Week 3: File sharing

The SONY Betamax

Nooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Renaissance England: We kill newspapers dead

• We license newspapers selectively, creating government approved monopolies

• We tax them heavily• Hell, let’s just ban the

damn things (Charles I, 1630s)

• We make it easy to prosecute for libel

Charles “you’re not a reporter, are you?” the First, posing for a rare photo opportunity

The Licensing Act, 1662

• All copy, all printed matter distributed to the public, had to be entered into the publishing guild’s “Stationers Register”

• Approved by the Guild and the Government

“A public mercury should never have my vote, because I think it makes the Multitude Too Familiar with the Actions and Counsels of their Superiors.” – Sir Roger L’Estrange

Statute of Anne, 1710• By act of Parliament,

publishers and authors have 14 years legal ownership of their works, renewable by 14 years

• Stealing “other men’s copies” like “lying with their wives.” Daniel Defoe

Copyright, a careful balance

• We give authors a limited monopoly on their works in order to create incentives for them to produce

• Then we end the monopoly so that the work becomes part of our public culture

John Peter Zenger case redefines libel

• 1732: New York newspaper printer accused of libel

• Jury: truth is a defense

• Opposite of British policy

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution (1791)

• Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Copyright United States: “To promote the Progress of Science and Useful Arts, by Securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the

exclusive Right to their respctive Writings and Discoveries.”

• Copyright Act of 1790: 14 years renewable by 14

• 1831: 28 years, renewable by 14• 1834: Wheaton vs. Peters• 1909: Copyright Act of 1909 – 28/28• 1976: life of the author plus 50 years (for works

after 1978)• 1998: (Sonny Bono act) life of the author plus

70 years

What does copyright mean you can do?

• The exclusive right to– Reproduce the work in

copies– Prepare derivative works– Sell copies– Perform the work

(publicly)– Display the work

(publicly)– Stream the work

(digitally)

Fair use• You can extract, quote from, and

partially reproduce copyrighted materials– “for purposes such as criticism,

comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use) . . .

• How do we know it’s legit?– The purpose of the use (commercial or

non-profit?)– The nature of the work– The amount and portion of the work

uses– The effect of the use upon the potential

market

• Section 512(c)(3): An online content provider is not infringing if – Does not have “requisite

level of knowledge that material is infringing”

– Provider doesn’t receive financial benefit directly attributable to the activity

– Upon receiving notification, provider loses the content

• Section 1201: prohibits “circumvention” devices (think: DVDs) that are – Primarily designed to

circumvent– Have only limited

functionality besides circumventing

– Marketed for circumventing

Feist Publications vs. Rural Telephone Service Company, 1991• Who owns copyright on

the data on your pay TV onscreen guide?

• “The sine qua non of copyright is originality," she noted. "To qualify for copyright protection, a work must be original to the author.” – Sandra Day O’Connor

Shawn Fanning and Napster

Sony Betamax decision, 1984

• “The sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce, does not constitute infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes. Indeed, it need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing uses.” – Supreme Court

• District Judge goes with Grokster: “Sound policy supports our consistent deference to Congress when major technological innovations alter the market for copyrighted materials.”

• Appeals Court goes with Grokster: “The introduction of new technology is always disruptive to new markets . . .”

• RIAA sues 12,000 Americans for copyright infringement

VS. MGM Studios

Grokster vs. MGM

• "We hold 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."– Supreme Court, 1984