peer-to-peer the legal stuff you must know 12 december 2005 severin de wit simmons & simmons
TRANSCRIPT
Peer-to-Peer
The Legal Stuff You Must Know
12 December 2005
Severin de Wit
Simmons & Simmons
2
Internet: Legal Challenges
Scams asking for Money
Stealing of Bank Account details
Identity theft
Stock Market scam
Auction Fraud
Copyright infringements
Spywear inside computer obtaining Information – Copy Restriction Software (Sony)
3
P2P – The Good & The Bad
Rise in Peer to Peer (P2P) services, many legal applications
BitTorrent use for update Linux O/S Knowledge Management, E-learning
Gives also rise to Civil Liberties concerns (www.ipjustice.org)
Caused a rise in piracy of copyrighted material, e.g. Napster and BitKeeper
4
P2P - The Good
New P2P technologies allow consumers to discover new ways to Share content
Create new media
Efficiently distribute digital files
P2P networks allow computers to directly share digital information without having to access a central server more fault-tolerant
able to resist censorship from governments or corporations
5
P2P - The Bad
File Sharing deprives content providers (music film industry) from royalty/license income as reward for their investment
Transmission of criminal material as pornography, information linked to terrorism, computer virus activities, etc.
6
Where is Debate About?
Today's debate in Legal Circles is about
whether the traditional copyright mechanisms can be stretched to include the network, or
whether we need to invent new intellectual property mechanisms and cultures
P2P has intensified this debate
7
Peer-to-Peer: Copyright dominated area
Future peer-to-peer file-sharing entwined with copyright law
Copyright owners targeted makers of file-sharing clients (Napster, Scour, Audiogalaxy,
Aimster, Kazaa, Morpheus)
but also
companies that provide products that rely on or add value to public P2P networks, such as MP3Board.com, which provided a web-based search interface for the Gnutella network
8
Copyright Objects ‘Then’ (early 90s)
Tangible things (books, journal issues, photos, vinyl LPs, audio-tapes, microfilm, video-tapes, cassettes, diskettes, CD-ROMs, games-cartridges)
A person bought, rented, borrowed or visited a tangible thing, or gained admission to a location where it was reproduced, performed or played
The person had no need for a copyright license
Replication was expensive, required infrastructure
Copies were accessible by one person at a time
9
Copyright Objects, the Digital Era – I
convenient and inexpensive creation
desktop publishing packages, PC-based graphic design tools, animation, digital music generators
digitization of existing materials
scanners, OCR, digital cameras, digital audio-recording
near-costless replication
disk-to-disk copying, screen-grabbers, CD-burners as a consumer appliance, MP3
10
Copyright Objects in the Digital Era – II
very rapid transmission, unmeasurably low costs modem-to-modem transmission, CD-ROMs in the mail, emailed attachments, FTP-
download, web-download
inexpensive and widespread access PCs, PDAs, mobile phones, public kiosks, web-enabled TV in the workplace, the
home, public kiosks, Internet cafes
computer-based analysis of data data-matching, profiling, data-mining, pattern-recognition
convenient manipulation of data-objects word-processors, sound and image processing tools
11
Copyright – Basics
Basic rights of copyright owner in any copyright system
reproduction (copy) publication (made available to others) adaptation (e.g. translation) performance (actor, singer, etc)
More recent: broadcast moral rights
File sharing necessarily includes both “reproduction” and “publication”
12
International Copyright Treaties
International Copyright Laws updated for digital age via WIPO Copyright Treat (WCT), WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT)
These “WIPO Internet Treaties” can be divided into three parts: incorporation of certain provisions of TRIPS Agreement not
previously included (e.g. protection of computer programs and original databases as literary works under copyright law)
updates not specific to digital technologies (e.g., the generalised right of communication to the public)
provisions that specifically address the impact of digital technologies such as the principles for liability of online service provider and digital right management system
13
Copyright – Actionable Rights
Infringements have been actionable under civil law
Some actions have recently been criminalised
Against Whom?
End-users – practise in US, Europe follows
Internet Service Providers (ISPs)
Software makers (KaZaa, Grokster)
14
Fair Compensation or DRM?
EU Copyright Directive article 5(2) allows EU Member States
to insert exemption for private copying in their national copyright acts
under the condition that the right holders receive ‘fair compensation’ for home copying
Fair compensation via Levy system or DRM-solution?
15
Levy vs. DRM
Argument in Europe:
levy and DRM cannot coexist
DRM should be preferred, as it is more just, more direct, more precise, and more efficient
Argument in the U.S:
levy or other liability rule regime (e.g. compulsory licensing) should be preferred
16
“Time Shifting” exception
Existing laws allows public to record TV, radio programs for purpose of viewing at a more convenient time (“time-shifting”)
Music industry: limit scope very narrowly. Were it to allow the recording of streams or downloads music, this would substitute for the retail sale
Movie Industry: vital that any webcast, peer to peer, simulcast, interactive and near on demand services are not caught within the scope of the existing time-shifting exception
Most EU courts followed that reasoning : P2P is not Time Shifting
17
E-Commerce Directive (2000) – ISP
Art 2(a) ISP: Provider of an “information society service” defined as “any service normally provided for remuneration, at a distance, by means of electronic equipment for the processing (including digital compression) and storage of data, and at the individual request of a recipient of a service.”
Much wider than traditional ISP sector
Non-commercial? Search engines? Universities?
Services provided not wholly at a distance, e.g., tele-employer?
P2P intermediaries?
18
Liability ISP – “Mere Conduit”
E-Commerce EU Directive: art. 12: no liability for “mere conduit”
service providers who provide the mere conduit of information for third parties
via transmission in a communication network or
the provision of access to a communication network, on condition that the provider
does not initiate the transmission,
does not select the receiver of the transmission, and
does not select or modify the information contained in the transmission
19
Liability ISP – “Caching”
E-Commerce EU Directive: art. 13: not liable for
the automatic, intermediate and temporary storage of information,
performed for the sole purpose of making more efficient the onward transmission of information to other recipients of the service upon their request
Certain conditions:
the provider does not modify the information
the provider removes the information or disables access to the information when he obtains knowledge that the information has been removed from the network
20
France – more extreme proposal
French Parliament: “Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society Bill”– consequences, if adopted DADVSI bill prohibits the design,
distribution and use of free software that would allow accessing protected work.
21
Latest P2P case law - US
US 7th Court of Appeal BMG Music vs. Gonzalez (Dec 9)
copy downloaded, played, and retained on one’s hard drive for future use is a direct substitute for a purchased copy—and without the benefit of the license fee paid to the broadcaster. The premise of Betamax is that the broadcast was licensed for one transmission and thus one viewing. Betamax held that shifting the time of this single viewing is fair use. The files that Gonzalez obtained, by contrast, were posted in violation of copyright law; there was a copy downloaded, played, and retained on one’s hard drive for future use is a direct substitute for a purchased copy—and without the benefit of the license fee paid to the broadcaster. The premise of Betamax is that the broadcast was licensed for one transmission and thus one viewing. Betamax held that shifting the time of this single viewing is fair use. The files that Gonzalez obtained, by contrast, were posted in violation of copyright law; there was no license covering a single transmission or hearing—and, to repeat, Gonzalez kept the copies. Time-shifting by an authorized recipient this is not.
