Do Kim Dotcom’s lawyers think he’s guilty? The answer may shock you.

May 08, 2013 · · 4 comments

In a new “white paper” released today, Kim Dotcom’s lawyers come to the surprising conclusion that Kim Dotcom is not guilty.

Shocking, right?

Taking your case to the court of public opinion could be a sign that your case in a court of law is not going well. But ever since the US government charged Kim Dotcom, 6 other defendants, and 2 companies, including Megaupload, for charges relating to massive copyright infringement in January 2012, Dotcom has been on a full court press to convince the public that multi-millionaries (like him) should be allowed to rip off working class creators (like Ellen Seidler).1 The latest move is the “white paper”, titled Megaupload, the Copyright Lobby, and the Future of Digital Rights (with the self-aggrandizing subtitle, “The United States vs. You (and Kim Dotcom)”). Part of this public relations campaign has involved an attempt to characterize Dotcom as some kind of hacker hero — the white paper places Dotcom in the same pantheon as Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak. Really? Kim Dotcom is to hacking what the 1995 movie Hackers is to hacking.

And the conspiracy theories described in this white paper seem one relic shy of a Dan Brown novel.2

But what about the legal arguments presented in the paper?

The citations to case law may lead the casual reader to the conclusion that there are valid legal arguments within the paper. But for the most part, the arguments are legal sleight of hand, a series of court quotes that, while true, are inapplicable and immaterial to the point being argued. There is little here that Dotcom hasn’t argued in public or in court (unsuccessfully, so far) before.

No Criminal Liability for Secondary Copyright Infringement

The basic premise of this argument is that in the civil context, liability for indirect infringement derives from the common law, not the Copyright Act. Since criminal law as a rule derives entirely from statute, there can be no criminal liability for indirect infringement.

This argument is a red herring.

First, Dotcom and the Megaupload defendants simply are not being charged under any of the tort-based indirect liability standards — which include contributory infringement, vicarious liability, and inducement. They are being charged with direct infringement, aiding and abetting infringement, and conspiracy to commit infringement.3 The latter two could be considered forms of secondary liability, but they are criminal, not tort forms, and they are provided for by statute.

Next, the white paper wholly skips over the fact that Dotcom has been charged with two counts of direct criminal copyright infringement. Among the allegations supporting these charges is at least one instance where one of the defendants himself uploaded an infringing copy of a film that had not been commercially released yet to Megaupload.4

But the indictment also alleges multiple instances where copyrighted works were made available to the public through the Megaupload sites. Many courts, and the leading copyright treatise, view making a work available to the public as an infringement of the distribution right.5

Also conveniently left out of the white paper is that a federal court has already stated, in a separate, civil lawsuit, that Megaupload exercises the requisite volition to be held liable for direct infringement. In Perfect 10 v. Megaupload, the Southern District Court of California said:

Drawing all reasonable inferences in Perfect 10′s favor, Megaupload serves as more than a passive conduit, and more than a mere “file storage” company: it has created distinct websites, presumably in an effort to streamline users’ access to different types of media (e.g., megaporn.com, megavideo.com); it encourages and, in some cases pays, its users to upload vast amounts of popular media through its Rewards Programs; it disseminates URLs for various files throughout the internet; it provides payouts to affiliate websites who maintain a catalogue of all available files; and last, at a minimum, it is plausibly aware of the ongoing, rampant infringement taking place on its websites. Taken together, Perfect 10 has adequately alleged Megaupload has engaged in volitional conduct sufficient to hold it liable for direct infringement. [Emphasis added].

(The lawsuit settled before proceeding much further.)

Substantial Non-Infringing Uses

The White Paper next argues that “the U.S. government cannot even argue that the conduct of Megaupload and its executives gives rise to civil liability for secondary infringement, much less criminal liability” under the Supreme Court’s 1984 holding in Sony Corp v. Universal City Studios. The problem with this argument is that it has thoroughly and repeatedly been rejected by courts in cases involving similar services.

The Ninth Circuit rejected it in 2001.6 The Seventh Circuit rejected it in 2003.7 And, most importantly, the Supreme Court rejected it in 2005. In MGM v. Grokster, Justice Souter explained, “Sony‘s rule limits imputing culpable intent as a matter of law from the characteristics or uses of a distributed product. 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.”

Other courts have pointed out that Sony only applies if you’re focusing on liability for the design of a product rather than conduct8 or if there is no continuing relationship between the maker of a product and the user.9 But whatever the case, the fact remains that courts have consistently found Sony inapplicable to online service providers like Megaupload for over a decade. It’s telling that this was the strongest argument the white paper could muster.

Rewards Program Not a Contributor to Infringement

Next, the white paper says that the argument that its rewards program encouraged or contributed to infringement is a “glaring falsehood.” Megaupload claims that its program that paid uploaders depending on the popularity of the files they uploaded didn’t encourage infringement because someone’s family photos could just as likely be as popular as a copy of the latest blockbuster film. That’s silly.

More to the point, Megaupload’s rewards program was previously found to support a contributory infringement claim. Again, from Perfect 10:

Tellingly, in its motion to dismiss, Megaupload does not dispute Perfect 10′s allegation that it induces, causes, or materially contributes to infringing conduct. Nor could it, given the allegations that Megaupload encourages, and in some cases, pays its users to upload vast amounts of popular media through its Rewards Programs, disseminates URLs that provide access to such media, and has provided payouts to affiliates who catalogue the URLs for all available media.

Safe Harbor and Beyond

The white paper finally argues that Megaupload should not be liable for the massive infringement it caused and contributed to because it is eligible for safe harbor under the DMCA. That begs the question that DMCA safe harbors are even available for criminal defendants — I’ve written previously that the language of the statute doesn’t support such a conclusion. What’s more, even in the unlikely case a court finds that safe harbors are available in the criminal context, it is difficult to see the service being able to show it complied with the statute’s requirements that protect good-faith, passive service providers.10

Procedural Arguments

The white paper next turns from making substantive arguments to procedural arguments. It argues that “U.S. federal court lacks jurisdiction over Megaupload” because it “is a wholly foreign corporation; it is not incorporated in the United States, and it has no agents or offices in the United States.” Chief among the support for this argument is that the U.S. cannot serve Megaupload under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Note how this argument begins with such a broad statement about a lack of jurisdiction but ends up being really about a minor procedural point. Note too that this argument has no impact on the case against Kim Dotcom himself, his holding company, or any of the other personal defendants. This argument only involves the corporate entity of Megaupload Limited. So the suggestion that we should be concerned about some breach of the rule of law is a bit disingenuous. The dismissal of charges against Megaupload would have little effect on the case against the other defendants except that it might free up assets to pay for the defendants’ attorneys (and even that is not a foregone conclusion).

Last July, I briefly looked at this argument; its substance has evolved very little since then. Megaupload essentially takes the position that corporations who operate within the United States and violate U.S. laws should get a free pass so long as they don’t have a mailbox in the U.S. Note that this argument isn’t limited to criminal copyright laws — corporations would be able to commit financial crimes, environmental crimes, fraud, and more with impunity. This result defies common sense and the rule of law — I’d imagine quite a few people would disagree with Megaupload’s argument that corporations deserve a free pass from obeying the law.

The court rejected this argument last October, stating that even if Megaupload doesn’t have a “last known address” within the district or a “principal place of business” within the U.S., there are several alternatives available to the U.S. to perfect service. In its most recent filing, the U.S. notes additional alternatives available to serve Megaupload, a company that leased thousands of servers in the United States to operate a service that allegedly violated U.S. laws within the U.S. harming U.S. creators, regardless of where Kim Dotcom picks up his mail.11

This hasn’t prevented Megaupload from continuing to make the argument in court, despite the fact that less than two months ago, a court in the very same district rejected the idea that the mailing requirement in Rule 4 is a jurisdictional requirement.12 So now Megaupload persists in making the argument in its white paper here.

The remaining claims made in the white paper follow the same pattern as those discussed above, full of red herrings, already rejected arguments, and faulty logic. No doubt that matters little to those who worship Dotcom as a hero, buying completely into his celebrity-esque posturing.

Footnotes

  1. A study released in March demonstrated that the Megaupload shutdown caused a 6-10% increase in digital film revenues, revenues that not only help fund the continued creation of films but also that directly go to union members in the form of residuals. [↩]
  2. Even Techdirt describes them as a “massive exaggeration.” [↩]
  3. See Superseding Indictment. [↩]
  4. Superseding Indictment, pg. 44. [↩]
  5. See Nimmer Changes his Tune: “Making Available” is Distribution. [↩]
  6. A & M Records v. Napster, 239 F. 3d 1004, 1020; “Napster claims that it is nevertheless protected from contributory liability by the teaching of Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc. We disagree. We observe that Napster’s actual, specific knowledge of direct infringement renders Sony‘s holding of limited assistance to Napster.” [↩]
  7. In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F. 3d 643, 651; “We also do not buy Aimster’s argument that since the Supreme Court distinguished, in the long passage from the Sony opinion that we quoted earlier, between actual and potential noninfringing uses, all Aimster has to show in order to escape liability for contributory infringement is that its file-sharing system could be used in noninfringing ways, which obviously it could be. Were that the law, the seller of a product or service used solely to facilitate copyright infringement, though it was capable in principle of noninfringing uses, would be immune from liability for contributory infringement. That would be an extreme result, and one not envisaged by the Sony majority.” [↩]
  8. Perfect 10 v. Amazon, 508 F. 3d 1146, 1171 (9th Cir. 2007). [↩]
  9. CoStar Group v. Loopnet, 164 F. Supp. 2d 688, 697 (D. Md. 2001). [↩]
  10. See, for example, Megaupload, the DMCA and Lockers in General; Megaupload’s DMCA Shell Games; Why Megaupload Doesn’t Have a DMCA Shelter. [↩]
  11. The U.S. says in its May 2nd filing “As discussed in prior pleadings, Defendant Megaupload has had at least two addresses within the Eastern District of Virginia — a constructive address at the Commonwealth of Virginia’s State Corporation Commission and an address at the Carpathia datacenter where the company maintained its U.S.-based nerve center.” [↩]
  12. United States v. Kolon Industries, 2013 WL 682896, *5–6 (ED Va. Feb. 22, 2013). [↩]
Posted in: Copyright news · 4 comments

Share: Reddit Google+ LinkedIn

“Equity will not bear witness to such a travesty of justice”

October 17, 2012 · · Comments Off

Thomas Edison invented the phonograph in 1877, the first device that was capable of recording and reproducing sound. The device would soon become an important source of musical entertainment. Columbia Records, formed in 1888, for example — now a subsidiary label of Sony Music Entertainment — would boast a catalog 10 pages long of pre-recorded musical records by 1891.

As early as 1888, songwriters and composers would claim, unsuccessfully, that reproducing their songs on mechanical devices like the phonograph was copyright infringement.1 Courts rejected these claims, including the Supreme Court in 1908, but Congress eventually stepped in and recognized mechanical reproduction as one of the exclusive rights of copyright owners in the Copyright Act of 1909.

Recording artists would not be so successful in making the claim that they too were entitled to separate legal protection for their interpretation of musical compositions on recordings. As early as 1906, manufacturers of recorded media would seek copyright protection for their works.2 Repeated attempts in courts and legislatures would fall short; legal protection against “dubbing” and bootlegging sound recordings would not begin to appear until the late 60s, and only then in the states. By 1970, half of state legislatures prohibited sound recording piracy.3 Federal law eventually recognized copyright protection for sound recordings in 1972, but only for recordings made after that date, and only for reproduction, distribution, and derivative works — a public performance right in sound recordings continues to be denied to this day under US law, contrary to most other nations,4 except in the case of digital public performances.5

But recording artists would have sporadic successes in courts to protect their works before the arrival of federal copyright protection. One example is Metropolitan Opera Assn v Wagner-Nichols, a 1950 decision from the New York Supreme Court6 granting a preliminary injunction against a company engaged in unauthorized duplication of sound recordings.7 The court relied on the common law tort of unfair competition and equitable principles to reach its decision.

The language of the decision makes it worth a read. It serves as a reminder that, while copyright protection itself is solely a creature of statute, it is firmly rooted in principles of justice, fairness, and equity. After opening with a discussion of the facts of the case, the court writes:

In passing upon the question of the sufficiency of a complaint alleging unfair competition it is helpful to bear in mind the origin and evolution of this branch of law. It originated in the conscience, justice and equity of common-law judges. It developed within the framework of a society dedicated to freest competition, to deal with business malpractices offensive to the ethics of that society. The theoretic basis is obscure, but the birth and growth of this branch of law is clear. It is an outstanding example of the law’s capacity for growth in response to the ethical as well as the economic needs of society. As a result of this background the legal concept of unfair competition has evolved as a broad and flexible doctrine with a capacity for further growth to meet changing conditions.

Defendants had argued that unfair competition was limited to “palming off” someone else’s work as their own. Thus, since defendants weren’t claiming the recordings as their own, there was no unfair competition. The court discarded this argument, as well as the argument that defendants weren’t in direct competition with the Opera.

The modern view as to the law of unfair competition does not rest solely on the ground of direct competitive injury, but on the broader principle that property rights of commercial value are to be and will be protected from any form of unfair invasion or infringement and from any form of commercial immorality, and a court of equity will penetrate and restrain every guise resorted to by the wrong-doer.

The court next considers the public’s interest in applying the doctrine of unfair competition to this case, in a discussion that parallels discussions about the goals and purposes of copyright law.

The production of an opera by an opera company of great skill, involving, as it does, the engaging and development of singers, orchestra, the training of a large chorus and the blending of the whole by expert direction into a finished interpretative production would appear to involve such a creative element as the law will recognize and protect against appropriation by others.

***

The fostering and encouragement of fine performances of grand opera, and their preservation and dissemination to wide audiences by radio and recordings are in the public interest. The Metropolitan Opera, over a period of sixty years, has developed one of the finest, if not the finest, opera companies available to Americans. Through the media of recordings and broadcasts, an avenue of culture has been opened to vast numbers of Americans who have been able to enjoy the fruits of this great enterprise. To many, it is the only available source of grand opera. To refuse to the groups who expend time, effort, money and great skill in producing these artistic performances the protection of giving them a “property right” in the resulting artistic creation would be contrary to existing law, inequitable, and repugnant to the public interest. To hold that the broadcasts of these performances, making them available to a wider audience of Americans, deprives the Metropolitan Opera of all of its rights in this production and abandons the production to anyone to appropriate and exploit commercially, would indeed discourage the broadcasting of such operas and penalize not only the Metropolitan Opera but the public which now benefits from these broadcasts. Equity will not bear witness to such a travesty of justice; it will not countenance a state of moral and intellectual impotency. Equity will consider the interests of all parties coming within the arena of the dispute and admeasure the conflict in the scales of conscience and on the premise of honest commercial intercourse.

The court ultimately grants the injunction. It ends by noting:

The conclusion here reached is not an onslaught on the currents of competition; it does not impose shackles on the arteries of enterprise. It simply quarantines business conduct which is abhorrent to good conscience and the most elementary principles of law and equity.

 

Footnotes

  1. Kennedy v McTammany, 33 F. 584 (D. Mass. 1888). [↩]
  2. Copyright Law Revision, Study No. 26: The Unauthorized Duplication of Sound Recordings, Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights (1961). [↩]
  3. Capitol Records v Naxos, 830 NE 2d 250 (NY Ct of Appeals, 2005). [↩]
  4. According to the Future of Music Coalition, “At least 75 nations, including most European Union member states, do have a performance right.” [↩]
  5. 17 USC § 114. [↩]
  6. Unlike the federal court system, where the Supreme Court is the highest level court, the New York Supreme Court is the lowest, trial level court. [↩]
  7. 199 Misc. 786. [↩]
Posted in: Copyright history · Comments Off

Share: Reddit Google+ LinkedIn

The Story of John and Jack

November 30, 2011 · · 12 comments

A funny thing happens when one reads about how “content industries hate technology.” See if you can tell what it is:

Historically, intellectual property rights holders had a tendency to initially complain about the adverse impact of new technologies only to find them later opening up new markets for their products and services. For example, well-known American composer John Philip Sousa testified before Congress about the challenge created by the manufacture and sale of phonograph records:

When I was a boy . . . in front of every house in the summer evenings you would find young people together singing the songs of the day or the old songs. Today you hear these infernal machines going night and day. We will not have a vocal cord left. The vocal cords will be eliminated by a process of evolution, as was the tail of man when he came from the ape”

… Decades after Sousa’s testimony, the late Jack Valenti, the long-time lobbyist for the U.S. movie industry, made the same mistake. In his effort to lobby against the manufacture and distribution of videocassette recorders, he declared that the new device was “to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler [was] to the woman home alone.”

Peter K. Yu, Digital Copyright and Confuzzling Rhetoric, 13 Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law 881 (2011)

Moving into the 20th century, the claims about technology as a threat to content came fast and furious. The threats in the first decades of the 20th century were the player piano and the gramophone. John Philip Sousa wrote an article, The Menace of Mechanical Music, in which he argued that those infernal devices were a “threat to his livelihood, to the entire body politic, and to ‘musical taste’ itself. . . . The player piano and the gramophone [ ] strip[ ] life from real, human, soulful live performances.”

… By the late 1970s we get to the example that is perhaps the most familiar: the VCR. The free television model, augmented by cable, had been established for some time. Along came a technology that allowed people to copy this freely provided television content and do what they wanted with it. The content industry warned us that the VCR must be stopped. Here is Jack Valenti of the MPAA, speaking to Congress:

[T]he VCR is stripping . . . those markets clean of our profit potential, you are going to have devastation in this marketplace. . . . We are going to bleed and bleed and hemorrhage, unless this Congress at least protects one industry that is able to retrieve a surplus balance of trade and whose total future depends on its protection from the savagery and the ravages of this machine.

If that were not enough, he went on to say, “I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.”

Mark Lemley, Is the Sky Falling on the Content Industries? 9 Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law 125 (2011)

Over 100 years ago, the famous composer John Philip Sousa tried to block two new technologies, the gramophone (phonograph) and the player piano. In 1906, Sousa testified before Congress about his concerns: he “viewed the mechanical reproduction of music as an ominous threat.”

In an article attacking the new technologies, Sousa warned of “a host of other injuries to music . . . by virtue – or rather by vice – of the multiplication of the various music-reproducing machines.”

… In 1976, two movie studios sued Sony Corp. to try to block sales of Sony’s Betamax, a videocassette recorder (VCR or VTR), in probably the most famous example of the content industries’ attempts to block new technology. Overstatements about the supposed effects of the VCR were rampant. As quoted above, Mr. Valenti likened the VCR to the “Boston strangler.”

Viacom v. YouTube, Amicus Brief of Consumer Electronics Association (2nd Cir. 2011)

Copyright owners have greeted every new technology with panic. At the turn of the 20th century, sheet music publishers viewed the player piano, which used copyrighted sheet music in the pianos (and threatened to reduce revenue) with great alarm. John Philip Sousa bemoaned the introduction of the technology, predicting “a marked deterioration in American music and musical taste, an interruption in the musical development of the country, and a host of other injuries to music in its artistic manifestation.”

Eight decades later, Jack Valenti, then the head of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), warned that the market for copyrighted movies would be “decimated, shrunken [and] collapsed” by the VCR, and that “the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.”

Viacom v. YouTube, Amicus Brief of Michael Carrier (2nd Cir. 2011)

In the last century or so, which industry has a habit of being hysterical and hyperbolic about copyright issues… and which has a history of being right. Let’s start about a century ago, with John Philip Sousa, the composer. In 1906, he went to Congress to complain about the infernal technology industry and how it was going to ruin music:

These talking machines are going to ruin the artistic development of music in this country. When I was a boy…in front of every house in the summer evenings, you would find young people together singing the songs of the day or old songs. Today you hear these infernal machines going night and day. We will not have a vocal cord left. The vocal cord will be eliminated by a process of evolution, as was the tail of man when he came from the ape.”

… Jump forward a decade or so, and we have the infamous statement of Jack Valenti comparing the VCR to the Boston Strangler:

I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.

Mike Masnick, A History of Hyperbolic Overreaction to Copyright Issues, TechDirt (Nov. 9, 2011)

Besides, this is just another line like Valenti’s old “Boston Strangler” line. People who don’t know or understand culture or history always blame the new technology for “killing” off the old industry. The reality — as shown time and time again — is that it actually enhances and grows that industry. You see it again and again. The sheet music industry insisted the player piano would kill the music business. John Philip Sousa insisted that the phonograph would kill the music industry, because with it, no one would ever learn to play music or want to hear live music again.

Mike Masnick, What Happens When You Get Two Internet Haters Together? An Interview that Kills Brain Cells, TechDirt (Nov. 2, 2011)

The second reason for the threats to innovation is copyright owners’ panic upon the introduction of new technologies. John Phillip Sousa thought the player piano would lead to “a marked deterioration in American music.” Jack Valenti famously thought the VCR was to the American public as “the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.”

Michael Carrier, Why Innovation is Under Attack, TechDirt (May 13, 2011)

At the turn of the last century John Philip Sousa argued that the gramophone was a grave threat to musicians. How could musicians earn a living if the public were free to listen to music in our homes?

… In the early 1970′s the Motion picture association argued that the video recorder would make the film and television industry “bleed and bleed and haemorrhage”, their president, Jack Valenti, claimed the VCR was as great a threat to film producers as the Boston strangler was to women home alone.

Conor Mulhern, Making money the only way they know how, conormulhern.com (May 2, 2011)

New technology has always caused great distress for copyright owners, going all the way back to 1903, American composer John Philip Sousa was worried the player pianos would destroy music as they then knew it. After that each new technological advancement which created a new method of transmitting information met fierce opposition from the content industry of the time from the radio, to the cassette tape to Mp3′s its always the same story. Not that all of their concerns were unwarranted or unfair but the rhetoric has at times been laughable. My personal favorite is this gem:

“I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman home alone.” ~ Jack Valenti, Former President MPAA

t3chjurist, Us, Them and Copyright, techjurist.wordpress.com (Feb. 23, 2011)

Other companies, and their trade associations, instead attempt to avoid change of any sort. To quote Jack Valenti, the past President of the Motion Picture Association of America, in his testimony to the U.S. Congress about Video Cassette Recorders:

I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman home alone.

… Every Disruptive Technology has caused a reaction like Jack Valenti’s by the Corporations involved. Artists have also fought these new means of production and/or distribution. In a submission to Congress about the new-fangled phonograph John Philip Sousa, the great American Composer and Conductor said:

These talking machines are going to ruin the artistic development of music in this country. When I was a boy…in front of every house in the summer evenings, you would find young people together singing the songs of the day or old songs. Today you hear these infernal machines going night and day. We will not have a vocal cord left. The vocal cord will be eliminated by a process of evolution, as was the tail of man when he came from the ape.

Wayne Borean, An Explanation of my Views on Copyright Part One, madhatter.ca (Sept. 7, 2010)

Home-use VCRs were available as far back as 1963, but didn’t catch on until mass-production dropped the price in the late 1970s. In an almost unrelated note: Shortly afterwards Jack Valenti, head of the MPAA, completely lost his shit.

Appearing before Congress–flecks of spittle presumably slinging from his red, swollen face and melting caustic holes into the floor–he proceeded to proclaim in all seriousness that “…the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.”

…Pirated music is hardly a new development. In fact, there have been Metallicas in every age of man, making loud and opinionated asses out of themselves every time somebody accidentally coughs a note they once thought of using in a song. In this case, we’re referring to the “March King” himself, John Philip “Stars And Stripes Forever” Sousa.

In this piece first published in Appleton’s Magazine in 1906, Sousa argues that, “…I myself and every other popular composer are victims of a serious infringement on our clear moral rights to our own work…”

Ralf Bakr, 5 Insane File Sharing Panics from Before the Internet, Cracked (May 7, 2010)

The gramophone (or phonograph) was unleashed upon a music industry that reacted with predictable fear. The composer John Philip Sousa said:

These talking machines are going to ruin the artistic development of music in this country… We will not have a vocal cord left. The vocal cord will be eliminated by a process of evolution, as was the tail of man when he came from the ape.

… The film industry has a similar fear-filled history. In the 1980s, Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America said:

…the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.

Jeremy Keith, Fear is the Mind-Killer, Adactio (May 2, 2010)

Content owners have railed against technological change since before Big Content even existed, from John Philip Sousa’s denouncing of the player piano to former Motion Picture Association of America chief Jack Valenti’s famous comparison of the VCR to the Boston Strangler.

Cory Ondrejka, “Big Brother” versus “Little Brother”: Two Possible Media Futures, Futurist Magazine (March 1, 2010)

Hyperbole has characterized rights holder reaction throughout, from John Phillip Sousa complaining to the US Congress in 1906 that player pianos:

“are going to ruin the artistic development of music in this country…The vocal chord will be eliminated by a process of evolution, as was the tail of man when he came from the ape.”

… to Jack Valenti, as President of the Motion Picture Association of America, testifying before the US House of Representatives in 1982 that:

“the VCR [video cassette recorder] is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone”.

Open Rights Group Briefing: Illicit P2P file sharing (2009)

Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) President Jack Valenti made the following statement to a U.S. Congressional panel in 1982:

I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.

Yet the reality is that home video viewing, beginning with the VCR and later the DVD player, ultimately came to be the mainstay of movie studio revenues throughout the 1980s, 1990s and into the 2000s. British copyright commentator Tom Watson recently made these insightful observations on a similar phenomenon that occurred much earlier:

In 1906, composer John Phillip Sousa testified before the US Congress that the technological advance of his day would not only “ruin the artistic development of music” but also cause the vocal chord “to be eliminated by a process of evolution”.

Bell, Rogers, Shaw and TELUS, Submission on update to Copyright Act, Copyright Consultations, Canada (2009)

Similar predictions have arisen around every new technology for communicating ideas. John Philip Sousa argued passionately that musical recording would be the end of human singing, and Jack Valenti (then president of the Motion Picture Association of America) compared the video recorder to the Boston Strangler in its anticipated effect on the movie business.

Kevin L. Smith, Books and reading in the Google age, News & Observer (Nov. 30, 2009)

In 1906, famous composer John Philip Sousa took to Appleton’s Magazine to pen an essay decrying the latest piratical threat to his livelihood, to the entire body politic, and to “musical taste” itself. His concern? The player piano and the gramophone, which stripped the life from real, human, soulful live performances. … In 1982, when the movie and music businesses were engaged in a full court press to shut down the hot new VCR, the warnings about its sinister effects made Sousa sound like a wimp.

Chief movie lobbyist Jack Valenti appeared at a Congressional hearing on the VCR and famously went hog-wild. “This is more than a tidal wave. It is more than an avalanche. It is here,” he warned after reciting VCR import statistics.

… One lobbyist (rightly) contended that “the VCR is the greatest friend that the American film producer ever had,” to which Valenti responded, “I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.”

Nate Anderson, 100 years of Big Content fearing technology — In its own words, Ars Technica (Oct. 11, 2009)

Emerging technology has often appeared as a bad omen to copyright owners. In 1906, three years before the enactment of the 1909 Copyright Act, famed American composer John Philip Sousa expressed his fears over the invention of player pianos when he said, “I foresee a marked deterioration in American music … and a host of other injuries to music in its artistic manifestations, by virtue–or rather by vice–of the multiplication of the various music-reproducing machines… .”

… Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Universal City Studios v. Sony Corporation of America, Jack Valenti, former-president of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), foresaw the doom of the movie and television industries in the rise of the VCR: “I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman home alone.”

Marques S. Johnson, Negotiating Digital: XM Satellite Radio, the AHRA, and Keeping Copyright Balanced, 51 Howard Law Journal 397 (2008)

During testimony, MPAA CEO Jack Valenti, in a performance that was worthy of an Oscar, famously said the following:

“the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.”

… This was not the first time, or the last, that the entertainment industry has attempted to use the courts in order to eradicate a technology from existence. While the Betamax case has been the most important decision in years, and arguably the most widely known, there have been other cases that were just as significant. The industry has been short-sighted since its infancy.

In 1906, songwriters objected to the release of the player piano. John Philip Sousa, a famous American composer and conductor who was widely known for his various American military marches, had the following to say about the introduction of the player piano:

“I foresee a marked deterioration in American music and musical taste, an interruption in the musical development of the country, and a host of other injuries to music in its artistic manifestations, by virtue — or rather by vice — of the multiplication of the various music-reproducing machines.”

Scott Jarkoff, Embracing File-Sharing is Essential for Industry Survival, Piratpartiet (July 24, 2006)

“I forsee a marked deterioration in American music…and a host of other injuries to music in its artistic manifestations, by virtue—or rather by vice—of the multiplication of the various music-reproducing machines…”

-John Philip Sousa on the Player Piano (1906)

…

“But now we are faced with a new and very troubling assault on our fiscal security, on our very economic life and we are facing it from a thing called the videocassette recorder.”

-MPAA on the VCR (1982)

You’ve Heard This Song Before! Consumer Electronics Association advertisement, Roll Call (June, 2006)

“I foresee a market deterioration of American music and musical taste. An interruption of the musical development of this country and a host of other injuries to music and its artistic manifestation by and the virtue who are riding the vice of the multiplication of these various music reproducing machines.”

This was Mitch [Glazier] last week. Just kidding, this was John Philip Sousa in 1904, over a hundred years ago when he came to Congress, asking that it stop the production of these player pianos because they were going to be the death of the music industry. If you look back historically that was the same reaction that the music industry and Hollywood had to music on the radio, television and VCR. I remember the Betamax was to the American movie industry what the Boston Strangler is to the women at home, according to Jack Valenti, TiVo, the MP3 player and so forth.

Progress & Freedom Foundation, The Role of Music Licensing in a Digital Age (Michael Petricone remarks), Progress on Point 13.18 (July 2006)

But the entertainment industry has been crying wolf for a century, ever since John Philip Sousa claimed that the player piano spelled the end of music in America. Each new technology has been attacked as a grave threat to the sanctity of copyright, yet somehow the sanctity of copyright has survived. The Sony case again provides the best illustration of this fact. The Chairman of the Motion Picture Association of America testified before Congress that the motion picture industry would suffer devastating financial losses if the VCR were not strangled at birth. (“[W]e are facing a very new and a very troubling assault on our fiscal security, on our very economic life and we are facing it from a thing called the video cassette recorder and its necessary companion called the blank tape. . . . I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.”)

MGM v. Grokster, Amicus Brief of National Venture Capital Association (S.Ct. 2005)

When the phonograph hit the US market, conductor and military composer John Philip Sousa claimed in front of Congress that, along with hurting his business, it would deprive us of our ability to speak: “We will not have a vocal chord left. The vocal chord will be eliminated by a process of evolution, as was the tail of man when he came from the ape!” In 1982, Jack Valenti, then spokesman for the MPAA, stood in front of the same body, calling the VCR “the Boston Strangler” of the American film industry, alleging it was quietly killing American filmmakers.

Alex Aylett, Copy That, This Magazine (July 2005)

This is really part of a much longer historical set of fights between new technologies and the entertainment industry, going back at least to the player piano at the dawn of the 20th Century. No less a figure than John Philip Sousa, the famous American composer, said “The player piano will be the end of music in America.” … that’s exactly the mantra they came up with during the fight over the VCR, and Jack Valenti, who was then head of the Motion Picture Studios, famously said that the VCR was to the movie studio as the Boston Strangler was to a woman alone.

The Shape of Film to Come (remarks of Fred von Lohmann), On the Media (April 1, 2005)

Exhibit I-1: Piracy Panics V. Technological Progress: Economic & Moral Catastrophes are Always about to Befall the Entertainment Industry

John Phillip Sousa, “The Menace of Mechanical Music,” Appleton’s Magazine, Vol 8 (1906)

…I foresee a marked deterioration in American music and musical taste, an interruption in the musical development of the country, and a host of other injuries to music in its artistic manifestations, by virtue — or rather by vice — of the multiplication of the various music-reproducing machines…

…

Jack Valenti, “Home Recording of Copyrighted Works,” Committee on the Judiciary, United States House of Representatives, April 12, 1982

… I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.

Mark N. Cooper, Time for the Recording Industry to Face the Music: The Political, Social and Economic Benefits of Peer-to-peer Communications Networks, Consumer Federation of America, et al. (March 2005)

In the propaganda campaign that preceded the Betamax case, Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, declared that the video recorder was ‘to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone’. Strange, then, that video rentals went on to become the film industry’s main source of revenue.

Established interests have never much liked innovation. Back in 1906 the composer John Philip Sousa predicted ‘a marked deterioration’ in musical tastes as newfangled gramophones ‘reduce the expression of music to a mathematical system of megaphones, wheels, cogs, disks, cylinders and all manner of revolving things’.

David Rowan, MGM v. Grokster (op-ed), The Times Magazine (March 26, 2005)

Several examples are telling. At the turn of the twentieth century, the invention of the player piano sparked much concern on the part of musical composers. In fact, renowned American composer John Philip Sousa published an editorial in 1906 attacking the player piano, declaring that it represented a threat to copyright owners and, indeed, the future of music in America. Of course, the player piano ultimately gave way to the phonograph, from which the entire modern music industry arose.

More recently, the motion picture industry attacked the video cassette recorder (VCR) as a threat to the future of film. In 1982, Jack Valenti, then-head of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), famously declared, “I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.”

EFF, Letter to FTC (Jan. 18, 2005)

Jack Valenti, the head of the Motion Pictures Association of America, testified before Congress, and if you’ve seen him before Congress he often looks like this, and he said in 1982 to the Congress the following: “The VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler (the notorious serial killer) is to the woman home alone.” Now that’s pretty strong rhetoric. But it’s not unprecedented in the history of copyright and technology in this country. When the phonograph was invented we heard the same kind of complaints from the music industry of the time. John Philip Sousa went before the Congress in 1906 and he said this: “These talking machines (meaning phonographs) are going to ruin the artistic development of music in this country. When I was a boy in front of every house in the summer evenings you would find young people together singing. Today you hear these infernal machines going night and day. We will not have a vocal chord left.”

Edward W. Felten, “Rip, Mix, Burn, Sue: Technology, Politics, and the Fight to Control Digital Media” (lecture) (Oct. 12, 2004)

Predictably, the composers and music publishers went nutso. Sousa showed up in Congress to say that:

These talking machines are going to ruin the artistic development of music in this country. When I was a boy…in front of every house in the summer evenings, you would find young people together singing the songs of the day or old songs. Today you hear these infernal machines going night and day. We will not have a vocal chord left. The vocal chord will be eliminated by a process of evolution, as was the tail of man when he came from the ape.

… Jack Valenti, the mouthpiece for the motion-picture industry, told Congress in 1982 that the VCR was to the American film industry “as the Boston Strangler is to a woman home alone.”

Cory Doctorow, Microsoft Research DRM talk (June 17, 2004)

Everyone wins when copyright law adapts to new technologies

Did you catch it?

But on a serious note, the myth that “content industries hate technology” fails for several reasons. It requires fabricating a group (“the content industry”), ascribing a broad characteristic to it (“hates technology”), and then pulling together disparate quotes from anyone who has stated a concern over some new technology as proof of the theory.

And, ironically, the myth neglects the fact that in most cases, copyright law in the past adapted to new technologies.

In the case of Sousa, for example, while he admitted at the time that his remarks may have been a bit over the top, his primary concern was that gramophone manufacturers were appropriating his work without compensating him.1 Just a few years after his essay and testimony, Congress revised the Copyright Act to provide that mechanical reproductions of musical compositions were part of a copyright holder’s exclusive rights. The result was the recording industry — which greatly benefited composers, recording artists, technology manufacturers and the general public.

Similar stories played out with other technologies, like radio2 and cable television.3 Again, the law adapted, the creative and technology companies thrived, and the general public and consumers benefited.

In all cases, the opposition is not to new technologies, but to those who think the introduction of a new technology gives them the privilege of misappropriating someone else’s work.

Just something to keep in mind the next time someone trots out Sousa and Valenti to oppose legislation to adapt copyright law to new technology.

Footnotes

  1. In the essay quoted many times above, Sousa writes “I am quite willing to be reckoned an alarmist”, but “Could anything be more blamable, as a matter of principle, than to take an artist’s composition, reproduce it a thousandfold on their machines, and deny him all participation in the large financial returns, by hiding back of the diaphanous pretense that in the guise of a disk or roll, his composition is not his property?” [↩]
  2. A series of court decisions in the early 1920s, including M. Witmark & Sons v. L. Bamberger, 291 Fed. 776; Remick & Co. v. American Automobile Accessories, 5 F.2d 411; and Remick & Co. v. General Electric, 16 F.2d 829, solidified in law the proposition that a radio broadcast of a musical composition is a public performance. [↩]
  3. The 1976 Copyright Act provided that retransmission of a broadcast by a CATV operator constitutes a public performance; see Capital Cities Cable v. Crisp, 467 US 691, 709 (1984). [↩]
Posted in: Copyright Criticism · 12 comments

Share: Reddit Google+ LinkedIn

SOPA: New remedies for existing liability

November 14, 2011 · · 17 comments

That every person for every injury done him in his goods, land or person, ought to have remedy by the course of the law of the land and ought to have justice and right for the injury done to him freely without sale, fully without any denial, and speedily without delay, according to the law of the land.1

Ineffective remedies are often just as bad as no remedy at all. While innovative, sustainable services continue to develop, offering consumers exciting and convenient new ways to enjoy content that remunerates creators, rogue actors still find it easy to profit off the misappropriation of someone else’s time and talents.

The Stop Online Piracy Act (H.R. 3261) gives creators more tools to address this type of commercial piracy. Since it was introduced, however, it has been subject to much criticism, and with the House Judiciary Committee holding a hearing on the bill Wednesday, the criticism is sure to continue.

While some of the criticism is legitimate — few bills are perfect when they are first introduced, hence the need for hearings — a lot of it is unfounded. One thing that should be kept in mind is that SOPA does not expand the scope of copyright law, of what is protected or what is not.

The Stop Online Piracy Act creates new remedies, it does not create any new liability.

Section 103 of SOPA provides for a procedure, similar to the notice-and-takedown procedure of the DMCA, that allows copyright holders to better protect their work against commercial misappropriation. This procedure is limited to use against sites that are, as the bill terms them, “dedicated to theft of U.S. property.” The bill includes three separate definitions for a site “dedicated to theft of U.S. property.”

To see why SOPA doesn’t expand the scope of copyright law, compare its definitions to current law. These definitions, for sites “dedicated to the theft of U.S. property”, incorporate existing standards of liability. That is, sites or services that fall within the scope of these definitions are already potentially liable for copyright infringement. All Section 103 of SOPA does is give copyright holders a new tool to more effectively protect their work from commercial misappropriation.

No legitimate purpose

The first definition of a site “dedicated to the theft of U.S. property” under SOPA is one that “is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in, offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates” copyright infringement.

The language of this definition mirrors that of the existing provision in the DMCA that prohibits devices that circumvent technological protection measures:

No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that—

(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or

(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person’s knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.2

But in a broader sense, this definition draws upon the theory of liability originally set forth in Sony Corporation v. Universal City Studios — the “Betamax” case. There, the Supreme Court held that the sale of a good “does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes. Indeed, it need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing uses.” This holding borrowed from the staple article of commerce doctrine in patent law. A corollary to this doctrine is that “where an article is ‘good for nothing else’ but infringement … there is no injustice in presuming or imputing an intent to infringe.”3

There is recognition in Sony itself that its holding on contributory infringement doesn’t extend to products or services which have no purpose other than infringement. Justice Blackmun said in his dissent, “If virtually all of the product’s use, however, is to infringe, contributory liability may be imposed; if no one would buy the product for noninfringing purposes alone, it is clear that the manufacturer is purposely profiting from the infringement, and that liability is appropriately imposed.” Blackmun’s dissent bore a strong resemblance to an earlier draft of what, at one point, was the majority opinion in Sony.4 The language of that draft bears an even stronger resemblance to SOPA’s definition of a site “dedicated to theft of U.S. property”: “Sony can be liable for contributory infringement only if the Betamax’s ‘most conspicuous purpose’ or ‘primary use’ is an infringing use.”5

Willful Blindness

Willful blindness is sometimes also referred to as “Nelsonian knowledge“, after flag office Horatio Nelson, who fought for the British Royal Navy in the late 1700s and early 1800s. The following story explains why — this particular story also serves as the origin of the phrase “turning a blind eye.”

When some of your great grandfathers were little boys, there was a great war between England and France. Many of the battles were fought at sea. England had good ships and brave sailors and bold captains in plenty; but the best sailor and the boldest captain of them all was Lord Horatio Nelson.

[…] In one battle this brave officer lost an eye. In another he lost an arm; but though he had but one eye and one arm, he was always the first in the fight and the last out. He never would give in. At the battle of Copenhagen two of his ships ran aground. Admiral Parker, who had command of the fleet, thought Nelson had no chance of winning: so he hung out the signal to “stop fighting.”

But Nelson took no heed of it. His one eye danced with glee as the guns roared, and ropes and bits of timber flew through the air. When a shot struck the mast of his own ship and broke it to hits, he only said. “Warm work this! But I wouldn’t lie out of it for all the world!” Some one told him that the signal was up to “stop fighting.”

He laughed: and putting the glass to his blind eye, he said: “I don’t see the signal. Keep mine flying for closer battle. Nail it to the mast.” And he kept on fighting till he won the battle; and for his great victory he was made lord admiral of the fleet.6

The second definition of a site “dedicated to theft of U.S. property” under SOPA is a site where “the operator of the U.S.-directed site is taking, or has taken, deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability of the use of the U.S.-directed site to carry out acts that constitute” copyright infringement.

The language is taken directly — word for word — from last May’s Supreme Court opinion for Global-Tech Appliances v. SEB. The Court stated that “a willfully blind defendant is one who takes deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability of wrongdoing.”

Global-Tech presented the Court with the question of whether willful blindness can satisfy the knowledge requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 271. However, willful blindness itself is an incontrovertible part of the law. The Court explains:

The doctrine of willful blindness is well established in criminal law. Many criminal statutes require proof that a defendant acted knowingly or willfully, and courts applying the doctrine of willful blindness hold that defendants cannot escape the reach of these statutes by deliberately shielding themselves from clear evidence of critical facts that are strongly suggested by the circumstances. The traditional rationale for this doctrine is that defendants who behave in this manner are just as culpable as those who have actual knowledge. It is also said that persons who know enough to blind themselves to direct proof of critical facts in effect have actual knowledge of those facts.

The Court notes the wide acceptance of the concept of willful blindness. It begins its survey with a case from 1899 which embraced the idea and traces the doctrine through the 20th century. Today, “every Court of Appeals—with the possible exception of the District of Columbia Circuit, has fully embraced willful blindness, applying the doctrine to a wide range of criminal statutes.”

Finally, the Supreme Court presents a general formulation of willful blindness. “While the Courts of Appeals articulate the doctrine of willful blindness in slightly different ways, all appear to agree on two basic requirements: (1) the defendant must subjectively believe that there is a high probability that a fact exists and (2) the defendant must take deliberate actions to avoid learning of that fact.”

The doctrine of willful blindness applies to copyright law just as much as it does to law in general.7

Inducement

The final definition of a site “dedicated to theft of US property” under SOPA is a site operated “with the object of promoting, or has promoted, its use to carry out acts that constitute” copyright infringement, ”as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement.”

Like the definition for willful blindness, this definition is taken directly from the Supreme Court. In Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer v. Grokster, the Court stated that “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, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties.”

The Court dubs this “inducement”, and it has been recognized as a form of secondary liability within copyright law for decades. In 1971, for example, the Second Circuit said that “one who, with knowledge of the infringing activity induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another, may be held liable as a ‘contributory’ infringer.”8

Effective recourse

The Stop Online Piracy Act incorporates long standing principles of liability, principles that have applied to service providers and web site operators since the beginnings of the world wide web. The actions that would subject a provider to SOPA’s provisions are the same ones that would subject it to a copyright infringement suit under existing law and are actions that would not be protected under DMCA safe harbors.

What has been missing has been effective remedies against operators and providers that clearly fall within the scope of this liability: sites that have been purposely designed for the sole purpose of infringement, sites whose operators have taken deliberate steps to blind themselves from the use of their sites to engage in wrongdoing, and sites whose operators have actively promoted the use of their sites for piracy. For smaller content producers and individuals especially, this lack of effective recourse has proven damaging.

The goal of SOPA is to remedy this lack of effective recourse, and ensure that creators have “justice and right” freely, fully, and without delay for the injury caused by rogue sites.

Footnotes

  1. Chief Justice Thomas Philips, The Constitutional Right to a Remedy, 78 New York University Law Review 1309 (2003), paraphrasing Arkansas Constitution art. II, § 13; Illinois Constitution art. I, § 12; Maine Constitution art. I, § 13; Maryland Constitution Decl. of Rights, art. 19; Massachusetts Constitution pt. 1, § 11; Minnesota Constitution art. 1 § 8; New Hampshire Constitution pt. I, art. 14; Rhode Island Constitution art. I, § 5; Vermont Constitution ch. I, art. 4; and Wisconsin Constitution art. I, § 9. [↩]
  2. 17 USC § 1201(a)(2). [↩]
  3. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer v. Grokster, 545 US 913, 932 (2005). [↩]
  4. Jonathan Band & Andrew J.  McLaughlin, The Marshall Papers: A Peek Behind the Scenes at the Making of Sony v. Universal, 17 Columbia – VLA Journal of Law & the Arts 427 (1993). [↩]
  5. Draft Majority Opinion of Associate Justice Harry A. Blackmun at 35 (June 13, 1983). [↩]
  6. The Brave Lord Nelson, Timely Topics, Vol. v. No. 1, pg 286 (Sept. 7, 1900). [↩]
  7. In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, 650 (7th Cir. 2003), “Willful blindness is knowledge, in copyright law as it is in the law generally”; See also Island Software and Computer Service v. Microsoft, 413 F.3d 257, 263 (2nd Cir. 2005). [↩]
  8. Gershwin Publishing v. Columbia Artists Management, 443 F.2d 1159, 1162. [↩]
Posted in: Copyright reform · 17 comments

Share: Reddit Google+ LinkedIn

Friday’s Endnotes – 05/13/11

May 13, 2011 · · 2 comments

Content and Technology is not an Either/or Choice — The Copyright Alliance disputes the framing of efforts to better protect IP rights as a choice betweencopyright and innovation. “The copyright community and the technology sector drive and sustain each other.  They each contribute disproportionately to the wealth of this nation, and both sectors depend on a vibrant, legal marketplace of digital content.”

Celebrating World Press Freedom Day, and What the First Amendment Means to the MPAA — The Motion Picture Association of America’s new chairman Chris Dodd reflects on the role of the organization in defending free speech rights for filmmakers, a theme I discussed on this site recently. “Many people don’t realize that the MPAA itself was born as an answer to government censorship.  Before the establishment of the MPAA’s Classifications and Rating Administration, early filmmakers battled a mishmash of local, state and federal boards that mandated strict ‘moral standards’ that often destroyed the artistic integrity of films or kept them from being shown at all.”

Limewire Case Settles, Mid-Trial, For $105 Million — Thursday evening brought news that the file-sharing service reached a settlement agreement with the record labels that had brought suit against it before the close of the first week of the jury trial to determine damages. Q: How much of the settlement is going to the artists? A: More than they got from Limewire.

MPAA v. Zediva is Shaping up to be Quite the Legal Showdown — Remember Zediva, the video-on-demand startup that streams movies online from actual DVDs in remote DVD players to avoid licensing fees? They were, of course, sued by film studios. PaidContent reports that both sides seem to be placing a high priority on this lawsuit, considering the high-power lawyers being called on for litigation.

YouTube boosts movie rentals with over 3,000 Hollywood titles — The video-sharing site joins online movie providers like iTunes and Amazon, allowing users to watch films for a couple of bucks. The titles include classics like Goodfellas and newer releases like Inception.

Library of Congress and Sony create the National Jukebox — The record label has made thousands of previously unavailable historical recordings available to the general public through a joint effort with the Library of Congress. According to the LA Times, “The collaboration between Sony and the Library of Congress is intended to keep any cost to taxpayers to a minimum and to make the streaming files available quickly. In return, Sony will receive data on which recordings are streamed most frequently to help determine which may have commercial potential.” Win-win-win.

Interview: The Art of Video Games at the Smithsonian — Boing Boing contributor Rob Beschizza interviews the organizer and exhibition curator of the Smithsonian’s upcoming Art of Video Games exhibition. “We want to show people that video games are more than they might appear on the surface, that they can have incredible depth, beauty, and emotion.”

4 Predictions for Copyright Reform Attempt 4 — With the recent Canadian elections completed, it is likely that the new government will resume the efforts to reform the nation’s copyright law. Attorney James Gannon offers his predictions on what changes to expect this time around in light of recent developments in copyright law and digital technologies.

The E-Book Gold Rush — Author Lee Goldberg injects some reality into the recent success stories of self-publishing authors in the digital world. Yes, authors can find new opportunities with e-books and shouldn’t ignore their potential. But the fact remains that a new system that makes it easier for an author to spread her work makes it easier for every author to spread her work — bringing us back to square one in the amount of time and effort needed to build an audience.

Google Books and the Rule of Law— Howard Knopf pens this op-ed about the broader rule of law and international law implications of the Google Books project. “The Google Books project has frequently been likened to a reincarnation of the Library of Alexandria in a digital, fireproof format—because it could include virtually all the world’s important books in an instantly accessible database. However, what has been shown to be technically achievable and widely praised is far from clearly legally viable. There is considerable concern from those who care about core values in copyright and international law, and indeed the rule of law itself. Nobody is above the law—not even Google. Class actions were never intended to usurp legislation and treaties.”

GAO Still Stonewalling on Sources for “Stealing is Good” Report — Chris Castle documents his efforts requesting information from the Government Accountability Office regarding the unnamed experts who advanced the idea of positive effects of piracy in last year’s report on “Observations on Efforts to Quantify the Economic Effects of Counterfeit and Pirated Goods.”

Cheezburger Networks of sites suck — A very short blog post from photographer Terry Border at Bent Objects, but a great excuse for me to point people to his work. Border uses everyday objects to create whimsical scenes — circus peanuts performing in a circus, for example. Here, he complains about the popular image aggregator sites which misappropriate photos from the web, routinely without regard to attributing the original authors. Says Border, “I’ve heard a couple of comments that blame the submitters to their sites, and not Cheezburger themselves. Well, who put together the way their sites work? They can try to wash their hands of wrong-doing, but it’s their system, and they know the end result will be lots of anonymous images thrown into the furnace of their giant money making machine.” Hm, sounds familiar.

Finally, from the academic world, I recommend the following:

Copyright, Complexity and Cultural Diversity (via Legal Theory Blog) — In this forthcoming Chapter, available at SSRN, Michal Shur-Ofry-

“challenges the prevailing view pertaining to the connection between broad copyright protection and lack of cultural diversity. Prominent scholarship in the field of copyright links the lack of diversity in cultural consumption to the broad copyright protection afforded to cultural works. Copyright, so goes the argument, constitutes a major basis for the activities of mass media corporations, which flood our cultural sphere with formulaic cultural products, whose sole purpose is to appeal to the taste of the masses. The limitation of copyright, so the argument proceeds, would diminish the cultural domination of mass media products, and promote audience exposure to ‘other’, more diverse works.

“The Chapter questions the importance attributed to copyright law in this context. Based on complexity and network theory dealing with the evolution of popularity and the self organization of complex systems, it illuminates the fact that the inclination towards popular cultural works is an intrinsic phenomenon of social networks, and does not depend upon copyright protection. It continues to analyze recent ‘long tail’ data, which indicates that positive changes in the degree of cultural diversity occur even under a broad copyright regime. In light of these observations, the Chapter attempts to offer a broader perspective on diverse cultural consumption, relying on socio-cultural research. This literature indicates that cultural diversity is a complex and multi-faceted issue. The non-linear nature also implies that the level of diversity cannot be easily calibrated by changing the scope of copyright protection. Rather, the attempt to promote diverse cultural consumption must address a series of difficult questions which are outside the scope of copyright law.”

Posted in: Friday's Endnotes · 2 comments

Share: Reddit Google+ LinkedIn