Computer Ethics, Summer 2010
Week 2, Wednesday (class 5)
Corboy Law Room 323
Read: §2.1, 2.2 of Baase on privacy
Read http://cs.luc.edu/pld/ethics/garfinkel_RFID.pdf on privacy
Film and the Napster model
DRM
Copyright law/cases
DMCA
ASCAP
Transformative Use
Dozier
Privacy
From whom?
AOL leak
RFID
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!
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.
DMCA, 1999
Takedown/putback provisions (OCILLA)
Legal support for
copy-protection; provides (severe) penalties for even SPEAKING about
circumvention
(eg supplying online explanations); called 'anti-circumvention measures'
More below.
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.
3. Vicarious liability.
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.
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.
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.
Reverse engineering
Many reverse-engineering cases are based on
copyright.
Sega Enterprises v Accolade, 1992:
Accolade made copies of the Sega ROM and reverse-engineered it.
Accolade won. Copies of Sega's program were not being distributed;
Accolade's only "harm" to Sega was as competitor.
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).
DMCA, 1999
Extends copyright to boat hulls. Who paid for that?
Section
1301.
Implements WIPO treaty
PROVIDES LEGAL SUPPORT FOR COPY PROTECTION; provides (severe) penalties
for even SPEAKING about circumvention
(eg supplying online explanations); called 'anti-circumvention measures'
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 topic "rights of computer
owners", and also "speech"]
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.
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 by 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 sure of the dates or anything else). 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
- They would be played through a special player provided by Warner
[malware alert!]
- Warner would control the advertising, and receive all revenues
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 vid2mp3.com is? Are they the bad guys here? Should we
even be discussing vidtomp3.com?
Viacom v Youtube, filed March 2007
This case has not yet come to trial.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
YouTube: is it an example of "good" sharing or "bad" sharing??
See Baase pp 219-222