Intellectual Property Boston College Law School February 4, 2009 Copyright – Indirect, Digital...

28
Intellectual Property Boston College Law School February 4, 2009 Copyright – Indirect, Digital Issues
  • date post

    19-Dec-2015
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    218
  • download

    2

Transcript of Intellectual Property Boston College Law School February 4, 2009 Copyright – Indirect, Digital...

Page 1: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School February 4, 2009 Copyright – Indirect, Digital Issues.

Intellectual Property

Boston College Law School

February 4, 2009

Copyright – Indirect, Digital Issues

Page 2: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School February 4, 2009 Copyright – Indirect, Digital Issues.

Defenses

• Fair Use

• Independent Creation

• Consent or License (Express or Implied)

• Statute of Limitations

• Inequitable Conduct

• Copyright Misuse

• First Amendment

Page 3: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School February 4, 2009 Copyright – Indirect, Digital Issues.

Third Party Liability

• Contributory Liability– 1. Knowledge of infringing activity– 2. Induce, causes, or materially contributes

• Vicarious Liability– 1. Right and ability to supervise– 2. Direct financial interest in infringing activity

• Inducement– 1. Intention to induce infringement– 2. Affirmative steps to facilitate infringement

Page 4: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School February 4, 2009 Copyright – Indirect, Digital Issues.

Third Party Liability

• Historical Contexts– Swap Meets

– Dance Halls

– Landlords

• Modern Equivalents– On-line Auctions (e.g. E-Bay)

– Web Hosting (e.g. Facebook)

– Internet Search (e.g. Google)

– Credit Card Companies (e.g. Visa)

Page 5: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School February 4, 2009 Copyright – Indirect, Digital Issues.

Policy Issues

• Why Third Party Liability?– Facilitate enforcement– Third parties may be morally culpable– Deter third parties from harmful activity

• Why Not Third Party Liability?– Imposes costs on third parties (e.g. monitoring)– Not always fair to impose burden– Not always efficient for third parties to enforce

Page 6: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School February 4, 2009 Copyright – Indirect, Digital Issues.

Sony v. Universal

“capable of substantial non-infringing uses”

Page 7: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School February 4, 2009 Copyright – Indirect, Digital Issues.

Hypo: Napster

Page 8: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School February 4, 2009 Copyright – Indirect, Digital Issues.

Napster Technology

NapsterFile Names,IP Addresses

MP3s

Page 9: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School February 4, 2009 Copyright – Indirect, Digital Issues.

Questions

• How would you analyze this under the doctrines for third party liability?– Contributory liability– Vicarious liability

• How would you apply Sony to this case?

• What is the correct result?

Page 10: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School February 4, 2009 Copyright – Indirect, Digital Issues.

Open Questions

• How much is “substantial”?

• What do we mean by “capable”?

• Is this the right standard?

• Is there an obligation to design to minimize infringement?

Page 11: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School February 4, 2009 Copyright – Indirect, Digital Issues.

Digital Copyright

• How is digital technology different?– Copying costs near zero– Distribution costs near zero– Copies are perfect– Search costs are low

Page 12: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School February 4, 2009 Copyright – Indirect, Digital Issues.

Digital Copyright

• Legislative Changes– Audio Home Recording Act (1992)– DPRSRA (1995)– No Electronic Theft Act (1997)– Digital Millennium Copyright Act (1998)

Page 13: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School February 4, 2009 Copyright – Indirect, Digital Issues.

AHRA (1992)

• Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA)– Response to introduction of DAT in 1980s– Basic provisions

• Manufacturers can sell digital recording devices• Consumers can make personal, noncommercial copies• Devices must include serial copy prevention technology• Royalty charged on devices and recording media

– Does not cover• Computer hard drives or CD burners• Blank CDs• MP3 Players (Diamond Multimedia case)

Page 14: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School February 4, 2009 Copyright – Indirect, Digital Issues.

DPRSRA (1995)

• Digital Performance of Sound Recordings– New right given to sound recordings

– Covers digital performances of such• E.g. cable radio, direct satellite radio, internet radio

• Where digital radio received via subscription

– Rights depend on type of performance• Where interactively on-demand, must get license

• Where non-interactive broadcast, compulsory license

– Recall: must also get musical work rights, too

Page 15: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School February 4, 2009 Copyright – Indirect, Digital Issues.

NET (1997)

• No Electronic Theft Act (1997)– Increased scope of criminal sanctions– Response to LaMacchia case

• Formerly, required commercial advantage

• Case where uploaded software for free; no liablity

– Change so that based on retail value of works• More than $1,000 of copyrighted works

• Within 180 day period

Page 16: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School February 4, 2009 Copyright – Indirect, Digital Issues.

DMCA (1998)

• Digital Millennium Copyright Act– Technological protection mechanisms

• Anti-circumvention provisions

• Anti-device provisions

– Copyright management information– ISP liability provisions

Page 17: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School February 4, 2009 Copyright – Indirect, Digital Issues.

DMCA (1998)

• Anti-circumvention provisions– Separate liability for acts of circumvention

• Independent of copyright infringement

• List of narrow defenses, but no fair use defense

– Applies to access and copy control technology

– Copyright Office can exempt certain works

• Anti-trafficking provisions– Bars distribution of circumvention technologies

– Where primary purpose is to facilitate infringement

Page 18: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School February 4, 2009 Copyright – Indirect, Digital Issues.

DMCA (1998)

• ISP Provisions– Safe harbor for transmission and caching– Safe harbor for hosting content

• Notice and take-down procedure

• Immune from direct and contributory suits

– Subpoena power

Page 19: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School February 4, 2009 Copyright – Indirect, Digital Issues.

A&M Records v. Napster

Page 20: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School February 4, 2009 Copyright – Indirect, Digital Issues.

Napster Technology

NapsterFile Names,IP Addresses

MP3s

Page 21: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School February 4, 2009 Copyright – Indirect, Digital Issues.

Grokster

Page 22: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School February 4, 2009 Copyright – Indirect, Digital Issues.

Peer to Peer Technology

• Distributes Software and Updates• Serves Ads

All Files, FileNames, IPAddresses

Page 23: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School February 4, 2009 Copyright – Indirect, Digital Issues.

Open Issues

• What is the Sony standard?– Capable of substantial noninfringing uses?– Actual evidence of such uses?

• Does Sony apply to on-line services?

• Is Sony the right standard?

Page 24: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School February 4, 2009 Copyright – Indirect, Digital Issues.

Image Search

Page 25: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School February 4, 2009 Copyright – Indirect, Digital Issues.

Google Book Search

Page 26: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School February 4, 2009 Copyright – Indirect, Digital Issues.

Google Book Search

Page 27: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School February 4, 2009 Copyright – Indirect, Digital Issues.

Google Book Search

Page 28: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School February 4, 2009 Copyright – Indirect, Digital Issues.

Administrative

• For Monday– Start III. Trade Secret

• Read A, B, C.1

• For Tuesday– Finish III. Trade Secret