial use! The Supreme
Court has backed away from this considerably in later decisions.
Fred Rogers testified in favor of Sony
Harry Blackmun, Thurgood Marshall, Lewis Powell, and William
Rehnquist dissented.
Criminal copyright violations
In 1994 David LaMacchia ran a "warez" site as an MIT student; that is,
he created an ftp site for the trading of (bootleg) softwarez.
He did not profit from the software downloads; in this, his site was a
precursor of today's file-sharing systems.
Because of the lack of a profit motive, the government lost its case against him. The
NET act
was passed by congress to address this in future cases. It
criminalizes some forms of noncommercial
copyright infringement, which until then hadn't
apparently been illegal. (Copyright owners like the RIAA, or in
LaMacchia's case Microsoft, could still go after you).
17 U.S.C. § 101
§ 101. Definitions
Add the following between "display" and "fixed":
The term "financial gain" includes receipt, or expectation of
receipt, of anything of value,
including the receipt of other copyrighted works.
Does this cover peer-to-peer filesharing? What if you are just
distributing music you love?
17 U.S.C. §§ 506 & 507
§ 506. Criminal
offenses
(a) Criminal
Infringement.--Any person who infringes a copyright willfully and for
purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain shall be
punished as provided in
section 2319 of title 18. either--
- for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial
gain, or
- by the reproduction or
distribution, including by electronic means,
during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or
more copyrighted
works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000,
shall be
punished as provided
under section 2319 of title 18. For
purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or
distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient
to establish willful
infringement.
How does the NET act affect file sharing?
Note that the law includes both reproduction and distribution.
Note the retail $1000 cutoff. Arguably that is 1,000 tracks. So far,
prosecutors have been loathe to apply the NET act to music filesharers.
This is partly due, no doubt, to the added burden of proving "willful"
infringement: the law states that file sharing itself is not sufficient
to establish "willfulness" (infringement "with knowledge of or
'reckless disregard' for the plaintiffs' copyrights" -- arstechnica.com).
In 1994, mp3 file sharing had not yet become significant.
Napster
Napster was started June 1999. Content owners promptly sued, and Napster
lost in federal district court in 2000. The Ninth
Circuit appeals court then agreed to hear the case. They granted an
injunction allowing
Napster to continue operating until the case was decided, because they
took
seriously Napster's arguments that Napster might have "substantial
non-infringing uses" and that Napster was only a kind of search engine
while
the real copyright violators were the users. The Ninth Circuit
eventually found that Napster
did indeed have Substantial Non-Infringing Uses, but they ruled against
Napster by January 2001. After some negotiating, Napster was ordered in
March 2001 to remove infringing content,
which they technologically simply could not do, and so they shut down in
July of that year.
Bottom line: the Betamax videotaping precedent [below] was rejected
because,
although SNIUs existed for Napsster, Napster had actual knowledge of
specific infringing material and failed to act to block or remove it.
Also, Napster did profit from it.
However,
the court refused to issue an injunction for quite a while; it was
clear that the Betamax precedent was being taken very seriously.
Legality in Napster era: napster.com was a clearinghouse for who was
online, and what songs they held. Actual copying was between peers.
Did that make it ok?
Napster figured the RIAA would never bother with individual lawsuits
against users.
Were they right?
Are such suits justified?
What evidence is needed for subpoena?
Note that signed and indie musicians fare VERY differently under the
napster model!
Also note the long-term implications for "future fans"
IS napster like radio?
Napsterized business model for musicians: make money giving live concerts, not selling CDs.
IS THIS REALISTIC? IS THIS FAIR? IS THIS JUST LIFE?
Is this a case of "harm" being unequal to "wrong"?
Question: is it ethical to cause harm?
What about economic harm?
RIAA Lawsuits
Part of the Napster business model was that the RIAA wouldn't ever
bother to sue individual music-file-sharers. But when file-sharing
continued after Napster was closed down, the RIAA felt forced to do
just that.
File-sharing software works by sharing your
files too; advertising
your music folder(s) online when you join the service. Investigators
look for these, by participating in online file-sharing networks. They
record your IP address and the listed songs; they also generally
download a few of the songs.
Different software works different
ways. Kazaa shows a "share" folder. bittorrent shows your connection to
a torrent "tracker" site, but there's no notion of "shared files".
Step 1: The RIAA files a "John Doe" lawsuit against your ISP.
They
issue a subpoena to your ISP, asking for your name, and, if relevant,
the MAC address of your computer. These subpoenas are almost always in
a group, asking for multiple customer names.
One legal criticism of RIAA lawsuits has been over joining together
of multiple individuals in one ISP lawsuit. Normally you can't do that
unless you believe the cases are related.
Prior to December 19, 2003, the RIAA didn't need to sue ISPs: it could
subpoena ISP records without
a lawsuit, under a provision of the DMCA. But then a court ruled that
this DMCA provision did not apply to RIAA-type cases. [RIAA v Verizon]
The ISP usually complies, usually without contacting you. However, it
is possible for either the ISP or you (if the ISP contacts you) to file
in court to "quash" the subpoena. You do need a reason for that,
however. It *is* possible to file to quash without giving up your
identity, but you have to hire a lawyer.
Step 2: the RIAA now sends you a settlement letter, offering you a
chance to settle before the lawsuit is filed. The settlement offer is
usually something like $500-1000 per track. The RIAA may or may not
distinguish between tracks that showed up in your directory, and/or
tracks that they actually downloaded.
You can refuse to settle. However, in that case the RIAA will almost
certainly go to Step 3.
Once the possibility of a
lawsuit is raised, destroying evidence becomes both a civil and criminal
offense.
Step 3: The RIAA files a lawsuit. They are likely to ask for a
forensic copy of
your hard drives (they may ask for the hard drives themselves, but
you're under no obligation to give them up). An independent forensic
examiner will copy the drive, and determine whether or not the songs
are there. (The MAC address from Step 1 plays a role here in determining
whether they've got the right computer; so does other identifying
information about KaZaa, etc.)
The cost of settlement typically goes up a little at this point.
Some defenses that have NOT helped:
- the ISP is your school, and releasing school records is illegal.
(releasing names is not
illegal)
- you didn't know it was against the law.
Yes you did. Come on.
But it doesn't matter.
- you already owned the tracks on CD.
See the Gonzalez case; www.eff.org/wp/riaa-v-people-years-later.
Copyright
law allows you to make a backup copy of what you bought; there is no
provision for receiving your backup copy from someone else.
Some possibly valid defenses in court:
The problem with all these is that you don't want to be going to court,
and the RIAA does not have to consider these when settling.
It wasn't your computer.
Typically this is due to the ISP's
misidentification of you. Sometimes it's because someone jacked your
wi-fi. In this case the forensic examination of your computer will probably help.
Your roommate used your computer
Your
problem
here is proving that this is the case. In civil cases, the
burden-of-proof requirement for the plaintiff is much more modest than
in criminal cases.
Your kids used your computer
There is a very limited legal doctrine of parental responsibility.
Originally, the RIAA did sue parents, or made them settlement offers.
More recently, after several losses, the RIAA has been suing the minors
themselves. This is a little tricky; the court must appoint an
attorney, often at the RIAA's expense. Also, in Capitol_v_Foster,
Deborah Foster eventually won $68,000 in legal fees from the RIAA.
Foster's daughter did the downloading. (The case was brought in 2004;
the RIAA dropped their suit a year later but Foster continued with her
countersuit. The judge eventually ordered the award for legal costs
without a full trial.)
You didn't actually download any songs
What the RIAA has, as
evidence, isn't evidence of downloading. All they
have is evidence that you "offered" songs for downloading. At this
point it might matter a great deal whether the RIAA actually tried
downloading anything from your computer. Jammie Thomas had her case go
to trial (the first RIAA case to reach a jury trial; Tenenbaum's July
2009 trial was the second) and she lost and was ordered to pay
$220,000. But Judge Michael Davis later rethought this issue, rejected
the "offered for distribution" theory, and ordered a new trial. Alas,
the new trial reached a judgement against Thomas of $1.9 million.
Tenenbaum case
Joel Tenenbaum was caught downloading files by the
RIAA, and was offered their past settlement offer, typically about
$5000. He chose to fight. He got Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson to
take his case pro bono; Nesson
also involved his law-school class. They put up a vigorous and spirited
defense before Judge Nancy Gertner.
They lost.
When it came time to assess damages (July 31, 2009), the jury decided
$22,500 per track was fair, for
a total of $675,000. Oops.
Actually, a core part of Tenenbaum's defense, and the central part of
his appeal, is that the damages (and settlement offer) were
disproportionately high, and not tied to actual
damages. Normally, when you sue someone, all you can ask for is actual
damages. Actual retail cost of music tracks is about $1. Tenenbaum got socked with 22,500 times actual damages!
Tenenbaum's case was the second RIAA case to go to trial. Jammie
Thomas-Rasset was first; in her first case the verdict was $222,000.
Thomas-Rasset got a new trial; the second verdict was $1,920,000.
Moral: think hard about settling early.
Tenenbaum's music downloading appeared to be both intentional
and egregious; he had actually been sharing some 800 songs.
However, it was done when he was a student.
An interesting point about the case is how the judge dismissed the
fair-use claim based on the legal theory that fair use could not apply after
Apple opened its iTunes store; that is, once it became possible to buy
individual tracks, file-sharers lost any claim to fair use. That is,
the underlying justification for "fair use" was that mp3 tracks were
otherwise unavailable. Tenenbaum's appeal in part is about the idea
that until iTunes dropped DRM its music tracks were still not really
comparable to downloaded ones.
What do you think of this Fair Use argument?
See http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/o-tenenbaum-riaa-wins-675000-or-22500-per-song.ars.
and the links at the end to earlier articles.
It's really hard to generate much sympathy for the RIAA methods.
Consider, though, the theory that file sharing is a violation of their
copyrights, and that such individual lawsuits are the ONLYway to
proceed.
What's unfair about this process? What is fixable, within the
constraints of the US legal system?
Some things to think about:
- statuary damages for infringement
- rules for defendants who
cannot afford an attorney
- rules of evidence
RIAA-2
The RIAA has officially given up on filing lawsuits against infringers,
at least for now; they announced this policy in December 2008, just
after the Tenenbaum case (lawsuits still in the pipeline will
continue). The new policy is to work with ISPs to
- notify users of infringement for the first offense
- cut off
their internet access (perhaps slowing it for a while, first)
See http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2008/12/riaa-says-it-pl.
Why would ISPs want to go along with this plan? Here are a few reasons:
- file-sharers are also huge bandwidth hogs. (Linux users are too,
but there aren't enough of us to matter. (How many times a day do you
rebuild your kernel?)) The
broadband business model basically gives every customer the ability to
download several dozen gigabytes a day, but the hope is that most
customers will actually download somewhere in the range of dozens of
megabytes a day. File-sharers who download movies pretty solidly put
themselves in the heavy-downloaders camp, tying up resources for
everyone.
- The ISP might get sued. The RIAA probably wouldn't
win, but it would be an expensive hassle.
- It's the Right Thing
To Do. Knowingly cooperating with copyright infringement is wrong.
- Eventually,
the RIAA is likely to press for laws requiring
ISPs to cooperate. Better get started now.
Bill O'Reilly on Intellectual Property (also on Privacy): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCSaF4KC3eE.
Bill's correspondent is attorney Megyn Kelly. Kelly acknowledges that
it is indeed a "federal offense to access email without authorization",
but goes on to say that the web site is probably ok [~2:00 minute
mark]. O'Reilly responds with "they're trafficking in stolen
merchandise" and compares it to if "you steal somebody's car".
At 3:13, he says there is "no difference between taking a person's
letter out of the mailbox and taking someones email off their internet
site".
Is there a difference?
To be fair, O'Reilly here is not talking about file sharing, but rather
someone hacking into someone (Palin's) private email account.
Michael Eisner, CEO
of Disney, testifying before Congress in June 2000: (as included in
Halbert & Ingulli, CyberEthics,
2004)
Eisner's statement remains a pretty clear example of a particular
point of view, even if some of his concerns are a bit dated. He does
use "intellectual property" as if you're just supposed to assume it's
the same as physical property. His comments about "Pirates of
Encryption" are a bit odd, especially considering that the goal of many
encryption crackers was and is the ability to play purchased DVDs on
arbitrary (eg linux) systems. Note that he appears to equate that with
credit-card theft.
[Although Eisner's remarks supposedly are from 2000, he refers to the 2003 movie Pirates of the Carribean.]
- Theft is theft. (Is this a deontological sentiment?)
-
Movies cost a lot
-
music downloading is as bad as credit card theft
-
Everyone has to play by infringement rules
-
distributing a DVD is no different from stealing newspapers
-
THEFT IS THEFT
-
[creators are entitled to] FULL RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP
- "Today's
Internet pirates try to hide
behind some contrived New Age arguments of cyberspace"
Disney believes in technology
5 rules:
1. legislative mandate for technological fixes
2. international protection
3. public education - many don't know it is wrong
4. use appropriate technological measures
5. appropriate pricing
does free copying drive down prices?
DISCUSSION: Do you agree with Mr Eisner?
Conversly, does Disney engage in theft by overpricing (cf Eisner's 5th
rule)
Some side issues:
- What if anything was iCrave.com doing wrong? Apparently they were
simply streaming broadcast TV to the internet in real time; who loses?
They were wrapping the content in banner ads.
- How closely is file-sharing related to credit-card fraud and endangerment of children?
Can the FILM industry survive on the napster model?
Here we get into ECONOMICS. Thirty years ago, the movie industry income
from selling recordings was zero,
and the industry did fairly well. That said, it seems likely that going
back to those days would be impossible.
From 2002 to 2008, the film industry grossed more in DVD sales than at
the box office. However, that trend reversed in 2009. It is not clear
whether filesharing is a significant factor, or, for that matter, legal
on-demand downloads (which are not counted as DVD sales). (TV rights in
the past were often as large as box-office; I do not know if that trend
has continued but I doubt it.)
Figures in billions:
|
box office
|
DVD, other sales
|
rental (all forms)
|
2008
|
8.99
|
10.06
|
1.20
|
2009
|
9.87
|
8.73
|
1.27
|
Other ethics/economics questions:
- What is the FAIR amount of money to pay for something?
- Can people be EXPLOITED by receiving too low an income?
- Is HARM to other people ever justified, aside from ECONOMIC HARM?
- Are there limits to justifable ECONOMIC harm?
Check out http://thepiratebay.org.
O brave new world!
What about the market for video games that run on a general-purpose
computer, rather than a console? Supposedly the main reason this market
has all but collapsed is that it is much too easy to defeat copy
protection, and with games running $50 each, there is considerable
incentive to do this.
If this is true, it would be an example of how inability to enforce copyrights led to collapse of a market.
Console games represent, in a sense, a move by game makers to hardware-based copy protection.
(To be sure, game consoles also offer a standardized hardware platform
and guarantee high-performance graphics, but most personal computers
these days have high-performance graphics. Many of the most successful
PC-based games in fact involve registration and monthly fees (Second
Life (which can be played for free), World of Warcraft).)
Digital Restrictions Management
(aka Digital Rights Management)
How does DRM fit into the scheme here? Is it a reasonable response,
giving legitimate consumers the same level of access they had before?
Or is it the case that "only
the legitimate customers are punished"?
The general idea behind DRM is to have
- encrypted media files, with multiple possible decryption keys
- per-file,
per-user licenses, which
amount to the encrypted decryption key for a given file
- player
software (the DRM agent) that
can use some master decryption to decrypt the per-file decryption key
and then decrypt the licensed file. The
DRM agent respects the content owner's rights by not allowing the user
to
save or otherwise do anything with the decrypted stream other than play
it.
The last point is the sticky one: the software must act on behalf of
the far-away content owner, rather than on behalf of the person who
owns the hardware it is running on. Open-source DRM software is pretty
much impossible, for example; anyone could go into the source and add
code to save the decrypted stream in a DRM-free form. Windows too has
problems: anyone cat attach a debugger to the binary DRM software, and
with enough patience figure out either what the decryption key actually
is, or else insert binary code to allow saving the decrypted stream.
iPods, iPads, kindles, nooks, DVD players, and other closed
platforms are best for DRM. Under windows, DRM is one of the issues
leading Microsoft towards "secure" Palladium-style OS design under
which some processes can never have a debugger attached. ("Protected
processes" were introduced into Vista/win7.)
Most DRM platforms allow for retroactive
revocation of your license (presumably they will also refund your
money). This is creepy. Content providers can do this when your device
"phones home", when you attempt to download new content, or as part of
mandatory software upgrades.
Note that the music industry, led by iTunes, no longer focuses on DRM
sales. E-book readers, however, are still plunging ahead. One iPad
market-niche theory is that the machine will provide a good platform
for DRM-based movies and books.
Some older DRM mechanisms are based on the "per-play phone-home" model: the DRM
agent
contacts the central licensing office to verify the license. This
allows, of course, the licensing office to keep track of what you are
watching and when. This
raises a significant privacy concern. I have not heard of any recent
systems taking this approach.
Another major DRM issue is that different vendors support different
platforms. DRM might require you to purchase, and carry around with
you, several competing music players, in order to hold your entire
music library.
Perhaps the most vexing real-world DRM problem is that licenses are inevitably lost, sooner
or later. Keeping track of licenses is hard, and moving licensed
content from one iPod to the next (eg to the replacement unit) is
nontrivial. If the first iPod is lost or broken, and Apple no longer
supports the license, your content is lost. When Wal*Mart switched to
selling non-DRM music a year ago, they also dropped support for the DRM
music they'd sold in the past, meaning that those owners would see
their investment disappear whenever their current hardware platform
needed to be replaced.
Traditional CDs have a shelf life of (it is believed) a few decades,
and traditional books (at least on acid-free paper) have a shelf life
of centuries. Compare these to DRM lifetimes.
See also http://xkcd.com/488.
General copyright law rules
Different categories may be (and usually are) subject to different
rules. See http://copyright.gov/title17
for (voluminous) examples.
A local copy is at http://cs.luc.edu/pld/ethics/copyright2007.pdf.
Rules
for theatrical performances are tricky: these are ephemeral
performances! Videotaping a performance may violate actors'
rights.
Usual issue is rights of the DIRECTOR.
Copyright is held by creator unless:
- Sold
- the work is a Work For Hire
Copyright covers expression,
not content.
Famous case: Feist Publications v Rural Telephone Service:
(Feist v Rural) (1991, Justice O'Connor)
the phone book is NOT copyrightable.
(some European countries DO have "database protection". Gaak!!)
More info below
Note that if you buy a copy, you have right of private performance
(so to speak; there's no special recognition of it), but not public.
First Sale doctrine:
after YOU buy a copy, you can re-sell it. Copyright law only governs
the "first sale".
Who owns the copyright?
The creator, unless it is a "work for hire",
or the copyright is sold.
Fair Use:
This idea goes back to the constitution: the public has
some rights to copyrighted material. Limited
right of copying for reviews, etc
Good-faith defense protects schools, libraries, archives, and
public broadcasts (but not me and Joel Tenenbaum);
this limits statutory damages to $200 IF infringement was "reasonably
believed"
to be fair use. Note that, in the real world, this strategy doesn't
usually apply (though it probably means that schools don't get sued
much; it's not worth it.) Section 504(c)(2)(i).
In other cases, statutory damages may
be reduced to $200 if the "infringer was not aware and had no reason to
believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright".
Statutory damages are a flat amount you can ask for at trial
instead of
actual damages. See Section 504. Part of the theory is that by asking
for statutory damages, you do not have to prove the number of copies
made. But note the effect on the RIAA cases: actual damages might be in
the range of $1/track, if you're downloading for personal use, while
statutory damages are usually $750/track. Statutory damages were
created in an era when essentially all copyright cases that reached the
legal system involved bulk commercial copying. If a DVD street vendor
is arrested, statutory damages make sense, because of the likelihood
that a rather large number of copies have been sold in the past. But
file-sharing is about single copies.
Title 17 United States Code, Chapter 5, Section 504, Paragraph (c)
Statutory Damages. —
(1) Except as provided by clause (2) of
this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before
final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and
profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved
in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one
infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more
infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than
$750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just.
This was written to address large-scale commercial copyright
infringement. Should it apply to
personal use?
Laws (highlights only):
1790 copyright act: protected books and maps, for 17 years. "The earth
belongs in usufruct to the living": Thomas Jefferson
1909 copyright act: copy has to be in a form that can be seen and
read visually. Even back then this was a problem: piano rolls were the
medium of recorded music back then, and a court case established that
they were not copyrightable because they were not readable.
1972: Sound recordings were brought under Copyright.
But coverage was retroactive, and now lasts until 2067. There are NO
recordings in the public domain, unless the copyright holder has placed
them there.
1976 & 1980 copyright acts: mostly brings copyright up to date.
1976 act formally introduced the doctrine of Fair Use, previously
carved out by court cases, and formally covers television broadcasts.
1988: US signed Berne Convention, an international copyright treaty. We
held out until 1988 perhaps because Congress didn't believe in some of
its requirements [?]. 1989 Berne Convention Implementation Act: brings
US into conformance with Berne convention: most famous for no longer
requiring copyright notice on works.
[Berne Convention has since become WIPO: World Intellectual Property
Organization, a U.N. subsidiary.
WIPO: one-state-one-vote + north-south divide => rules harming
interests
of poor countries were blocked. Example: pharmaceutical patents
As a result, some international IP agreements are now under the
jurisdiction of the WTO (World Trade Organization), which the
first-world nations control more tightly.
Who has jurisdiction over IP law could be HUGELY important: the third
world is generally AGAINST tight IP law, while the first world is
generally FOR it (at least governments are)
Brief comment on treaty-based law:
A judge may work harder to find a way not to overrule a treaty,
than to find a way not to overrule an ordinary law.
1996: Communications Decency Act: not really about copyright, but it
will be important to us later.
- indecency v obscenity and the Internet
- Section 230
1997: No Electronic Theft act: David LaMacchia case (above);
criminalizes noncommercial copyright infringement if the value exceeds
$1000 and the infringement was willful.
In 1994, mp3 file sharing had not yet become significant.
1998: Digital Millenium Copyright Act passes. the two best-known and/or
most-controversial provisions:
- anticircumvention prohibition: it is illegal to help someone in
any way to circumvent copy protection
- safe-harbor / takedown
2005: recording movies in a theater is now a felony.
2009: Pro IP act
This may lead to an increase in statutory damage claims, by allowing plaintiffs to claim multiple infringements.
Some Famous Copyright Cases
Wikipedia famous copyright cases:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_leading_legal_cases_in_copyright_law.
1964: Irving Berlin et al. v. E.C. Publications, Inc.: "Mad Magazine
case"
Mad Magazine published "sung-to-the-tune-of" alternative lyrics for
popular songs.
District court ruled in MAD's favor on 23 of 25 songs.
2nd Federal Circuit decided in MAD's favor on all 25 songs.
Sony v Universal City Studios, 1984, mentioned above.
1985, Dowling v United States, 473 U.S. 207
Supreme Court
Paul Dowling ran a bootleg record company, as an Elvis fan.
SCOTUS agreed with his claim that what he did was not "theft"
in the sense of "interstate transportation of stolen property",
or fraud in the sense of "mail fraud". This was an important case in
establishing that copyright infringement was legally not the same as
theft (or, more specifically, that the illegal copies could not be
equated with "stolen property"). However, the distinction was rather
technical, addressing only whether a federal law on interstate
transport of stolen property could be applied.
From the Supreme Court decision, http://laws.findlaw.com/us/473/207.html
The language of 2314 [the
interstate-transportation-of-stolen property act] does not "plainly and
unmistakably" cover such
conduct. The phonorecords in question were not "stolen, converted or
taken by fraud" for purposes of 2314. The section's language clearly
contemplates a physical identity
between the items unlawfully obtained
and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking
of the subject goods. Since the statutorily defined property
rights of
a copyright holder have a character
distinct from the possessory
interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise,"
interference with copyright does not
easily equate with theft,
conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume
physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its
use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests
than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud
It follows that interference with
copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion,
or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to
define one who misappropriates a copyright: ... 'Anyone who violates
any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner ... is an infringer
of the
copyright.'
Dowling's criminal copyright-infringement conviction still stood.
Note that Dowling's case clearly met the first item of USC §506(a)(1),
namely
(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial
gain;
This was the standard that the courts ruled did not apply in the David laMacchia case.
1991, Feist Publications v Rural Telephone Service
Supreme Court
(Feist v Rural) (1991, Justice O'Connor; decision: http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/499_US_340.htm)
phone book is NOT copyrightable.
Paragraph 8:
This case concerns the interaction of
two well-established
propositions. The first is that facts are not copyrightable; the
other, that
compilations of facts generally are.
The decision then goes on to explain this apparent contradiction.
First, the essential prerequisite for copyrightability is that the
matter be original.
Some
compilations are original, perhaps in terms of selection criteria or
presentation. The phone book displays no such originality. There is
more starting at ¶ 22 (subsection B); Article 8 of the Constitution is
referenced in ¶ 23. The gist of O'Connor's opinion is that, yes,
copyright law does go back to the Constitution, and has to be
considered. In ¶ 26, she writes,
But some courts misunderstood the
statute. ..These courts ignored §
3 and § 4, focusing their attention instead on § 5 of the Act. Section
5, however,
was purely technical in nature....
What really matters is not how
you register your copyright, but whether your work is original.
In ¶27, O'Connor directly
addresses the Lockians among us: she explicitly refutes the "sweat of
the brow" doctrine.
In ¶ 32: "In enacting
the Copyright Act of 1976, Congress dropped the reference to “all the
writings
of an author” and replaced it with the phrase “original works of authorship.”"
¶ 46 states exactly what Feist did [emphasis added]. You can do it too.
There is no doubt that Feist took from the white
pages of Rural's directory a substantial amount of factual
information. At a
minimum, Feist copied the names, towns, and telephone numbers of 1,309
of Rural's
subscribers. Not all copying, however, is copyright infringement. To
establish
infringement, two elements must be proven: (1) ownership of a valid
copyright,
and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original.
Bottom line, ¶ 50:
The selection, coordination, and
arrangement of
Rural's white pages do not
satisfy the minimum constitutional standards for
copyright protection. As mentioned at the outset, Rural's white pages
are entirely
typical. ... In preparing its white
pages, Rural simply takes the data provided by its subscribers and
lists it
alphabetically by surname. The end product is a garden-variety white
pages directory,
devoid of even the slightest trace of creativity.
1991: Basic Books, Inc. v. Kinko's Graphics Corporation
Federal
District Court, NY
Just because it's been published in a book does not mean you can use it freely in
teaching a course. This was considered relatively obvious; nobody
appealed.
1993: Campbell v Acuff-Rose Music, relating to the 2 Live Crew parody of
Roy Orbison's Prety Woman.
1999: Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. v. CBS, Inc.
MLK's "I have a dream" speech is notin
the public domain. The legal issue was that the speech was delivered in
1963, before the 1989 Berne Convention Implementation Act; however, the
copyright was not registered until AFTER the speech. In the pre-Berne
era, publication before copyright could make copyright impossible. The
technical issue:
did giving the speech constitute "general" publication or "limited"
publication?
2000: UMG v MP3.com
Federal District Court, NY
The court implicitly rules that you
can't download copies even if you
already own a copy, but that might not have been the central
issue.
Copyright and traditional music
A quote from http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Music/musiclaw2.html:
John and Alan Lomax,
who also devoted themselves to collecting and preserving traditional
folk music, took the controversial step of copyrighting in their own
names the songs they collected, as if they had written the songs
themselves. They even copyrighted original songs collected from other
singers, such as Leadbelly's "Good Night Irene."
The Leadbelly incident occurred under the pre-Berne rules, where
first-to-register meant something, even if you were registering the
copyright of someone else's work.
2006-07 Da Vinci Code case:
(actually filed in England, which has
different laws): authors Leigh & Baigent of the 1982 book Holy Blood, Holy Grail
lost their suit against Dan Brown. They had introduced the theory that
Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus and that Mary and Jesus have
living heirs. This was a major plot element used in Brown's 2003 book The Da Vinci Code. Did Dan Brown
violate copyright?
Not if it was a "factual" theory, which is what the judge ended up
ruling.
MGM v Grokster, 2005
Introduced doctrine of copyright inducement
Left Sony SNIU framework
intact, despite MGM's arguments against it
See http://w2.eff.org/IP/P2P/p2p_copyright_wp.php
for a lengthy article analyzing the decision.
The decision syllabus is at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-480.ZS.html,
with links to Souter's opinion.
Note that the District Court and the Ninth Circuit granted summary
judgement to Grokster!
1. Inducement:
Held: One who distributes a
device with the object of promoting its use to infringe
copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative
steps taken to foster infringement, going beyond mere
distribution with knowledge of third-party action, is liable
for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using
the device, regardless of the device’s lawful uses.
Pp. 10—24.
2. Contributory infringement.
Contributory infringement is similar to "aiding and abetting"
liability: one who knowingly contributes to another's infringement may
be held accountable. The Sony
precedent might have blocked this, but if
your primary goal is unlawful (as was Grokster's), you lose.
[continued]