Computer Ethics, Spring 2012
CMUN 009; Mon 4:15-6:45, Week 4, Feb 13
Week 4 Readings
Chapter 2
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.
Digital music sales are
currently often without DRM, probably because everyone wants their
music library to be "portable". Movies, however, usually are subject to DRM (and sometimes pretty onerous DRM); nobody really thinks you need to have a portable movie library.
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. The usual issue is rights of the director.
Copyright is held by the creator unless:
- the work is 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 on Feist 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".
There is an exception for software, but not for music and movies.
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 go up to $30,000/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.
On the other hand, the RIAA uses these enormous statutory damages to discourage file-sharing by others.
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? The legal objection is usually the huge disconnect between actual damages and statutory damages.
Laws (highlights only):
1790 copyright act: protected books and maps, for 17 years. "The earth
belongs in usufruct to the living": Thomas Jefferson [the earth is for the use of the living]
1909 copyright act: a 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.
The 1976 act formally introduced the doctrine of Fair Use, previously
carved out by court cases, and formally covers television broadcasts.
1988: US signed the Berne Convention, an international copyright treaty. We
held out until 1988 perhaps because Congress didn't believe in some of
its requirements [?]. The1989 Berne Convention Implementation Act brought the
US into conformance with Berne convention; its most famous consequence was perhaps no longer
requiring a 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.
2008: Pro IP act
The "compilation clause" was eventually deleted; it might have lead
to an increase in statutory damage claims by allowing plaintiffs to
count each track of an album as a separate infringement; without this
change, albums can only count as a single infringement. In practice, nowadays this is seldom relevant.
This law may also make it easier for
rights-holders to sue owners of a computer for
infringement even when some third party is known to have done the
infringing without the consent or knowledge of the computer owner; this
describes the situation of Deborah Foster, sued unsuccessfully in 2004
by the RIAA, who was able to convince the judge that the downloading
was likely done by her estranged adult daughter.
The 2008 Pro IP act does allow the Justice Department to sue infringers
on behalf of copyright holders; to date, the DoJ has shown no interest
in suing individual infringers for personal use. If someone steals a
CD, then the DoJ (or, more likely, the state in question) can bring criminal proceedings, not just a lawsuit.
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, discussed previously.
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.
Making matters worse, these courts developed a new
theory to justify the protection of factual compilations. Known alternatively
as “sweat of the brow” or “industrious collection,” the
underlying notion was that copyright was a reward for the hard work that went
into compiling facts.
Instead, O'Connor held that it was originality that mattered.
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.
Pamela Samuelson wrote in her paper "The Generativity of Sony v Universal: The Intellectual Property Legacy of justice Stevens"
The Register of Copyrights
characterized Feist as having “‘dropped a bomb’” on U.S. copyright law
17 because it upset settled expectations of publishers of directories
and databases who had long relied on “sweat of the brow” copyright
caselaw.
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 not in
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
StreamCast, purveyor of morpheus, was another defendant. Limewire was not, but they shut down soon after the decision was announced.
This decision introduced the doctrine of copyright inducement
This case left the Sony SNIU
framework intact, despite MGM's arguments against it. Indeed, the
justices took pains to argue that the Grokster situation was very
different than Sony's.
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.
The ruling introduced doctrine of copyright inducement
Note that the District Court and the Ninth Circuit granted summary
judgement to Grokster! That is, they felt Grokster's case was very strong under the Sony doctrine.
As for the Supreme Court, the decision points out
The record is replete with evidence
that when they began to distribute their free software, each of them
clearly voiced the objective that recipients use the software to
download copyrighted works and took active steps to encourage
infringement.
Justice Souter then opened his decision with the following:
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.
This is known as the theory of copyright inducement, or contributory infringement; the intentional encouragement of 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.
Justice Souter also raised the possibility of vicarious liability:
profiting from the infringement of others while not interfering with
it. Vicarious liability is derived from the same legal principle that
holds an employer responsible for the actions of its employees.
Despite offsetting considerations, the
argument for imposing
indirect liability here is
powerful, given the number of
infringing downloads that occur daily using respondents’
software. When a widely shared product is used to commit
infringement, it may be impossible to enforce rights in the
protected work effectively against all direct infringers, so
that the only practical
alternative is to go against the
device’s distributor for secondary liability on a theory
of contributory or vicarious
infringement.
It is not clear whether vicarious liability played a role in the Grokster ruling per se.
Unlike copyright inducement, vicarious liability would apply even if Grokster had not
been actively encouraging copyright infringement. Note that part of the
issue here is the practicality
(or lack thereof) of going after individual users.
"Filtering" argument: if an ISP fails to implement blocking or
filtering,
they have vicarious liability.
MGM had been hoping to get Sony v Universal overturned. In this they
failed.
Paragraphs (b) and (c) in the syllabus addresses the Sony precedent. The bottom line is
that, while the Sony SNIU doctrine remains, Grokster went further
(paragraph c):
The rule on inducement of infringement as
developed in the early cases is no different today. Evidence
of active steps taken to encourage direct infringement, such as
advertising an infringing use or instructing how to engage in
an infringing use, shows an affirmative intent that the product
be used to infringe, and overcomes the
law’s reluctance to
find liability when a defendant merely sells a commercial
product suitable for some lawful use.
But nothing in Sony requires courts to
ignore evidence of intent if there is such evidence, and the case was
never meant to foreclose rules of fault-based liability derived from
the common law.
Note that paragraph (d) begins: "On the
record presented, respondents’ unlawful objective is
unmistakable."
Finally, the court was unanimous in ruling that Grokster was liable for
inducement. The 5-4 split was over whether Sony needed formal modification, with the answer being
no for the time being.
What if Grokster had not
actively induced users to engage in copyright infringement? Would that
have gotten them off the hook?
Baase points out on page 218 (1st paragraph) that the DMCA has eroded
this doctrine of SNIUs-make-it-ok; under the DMCA, circumvention of
copy protection is illegal even if it
has SNIUs. But this applies only to circumvention, not other potentially infringing uses.
At the top of page 216, Baase points out that it is not just computer
technology that leads to societal debates about whether the technology
should be banned. Drugs, guns, and power tools are also in this
category.
However, computer technology can often be spread at zero cost, with no
clearly identifiable responsible "manufacturer", and sometimes there is
a Free Speech issue as well.
Reverse engineering
Many reverse-engineering cases are based on
copyright, and on the Sony v Universal
case in particular. (Note the irony that Sony, then on the side of
copyright infringers, is now involved in aggressive legal attempts to
ban software and hardware that enables infringement of PS3 games.)
Sega Enterprises v Accolade, Ninth Circuit, 1992:
Accolade made copies of the Sega ROM and reverse-engineered it.
Accolade won.
Sega argued that all four Fair Use factors were in their favor. The
Ninth Circuit dismissed much of this, pointing out that copies of
Sega's program were not being distributed at all, and were not even
being used for infringing game play within Accolade. The copies were made only to create new games;
Accolade's only "harm" to Sega was as competitor. The Ninth Circuit did cite the Sony
decision regarding the possibility that an entire copy might in some
cases be fair use, and that "[w]hen technological change has rendered
its literal terms ambiguous, the Copyright Act must be construed in
light of this basic purpose [to stimulate artistic creativity for the
general public good]" (in turn quoting an earlier copyright case).
Atari Games v Nintendo, 1992: another reverse-engineering case; also won
by the defendant
Sony Computer v Connectix, 2000: Connectix copied Sony BIOS and
reengineered
it so that Sony Playstation games could be played on a computer.
Bottom line: the courts have had a pretty strong history of not
allowing copyrights to interfere with reverse engineering. Note that
these cases are about pre-DMCA copyright law (the DMCA officially
acknowledges a right to reverse engineering, §1201(f)), and are also
not about license claims made
by the plaintiff (that is, that the license terms of the software forbid
reverse-engineering).
A note on the 2010 Sony hack
In January 2010, George "geohot" Hotz (first to jailbreak the iPhone) published the root key
for the PlayStation 3. In general, all playstation software must be
signed with this key. Having the root key allows third-party developers
to create software unlicensed by Sony, but it also allows for the
playing of pirated games. (Sony licensing is not cheap.)
Sony sued, alleging violation of the DMCA among other things. They
settled in April 2011; Hotz is required not to engage in PS3 code
disassembly or reverse-engineering, and not to discuss the settlement
beyond that. In the course of the lawsuit, Sony asked for the IP
address of everyone who had viewed Hotz's YouTube post about the hack.
Another group, fail0verflow, has also been hacking the PS3.
Hotz's technique involved using the "OtherOS" feature of the PS3 that
allowed running linux; Sony promptly removed that. This action in turn
appeared to have triggered a widespread hacking effort against Sony
(not by Hotz), with the group "Anonymous" in the forefront (another
group was Lulzsec). Anonymous was apparently responsible for obtaining
the names (and email addresses and other information) of ~75 million
customers. They may also have been responsible for the tampering that
led Sony to shut down the PlayStation Network for over a month
beginning in April 2011.
In September 2011, Sony supposedly modified their Terms of Service for the
PlayStation Network requiring users to waive their rights to
class-action lawsuits in the event that their personal information held
by Sony is compromised.
Are individuals and groups such as Hotz and Anonymous criminals? Is
Sony's response heavy-handed? Or is it a legitimate effort to protect
the intellectual-property rights of third-party developers?
DMCA, 1999
This law extends copyright to boat hulls. Who paid for that?
Section
1301.
Perhaps the primary focus is to implement the WIPO treaty
of the year before.
The DMCA provides legal protection for copy protection; it provides (severe) penalties
for even speaking
about circumvention
(eg supplying online explanations); these are called
'anti-circumvention measures' (a circumvention method is a way around
copy protection).
See §1201(a)(1)(A), and also §1201(a)(2):
(2)
No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the
public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product,
service, device, component, or part thereof, that—
[We will return to these later under the topics of "speech" and "rights of computer
owners"]
The DMCA provides limited exceptions for those doing "legitimate" encryption (not "security") research.
See Section 1201g.
Note in particular 1201(g)(2)(C) (making a good-faith effort to obtain
authorization), and 1201(g)(3): Factors in determining exemption
(especially (B)).
Mandates macrovision-brand copyprotection for VHS tape
Allows petitioning the Library of Congress to approve exceptions
to the anti-circumvention rules; in cases where these have seriously
impacted non-infringing use.
Examples: when equipment to support
the anti-circumvention measure (eg dongle, certain disk drive, certain
hardware platform) is obsolete.
Dmitry Sklyarov was arrested on July 16, 2001 after his DEFCON
presentation
related to breaking Adobe's e-book anticircumvention measures. He was
held in prison for three weeks (until August 6), and then required to
remain in the US until December 13, 2001.
His Russian employer, Elcomsoft, sold software that
allowed users to bypass Adobe's copy protection on e-books. Sklyarov
was charged for this. Adobe issued a press release stating that "the
prosecution of this individual in this particular case is not conducive
to the best interests of any of the parties involved or the industry."
On December 17, 2002, a Federal jury found Elcomsoft not guilty.
Note that at no time did the US government allege that any of
Sklyarov's or Elcomsoft's activities were carried out within the US.
This is not an uncommon situation regarding jurisdiction.
OCILLA
DMCA Contains OCILLA: Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation
Act
This act protects ISPs from claims when users put up infringing
material.
It establishes the legal framework for "takedown notices". Also for
"putback notices", but there are more stringent rules for the latter.
Who is Loyola's Takedown agent?
See the small "Copyright & Disclaimer 2009" link at the bottom of
the main luc.edu page, leading to http://luc.edu/info/copyright_disclaimer_2008.shtml,
and then to a mailto: link to "our DMCA agent".
Summary of Takedown/Putback
process
Takedown request must have
- description of infringing material
- good-faith claim that use is not legal
- sworn statement requestor is authorized to act by copyright holder
The ISP must take down material "promptly", and notify the user.
The user can respond with a putback
request, which must contain the following:
- description of material
- good-faith claim use is
legal, subject to perjury
- acknowledgement of court jurisdiction
The ISP then can put material back after 10 business days (to give
original
complainant time to file a lawsuit). If a suit is filed, the material stays
down.
If a suit is filed at that time or later, it will be filed against the
user and not the ISP.
OCILLA does not protect end-user in any way; in fact, it puts a
burden on the end-user.
It does protect the ISP
OCILLA also specifies rules about subpoenas to ISPs for end-user
identity; these were what the RIAA first used.
Why do you think blackboard is so popular? Hint: not because it's easy
to use.
Cases related to DMCA/OCILLA
Youtube was sued in 2007 by Time-Warner; negotiations are continuing but Youtube has apparently agreed
to the principle of some kind of cut of revenues. In December
2008 [?], Warner was back to demanding that its music videos not be
available. (I'm not completely certain of the dates). On August 19,
2009, the parties announced a settlement that would allow Warner to
post lots of their clips on Youtube, subject to the following:
- Selections would be at Warner's discretion
- Warner would control the advertising, and receive all revenues
- They would be played through a special player provided by Warner
[malware alert!]
It looks like Warner finally gave up on the last item.
See http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Time-Warner-and-YouTube-Reach-iw-2585532384.html?x=0&.v=1.
How does http://www.vidtomp3.com
affect this issue? Does it matter where vidtomp3.com is? Are they the bad guys here? Should we
even be discussing vidtomp3.com?
YouTube: is it an example of "good" sharing or "bad" sharing??
See Baase pp 219-222
Viacom v Youtube
filed March 2007
Note that the case is now Viacom v Google, as Google has purchased Youtube.
Viacom also sued Youtube, and held out for more than Warner. This
case has not yet come to trial (though it may nonetheless be over).
Google (Youtube's owner) has cited OCILLA in its defense; Viacom is
still trying to claim statutory damages. Question: does Youtube try to
"induce" users to upload protected stuff? This remains a major
unsettled issue; see MGM v Grokster.
YouTube was founded in early 2005 by Chad Hurley, Steve Chen and Jawed
Karim. The original model was as a forum for funny home videos, but
this did not quite attract the attention for which the founders had
hoped.
Here's a July 2008 BusinessWeek article on the case:
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jul2008/tc2008073_435740.htm.
Here's a January 2009 blog on the case:
http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2009/01/viacom-v-youtube-viacoms-anti-piracy.html.
Here's a March 2009 blog, addressing (among other things) the fact that
Viacom's discovery motions involve in excess of 12 terabytes of data: http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/03/controlling_discovery_in_digit.html.
Here's a March 2010 story, including several internal youtube emails
about how aggressive they should be on rejecting copyrighted content: http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/company-news/viacom-v-youtube-google-a-piracy-case-in-their-own-words/19407896. For example:
On July 19, Chen wrote to Hurley and Karim: "Jawed, please stop putting
stolen videos on the site. We're going to have a tough time defending
the fact that we're not liable for the copyrighted material on the site
because we didn't put it up when one of the co-founders is blatantly
stealing content from from other sites and trying to get everyone to see
it." Four days later, Karim sent a link to the other founders, and
Hurley told him that if they rejected it, they needed to reject all
copyrighted material. Karim's reply: "I say we reject this one but not
the others. This one is totally blatant."
A July 29 email conversation about competing video sites laid out the
importance to YouTube of continuing to use the copyrighted material.
"Steal it!" Chen said , and got a reply from Hurley, "hmmm, steal the
movies?" Chen's answer: "we have to keep in mind that we need to attract
traffic. how much traffic will we get from personal videos? remember,
the only reason our traffic surged was due to a video of this type."
Here's another March 2010 blog, which makes some interesting points
about how time is on Youtube's side, and how Viacom has made some major
tactical errors: http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2010/03/viacom_v_youtub.htm.
First, YouTube has repositioned itself over the years from "video grokster" to Good Internet Citizen, with Predominately Non-Infringing Uses:
Perhaps more importantly, the intervening time has been good to YouTube
as a business and as a brand. In this sense, compare Grokster to
YouTube. At the time of the Grokster cases, it was still very much an
open question whether Grokster would ever evolve into a tool where
legitimate activity dominated. While we might still have had that same
question about YouTube in 2006, by 2010 YouTube has answered that
question resoundingly. YouTube’s business practices have matured,
everyone has had positive legitimate experiences with YouTube (even
behind-the-curve judges), and it’s clear that major legitimate players
have adopted YouTube as a platform for their legitimate activities. For
example, YouTube’s brief makes the point that all of the 2008
presidential candidates published YouTube videos as part of their
campaign. I’m guessing no 2004 presidential candidates used Grokster
for campaign purposes.
But Viacom has tremendously undermined their case that Youtube
should have been able to tell which Viacom videos were forbidden, by
being unable to tell themselves!
In YouTube’s case, I could not get over that Viacom has TWICE withdrawn
clips from its complaint. I thought
the
first time Viacom did that was embarrassing and damaging to
Viacom’s case, but then Viacom admitted that it didn’t catch all of its
errors on the first withdrawal and therefore had to
make
a second withdrawal of clips. WTF?
How hard it is for Viacom to
accurately determine which clips it has not permitted to show on
YouTube? Whether it intended to or not, Viacom has answered that
question to its detriment: hard enough that an entire brigade of
extremely expensive lawyers obligated to do factual investigations by
Rule 11 can’t get the facts right the first OR SECOND time. For me,
this undercuts Viacom’s credibility to its core. ... Viacom’s failings
have
proven to the judge that it’s too hard—too hard for lawyers
charging upwards of $1k an hour despite having unrestricted access to
accurate information in their clients’ possession, and clearly too hard
for YouTube’s slightly-above-minimum-wage customer support
representatives with no such information advantages.
Finally, there is an allegation (at the dailyfinance.com site above,
not the ericgoldman.org site) that Viacom itself was doing much of the
uploading of its material, for marketing purposes:
Google's brief recites in great detail Viacom's use of YouTube as a
promotional engine for its products, explaining how Viacom hired at
least 18 marketing firms to upload video on its behalf in order to
distance itself from the uploading and make it appear that the videos
were genuine, grassroots uploads. Viacom would "rough up" the video to
make it look pirated, and would even send its employees off-site to
places like Kinko's so that uploading would occur from computers
untraceable to Viacom.
Discussion
What do you think of the OCILLA defense here? One point that has
been made is that, while OCILLA might block a financial claim, it might
not block a Viacom request for a
court restraining order that Youtube desist completely. But that was before Viacom's mistake, above.
Now consider www.vidtomp3.com.
Many bands allow music videos to be uploaded to youtube, as
"advertising", likely on the assumption that the music will be
difficult to download; Youtube has certainly (and intentionally) chosen
a setup to make downloading of video nonobvious. But vidtomp3.com makes
downloading easy! It is true that the
encoding rate is usually relatively low (64kbps?), but it's still a
great deal.
Also note vidtomp3's disclaimer:
This site is in no way associated with myspace,
youtube or any of the other video sites we support. This tool is
designed to be used in compliance with each sites ToS and local and
national copyright laws. We do not support piracy. Only rip the sound or
use youtube downloader from none-copyrighted sources.
Is this an honest sentiment, or is it a "grokster defense"?
Finally, note that vidtomp3 has run into significant problems in recent
years (since 2010 sometime?) with unrestrained advertisers. One
strategy is advertisers who display a button that says click here to download, which is either more prominent than the actual button or entirely obscures it.
Viacom v Google ruling, June 2010
US District Court, Southern District of New York
Judge Stanton
Dated June 23, 2010
Summary Judgement was granted to Google (owner of Youtube):
Viacom's case cannot continue. (Viacom has appealed this ruling to the
Second Circuit; more at http://news.viacom.com/news/Pages/youtubelitigation.aspx.)
From the decision (at http://cs.luc.edu/pld/ethics/viacom_v_youtube_sj_2010.pdf)
From plaintiff's submissions on the
motions, a jury could find that the defendants not only were generally
aware of, but welcomed, copyright-infringing material being placed on
their website. Such material was attractive to users, whose increased
usage enhanced defendants' income from advertisements displayed on
certain pages of the website, with no discrimination between infringing
and non-infringing content.
Plaintiffs claim that .. "Defendants had 'actual knowledge' and were
'aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity [was]
apparent,' but failed to do anything about it."
However, defendants designated an agent, and when they recieved
specific notice that a particular item infringed a copyright, they
swiftly removed it. It is uncontroverted that all the clips in the suit
are off the YouTube website, most having been removed in response to
DMCA takedown notices.
Thus, the critical question is whether the statutory phrases "actual
knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the
system or network is infringing," and "facts or circumstances from
which infrining acttivity is apparent" in §512(c)(1)(A)(i) mean a
general awareness that there are infringements (here, claimed to be
widespread and common), or rather mean actual or constructive knowledge
of specific and identifiable infringements of individual items.
Here is §512(c)(1)(A) of the copyright act:
(c) Information Residing
on Systems
or Networks at Direction of Users.—
(1) In general. — A
service
provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as
provided in
subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for
infringement
of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of
material
that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for
the service
provider, if the service provider -
(A)(i) does not have actual
knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the
system or
network is infringing;
(ii) in the absence of such actual
knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing
activity
is apparent; or
(iii) upon obtaining such knowledge
or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the
material;
The judge ruled that YouTube/google did not
meet the standard of (A)(i): actual knowledge doesn't mean that you
know it's going on wink wink nudge nudge, but that you have knowledge
of specific infinging items.
In other words, the judge upheld the OCILLA takedown defense very strictly.
Update on part (ii) above, from page 10 of the decision. The House
Report on the OCILLA part of the law described this clause as
a
'red flag' test. A service provider need not monitor its service or
affirmatively seek facts indicating infringing activity. However,
if the service provider becomes aware of a 'red flag' from which
infringing activity is apparent, it will lose the limitation of
liability if it takes no action.
This could
be interpreted as a looser standard than "actual knowledge [of specific
infringing content]" test of part (i), that Google prevailed on. Later
[p 13], again quoting the House Report,
Under this standard, a service provider would have no obligation to seek out copyright infringement, but it would not qualify for the safe harbor if it had turned a blind eye to "red flags" of obvious infringement.
YouTube/Google did just that. But then [p 14], quoting the House Report,
The important intended objective of
this standard is to exclude sophisticated "pirate" directories -- which
refer Internet users to other selected Internet sites where pirate
software, books, movies, and music can be downloaded or transmitted --
from the safe harbor. Such pirate directories ... are obviously
infringing because they typically use words such as "pirate",
"bootleg', or slang terms in their URLs and header information to make
their illegal purpose obvious to ... Internet users. ... Because the infringing nature of such sites would be apparent from even a brief and casual viewing, safe harbor status ... would not be appropriate.
So what does a "red flag" have to be? YouTube was not "obviously" a
pirate site, but certainly the existence of infringing content was very
well known. Although parts of the Congressional Reports quoted above do
suggest that YouTube/Google had met the "red flag" test, existing case
law generally suggests otherwise. And a "safe harbor" provision is of
little use if it does not come with an "objective standard" (a term
used in the Congressional Report).
On page 15, Judge Stanton concludes from all this that
The tenor of the
foregoing provisions is that the phrases “actual knowledge
that the material or an activity” is infringing, and “facts or
circumstances” indicating infringing activity, describe knowledge of
specific and identifiable infringements of particular individual
items. Mere knowledge of prevalence of such activity in general
is not enough. ... To let knowledge of a generalized practice of
infringement in the industry, or of a proclivity of users to post
infringing materials, impose responsibility on service providers to
discover which of their users’ postings infringe a copyright would contravene the structure and operation of the DMCA.
On page 20 of the decision the judge says "General knowledge that
infringement is 'ubiquitous' does not impose a duty on the service
provider to monitor or search its service for infringements."
What would have happened had the judge ruled the other way?
Here's a blog that identifies the principle of least-cost avoidance as a general legal rule:
http://larrydownes.com/viacom-v-youtube-the-principle-of-least-cost-avoidance
The idea is that, given the conflict between Viacom and Google, the
judge should consider who can address the situation more economically.
For Google, denying OCILLA protection would mean that they would have
to review every post to YouTube. For Viacom, it would mean that they'd
have to review those posts on YouTube which turned up in tag searches
for Viacom content. Viacom has less work; ergo, they lose.
Discussion
What do you think of this rule?
And is it even true, in this particular case?
Are there other legal principles at stake? What about the
"least-disruptive solution"? Should we count disruption to users who
while away their days watching YouTube?
Tiffany v Ebay
Judge Stanton in the Viacom v Google case cited this one, from the
Second Circuit. EBay merchants sold counterfeit Tiffany merchandise on
the site. Tiffany sued them, and also eBay.
Should eBay be liable here? How on earth would they police the authenticity of all merchandise offered?
How is this different from Viacom v YouTube? Do the similarities override the differences?
The court ruled that the burden of protecting a trademark falls properly
on the mark holder: policing is a job that comes with the territory.
Also, in this case, it is hard to see what eBay might have done
differently.
Another subtle issue, not addressed here, is that Tiffany (like most manufacturers of high-end consumer goods) would really
like to ban eBay entirely. High-end manufacturers generally only sell
to stores that agree to charge "list price" (sometimes sales are
allowed, but they are generally tightly regulated, which sometimes
leads to "storewide sales" with fine print listing brands that could
not be discounted). Still, there is a vast "grey market" out there,
where vendors purchase luxury (and not-so-luxury) items from
distributors, from bankruptcy sales, and oversees, and resell them.
Disallowing such sales strikes at the heart of the free market, but
note that such online sales have no clear jurisdictional boundaries.
Some sites once devoted to file-sharing and copy-protection
technologies:
musicview.com: GONE!
dontbuycds.org: Now also gone.
Somebody new took over in 2008, but never got around to any updates and
apparently stopped renewing the domain in 2011.
Oh, and check out darknoisetechnologies.com
(oops, how about http://news.cnet.com/SunnComm-buys-music-antipiracy-company/2100-1027_3-5153609.html)
Original
idea was to add some subaudible "hiss" to recordings. It was subaudible
when you listened directly, but when you tried to save a copy, or even
record with a microphone from your speakers, the music would be ruined.
Project Gutenberg: http://gutenberg.org
Eldred v Ashcroft: Eric Eldred maintained a website of public-domain
books
unrelated to Project Gutenberg's, although he did do some
scanning/typing for them.
What does it mean for copyrights if Congress extends the term
continuously?
Amazon has now scanned in most of the books they sell, and offers
full-text search of the book contents. This is intended as providing an
online equivalent of browsing
in a physical bookstore. They apparently did not get a lot of publisher
permissions to do this.
Apparently, however, no major lawsuit has ever been filed!
Note that what Amazon has done arguably earns them zero DMCA shield:
they've actively scanned the books, and keep the images on their
servers.
Clearly, "effect on the market" must be presumed POSITIVE. However, see http://www.authorslawyer.com/c-amazon.shtml.
ASCAP [omit?]
How music copyrights are "supposed" to work: ASCAP (the American Society
of Composers, Authors, & Publishers). See ascap.com.
ASCAP: collects on behalf of all members, = original songwriters.
To perform, you need a license from ASCAP, BMI, &
third one (SESAC?). See ascap.com/licensing.
Even if you write your own songs and perform only them, you still may
be asked to show you have these licenses! While that sounds appalling
to some, it's based on
the not-implausible idea that the nightclub/venue where you play is the
entity to actually pay the fees, and they
have no guarantee you won't whip out an old Beatles song.
[Richard Hayes Phillips, a musician who plays only his own and
traditional material, did apparently beat BMI here. But not without a
prolonged fight.]
Blanket performance licenses are generally affordable, though not
negligible.
Generally ASCAP licenses do not
allow:
- selection of lower-cost (eg older) works, in order to save money
- proving that a significant fraction of the music played was
non-ASCAP, in order to save money.
That is, a university with regular chamber-music concerts (not covered
by copyright) must pay ASCAP just as if these were copyrighted music.
You need a license to play recorded music at public places, too.
You do not get this right
automatically when you buy a CD. Nor does purchasing sheet music provide
you with any performance right.
ASCAP collects your money, keeps about 12%, and sends the rest off to
its members. At one time this was in
proportion to their radio play,
which meant that if you play music no longer found on the radio, the
original
songwriters will get nothing. The rules have changed, however; now,
ASCAP licensees have to supply information about what was played in
order to ensure proper crediting.
ASCAP and BMI continue to support the idea of a strict difference
between public and private listening. While there are grey areas here,
it is hard to see that technology or file-sharing has contributed any
new ones.
They are very concerned about web radio,
and have had reasonable success in making it unaffordable
for any but commercial stations with traditional formats.
Music Sampling
This is widely done in the music industry, sometimes as an homage to
the original artists, sometimes to connect a new musical work with an
older one, sometimes as a form of social commentary, and sometimes,
well, we don't know.
Consider the following news item, from http://origin.avclub.com/articles/guns-n-roses-sued-for-uncredited-ulrich-schnauss-s,33744:
by Josh Modell
October 6, 2009
According to Reuters,
the British label Independiente and the U.S. arm of Domino Records have
filed suit against Guns N' Roses and the band's label,
Interscope/Geffen/A&M for swiping portions of compositions by
semi-obscure German electronic artist Ulrich Schnauss for the
Chinese Democracy track "Riad N' the Bedouins."
Pitchfork has some links to
listen to the tracks. Sounds to me like it's pretty clearly swiped, but
I'll say this: I own and really like Schnauss' 2003 disc
A Strangely Isolated Place, but I wouldn't have picked out the sample if it hadn't been pointed out. Which isn't to say he shouldn't get paid, of course.
This may be an atypical example, partly because the sample is so
blatant and so long and partly because it seems possible that GnR
simply had no idea it was music (stylistically, GnR and Schnauss are
about as far apart as you can get). It's also just about copying a
snippet of the
original performance, rather than combining that sample with other
material, or modifying the sample.
Here are links (working Feb 2012) to the two compositions:
At issue is the opening ~20 seconds. It's not the best example of sampling,
because it's a rather atypical sound for GnR, and it's also rather long. Note that GnR used this
opening only on their CD release; I did not find it in any of their
live-performance examples on YouTube. GnR has insisted that they did nothing wrong.
A musician who does nothing but sample (or perhaps "remix" is a more accurate term) is Gregg Gillis, aka Girl Talk; see myspace.com/girltalk/music. There are many other examples at whosampled.com.
In 1991,in Grand Upright Music v Warner, a district court ruled that clearly recognizable sampling constituted infringement. Judge Duffy wrote
It is clear that the defendants knew that they were violating the
plaintiff's rights as well as the rights of others. Their only aim was
to sell thousands upon thousands of records. This callous disregard for
the law and for the rights of others requires not only the preliminary
injunction sought by the plaintiff but also sterner measures.
Ironically, it is also clear that the sampling here was not going to affect sales.
In the case Bridgeport Music v Dimension Films,
the 6th Circuit Court ruled in 2005 that use without permission of a
2-second chord from a song by the Funkadelics constituted infringement.
More specifically, they ruled that the de minimus
defense (ie that the sample was "too small to matter") did not apply.
The court famously wrote
Get a license or do not sample. We do not see this as stifling creativity in any significant way.
However, the court left open the possibility of a Fair Use defense. (They left this open because the defendants did not raise the Fair Use defense at the trial level, and new defenses cannot be introduced later.)
Both courts seemed to side with the "copying is presumptively bad"
school of legal thought, rather than the "society has an interest"
school of thought.
The industry line here is that any
use of copyrighted
material requires permission; this gives the rights-holder the
opportunity to set a fee limited only by the law of supply and demand.
Fair Use is the one exception to the copyright law's strict assignment of rights to the creator. Note that sampling clearly has no effect on the
market for the
original. On the other hand, there might be (and in fact is) a "secondary" market for sampling rights that is
affected. The copyright law itself only refers (§107(4)) to "the effect
of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted
work", without making it entirely clear whether the market for the
entire work is meant (though the phrase "the copyrighted work"
certainly seems to suggest the entire work).
Whether or not the Fair Use sampling argument will ever prevail in
court, there is definitely a serious social issue here that cannot be
written off as theft. Music is generally built on the musical
influences of others. Before sampling this would be limited to a
melody, or an accompaniment line, or a particular guitar style; all
that sampling does is allows for musicians to sample without
re-performing. Is this taking advantage of the original artist?
Certainly not in a financial
sense. But a performer is certainly entitled to feel that they do not
want their work serving as the larger component of a remix that is done
in a very different style (it is hard to see how this would apply to
~2-second samples).
Samples can always be
licensed, but sometimes licensing rates are exhorbitant. Rights for a
few small samples can easily amount to 100% of royalties, which makes
further sampling financially impossible.
The site whosampled.com includes in its masthead the phrase "exploring and discussing the DNA of music", suggesting that sampling is how music evolves nowadays. Others feel that musical evolution is not hindered by the simple rule that samples must either be licensed or be re-performed.