Copyright and the DMCACopyright and the DMCA

IM 350 © Ed Lamoureux/Steve Baron

Important issuesImportant issuesDVR/Music Lockers

– Copies?– Performances?– Enacted by? (does it matter?(

DMCA copyright safe harborIllegal downloading & penaltiesUniversal Library

Cartoon Network v. CSC

Who’s Who?– CN owns copyrights to movies and tv programs

Content owner

– CSC operates cable tv system Content distributor

Cartoon Network v. CSC

What are they fightin’ about?– CSC plans to launch Remote Storage DVR

System Customers can record shows on central hard drives

housed and maintained by CSC at remote location CSC did not seek a license from CN

– CN sues for direct copyright infringment Seeks declaration and injunction

Cartoon Network v. CSC

Who won in the District Court?– Cartoon Network

Court finds RS-DVR directly infringes CN copyrights

– Briefly storing data in ingest buffer– Copying programs onto server– Transmitting data from server to customers

Summary judgment entered against CSC Injunction against CSC to prevent operating RS-

DVR withou a license

Cartoon Network v. CSC

Where did the legal fight start?– Federal District Court (New York)

Cartoon Network v. CSC

What happens on appeal to the Second Circuit?– The decision is reversed and remanded back to

the District Court

Cartoon Network v. CSC

Rationale of appellate decision:– Analysis of “transitory duration”

No bit of data remains in buffer for more than a fleeting 1.2 seconds

So, the act of buffering does not create a “copy” under copyright law

Cartoon Network v. CSC

Rationale of appellate Court:– Who makes the copy?

CSC or customer? Court holds that customer makes copy and so CSC

is not liable for direct copyright infringement.– CSC “closely resembles a store proprietor who charges

customers to use a photocopier on his premises…”

Cartoon Network v. CSC

Rationale of appellate court:– Is RS-DVR playback a transmission of a

performance to the public?– Answer: No. Because each playback

transmission is made to a single subscriber using a single unique copy produced by that subscriber, such transmissions are not “public” and do not infringe any exclusive right of public performance

Viacom v. YouTubeViacom v. YouTube

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT

OF NEW YORK VIACOM INTERNATIONAL INC., COMEDY PARTNERS, COUNTRY

MUSIC TELEVISION,INC., PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORPORATION, and BLACK ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION LLC,Plaintiffs, 07 Civ. 2103

(LLS) -against-

YOUTUBE, INC., YOUTUBE, LLC, and GOOGLE, INC., Defendants

VIACOM’s STORY LINE:

YouTube has harnessed technology to willfully infringe copyright on a huge scale, depriving writers, composers and performers of the rewards they are owed for effort and innovation, reducing the incentive of America’s creative industries, and profiting from the illegal conduct of others as well. Using the leverage of the Internet, YouTube appropriates the value of creative content on a massive scale for YouTube’s benefit without payment of license. YouTube’s brazen disregard of the intellectual property laws fundamentally threatens not just the Plaintiffs, but the economic underpinnings of one of the most important sectors of the United States economy.

Defendants actively engage in, promote and induce this infringement. YouTube itself publicly performs the infringing videos on the YouTube site and other websites. Thus, YouTube does not simply enable massive infringement by its users. It is YouTube that knowingly reproduces and publicly performs the copyrighted works uploaded to its site. YouTube deliberately built up a library of infringing works to draw traffic to the YouTube site, enabling it to gain a commanding market share, earn significant revenues, and increase its enterprise value. YouTube has deliberately chosen not to take reasonable precautions to deter the rampant infringement on its site. Because YouTube directly profits from the availability of popular infringing works on its site, it has decided to shift the burden entirely onto copyright owners to monitor the YouTube site on a daily or hourly basis to detect infringing videos and send notices to YouTube demanding that it “take down” the infringing works.

1. Public performance – the defendants have, without permission of the copyright owner, publicly performed and authorised the public performance of the infringing uploaded videos;

2. Public display – the defendants have, without permission of the copyright owner, publicly displayed and authorised the public display of the infringing uploaded videos; and

3. Reproduction – the defendants have, without permission of the copyright owner, reproduced and authorised the reproduction of the infringing uploaded videos through the YouTube website.

4. Inducement of copyright infringement – the defendants areliable for inducing the infringing acts of YouTube users, who infringe the plaintiff’s copyright by uploading infringing videos to the YouTube website.

5. Contributory copyright infringement – the defendants are liable for contributing to the infringing acts of YouTube users, who infringe the plaintiff’s copyright by uploading infringing videos to the YouTube website.

6. Vicarious copyright infringement – the defendants are vicariously liable for the infringing acts of YouTube users, who infringe the plaintiff’s copyright by uploading infringing videos to the YouTube website.

ViacomViacom’’s claimss claims

YouTubeYouTube’’s responses responseViacom’s complaint in this action challenges the careful balance established by

Congress when it enacted the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The DMCA balances the rights of copyright holders and the need to protect the Internet as an important new form of communication. By seeking to make carriers and hosting providers liable for Internet communications, Viacom’s complaint threatens the way hundreds of millions of people legitimately exchange information, news, entertainment and political and artistic expression. Google and YouTube respect the importance of intellectual property rights, and not only comply with their safe harbor obligations under the DMCA, but go well and beyond what the law requires.

YouTube and Google’s defence, essentially denies each of the allegations in Viacom’s complaint and raises 12 defences in their favour. These defences include the safe harbors, licence, fair use, failure to mitigate, failure to state a claim, innocent intent, copyright misuse, estoppel, waiver, unclean hands, laches and substantial non-infringing uses.

Key issuesKey issues Is the infringement volitional? Or does YouTube’s

technology work behind their backs in ways for which they are not responsible?

Does YouTube qualify for DMCA safe harbor protection?– Esp. have they been red flagged enough to know that the stuff

often infringes? Could they be expected to be able to identify which, and block it?

– To what degree do they financially benefit from the infringements?

Another case: Perfect 10 v Google, reminds us that one hasto do takedowns properly (according to the procedures) in orderfor them to “count”

Viacom v. YouTubeViacom v. YouTubeDecision of District Court – June 23, 2010

– Summary judgment in favor of YouTube– YouTube is entitled to safe harbor immunity under

Section 512c of the DMCA– Defendants are granted summary judgment that they qualify for the protection of17

U.S.C. (section) 512 (c), as expounded above, against all of plaintiffs' claimsfor direct and secondary copyright infringement. Plaintiffs' motions for judgment are denied.

YouTube won the appeal and the USSC refused to review the decision– Goldman’s analysis of their appeal

Protecting ISPsProtecting ISPs

DMCA safe harbor (section 512): exempts ISPs from liability for the infringing actions of their users, if ISPs satisfy certain conditions

Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230 : – Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers

and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by others

– Does not apply to intellectual property rights, though we cover it when we get to defamation which IS a form of IP law.

Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986– Protects electronic communication from government, third parties,

and interception, but not from employers.

Tannenbaum v. RIAATannenbaum v. RIAA

Rassert-Thomas RIAA v. Tannenbaum

Universal LibraryUniversal LibraryGoogle Books Deal Scuttled By Judge

– We should make clear, as part of our discussion over how unfair the system is: Google has already committed MASSIVE copyright infringement. Probably enough to put them totally out of business if at full price. Yet, no one is going to sue them for all of it; instead, various parties have tried to cut deals with them

And Google has gotten some relief– We’ll get to the orphan issue next time. For now

Is the value (access for all) worth the risks (having one--private, not public-- gatekeeper and breaking/bending the law for them along the way)?

The whole thing is a MESS