Archive
You are currently browsing the archives for the Copyright Law category.
By Paul
I found this article by Chris Hartman amusing because the word “theft” is used so frequently outside of its literal legal definition. The article searches Google for instances when people write “_______ is theft” with the rankings shown below.
Its a brilliant example of how people distort the truth by using a vague or general definition of a word with a lot of emotional weight. Like “theft.” When you use a word like “theft” to mean any general sort of taking or use of a right, it ceases to mean theft. Its also interesting to note that publishers appear four times in that list, including the top spot, but in none of those cases do they mean actual theft. Infringement is bad, but its also hard to conceptualize. Theft is immediate and visceral.
Hat tip to Marginal Revolution.
By Paul
Actually, I don’t think they even make computer manuals any more. At least not ones that come with your computer. Either way, this manual from a Franklin Ace 1000 is seems so foreign, so unlike any documentation you might get today that its almost amusing. Its part rant, part manifesto and it breaks up the world into “THEM”, “US” and “YOU.” From the manual:
“Program manufacturers are natural paranoids. In their zeal to “copy protect” their programs, they tend to regard all customers as potential thieves”
Interestingly enough, Franklin made Apple computer clones and was successfully sued by Apple for copyright infringement of Apple’s operating system. Natural paranoids indeed.
Full article at Ironic Sans. HT to BoingBoing
By Paul
Victoria Espinel the Copyright Infringement Czar for the Obama Administration, wants to gather public input as to how the US should enforce copyright infringement. Here is part of the official summary of the request:
This request for comments and for recommendations for an improved
enforcement strategy is divided into two parts. In the first, the IPEC
seeks written submissions from the public regarding the costs to the
U.S. economy resulting from intellectual property violations, and the
threats to public health and safety created by infringement. In the
second part, the IPEC requests detailed recommendations from the public
regarding the objectives and content of the Joint Strategic Plan and
other specific recommendations for improving the Government’s
intellectual property enforcement efforts. Responses to this request
for comments may be directed to either of these two parts, or both, and
may include a response to one or more requests for information found in
either part.
Comments are due by Wednesday, March 24,
2010, at 5 p.m.
The full text of the request can be found here.
Send your comments to: intellectualproperty@omb.eop.gov
HT to boingboing.net for publicizing this.
By Paul
On Friday, the court reduced the damages in the Jammie Thomas-Rasset filesharing case from $80,000 per song to $2,250 per song. The total now stands at $53,000 which is much less than the the jury awarded. Here is what Judge Michael Davis had to say at page 15:
Although Plaintiffs highlight valid reasons that Thomas‐Rasset must pay a statutory damages award, these facts simply cannot justify a $2 million verdict in this case. Thomas‐Rasset was not a business acting for profit. Instead, she was an individual consumer illegally seeking free access to music for her own use. Congress set a high maximum for statutory damages in order to ensure that damages awards could be large enough to outweigh the potential gain from infringing. As the Court noted in its September 2008 Order, in the case of commercial actors, the potential gain in revenues is enormous and enticing to potential infringers. In the case of individuals who infringe by using peer‐to‐peer networks, the potential gain from infringement is access to free music, not the possibility of hundreds of thousands – or even millions – of dollars in profits. The need for deterrence cannot justify a $2 million verdict for stealing and illegally distributing 24 songs for the sole purpose of obtaining free music.
It will be very interesting to see if this reasoning is applied in future copyright statutory damages rulings.
A copy of the Order can be found at Copyrights and Campaigns
By Paul
While ordinarily an ISP or web service like Vimeo could get off the hook under section 512 of the DMCA, it does complicate things when your staff creates and posts a video that is allegedly infringing.
Link to the Trademark Blog which includes both the video in question and the complaint.
By Paul
Great post by John Ottavianni on Eric Goldman’s Technology and Marketing Blog recaps some of the more consequential developments in cyberlaw this past year.
By Paul
From the Freedom to Tinker blog, Mike Freedman gives a good description of how BitTorrent works as well as how some companies are handing out Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) notices without much proof of any actual infringement.
“I am not arguing that copyright owners should not be able to take reasonable steps to protect their copyrighted material. I am arguing, however, that they should take similarly reasonable steps to ensure that any claimed infringement actually took place. When DMCA notices are accompanied by oaths under “penalty of perjury” and these claims are accepted as writ, as they have de facto become, there should some downside for agencies that demonstrably do not act in “good faith” to verify infringement.”
If you receive DMCA takedown that you believe is inaccurate, you can and often should push back. The linked story confirms my suspicions that many companies do not review notices of alleged infringement before they send them. It isn’t yet entirely clear to what extent the sender of a wrongful DMCA notice would be liable, but certainly there is a good case to be made that if they must act in good faith.
UPDATE: There is now a part two to the initial post
By Paul
The William Mitchell Law School’s Intellectual Property Clinic has undertaken a great project to help secure the rights to create translations of children’s books into Dakota and Ojibwe, two languages in danger of dying out. Hopefully, these translations will help to keep a big part of Native American and Minnesota culture alive.
One of the exclusive rights copyright law grants the authors is to have control over “derivative works” which includes translations into other languages. This can be a problem if you are working to preserve a language but must ask permission to translate. Publishers may not want to take the time to negotiate a translation if they don’t believe there will be a large market for those translations. As with many things in life, sometimes it just takes some dedicated people to keep pushing.
Here is a link to the story.
By Paul
I saw this article on Slashdot which was a bit troubling even for an attorney who has been on the plaintiff’s side of copyright disputes. Basically, the proposed “three strikes” law in the UK as well as similar ones in France and elsewhere would kick people off the internet if they are accused of infringing copyrights three times. That’s right even when simply accused.
This of course is a serious free speech issue which I don’t doubt others have picked up on already. The French law may be unconstitutional, and if a similar law were proposed in the US it would no doubt face First Amendment challenges.
The problem with efforts like the “three strikes” laws for the copyright holders is that its bad for business. Whatever business model overtakes distribution of physical copies in the future, the internet will be a major part of it. What those models will be is still uncertain. But it makes no sense to remove your customer base from the channels of commerce. It will be difficult to sell subscription services to people who cant access them.
By Paul
There have been several commentaries on various blogs already about the jury verdicts against Jammie Thomas here in Minnesota and against Joel Tennenbaum in Massachusetts. My two cents: both verdicts were correct in that they both were infringing copyrights, but the amount of damages may be excessive when applied to individuals. We’ll see if the amount of damages can be limited on appeal.
That said it is great to see that copyright expert William Patry has started blogging again and he and Ben Sheffner have several great posts on these two cases and the broader issue of what is fair payment for creative works and fair punishment for infringing those works. Patry’s new blog is Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars.
