Copyright the Internet CJ 341IA 241 Cyberlaw Cybercrime

Copyright & the Internet CJ 341/IA 241 – Cyberlaw & Cybercrime Lecture #14 M. E. Kabay, Ph. D, CISSP-ISSMP School of Cybersecurity, Data Science & Computing Norwich University 1 Copyright © 2019 M. E. Kabay. All rights reserved.

Topics Ø Piracy Ø Copyright Issues Ø Recording Devices Ø Distribution Ø Industry Responses

Piracy Ø Unauthorized copying of q. Software q. Music q. Video Ø Economic consequences q. British Phonographic Industry ü~$2 B lost sales in period 2003 -2006 q. Int’l Federation of Phonographic Industry ü 2, 000 lawsuits against uploaders in 10 countries 3 Copyright © 2019 M. E. Kabay. All rights reserved.

Piracy and the ‘Net Ø Napster, MP 3, Gnutella, Wrapster. . q. Trading copies of music q. Most without permission – copyright violations q. Lawsuits against companies & individuals q. Gnutella, Wrapster extending trades to other files Ø Problems q. Bandwidth saturation – many colleges q. Legal liability if problem ignored q. RIAA (Recording Industry Association America) suing colleges 4 Copyright © 2019 M. E. Kabay. All rights reserved.

Music Piracy Significant Economic Problem Ø 2005 overall: 147% growth in legal downloads Ø 2006. 01 report q. Illegal downloads via P 2 P (peer-to-peer) networks estimated 250 M songs / week q. Legal downloads growing üChristmas 2005: 9. 5 M tracks üXmas +1: 20 M tracks Ø 2006 predictions: q 750 M-1 B legal downloads qvs 13 B illegal downloads 5 Copyright © 2019 M. E. Kabay. All rights reserved.

Video Piracy (1) Ø Pirate TV downloads worldwide q. UK #1 q. Australia #2 q. US #3 Ø Viewers use recorders to tape shows digitally, then upload to ‘Net Ø Monty Python clips available illegally on ‘Net (!!) at http: //www. youtube. com q. THE HORROR! Ø MPAA (Motion Picture Assoc America) q. Closed down many P 2 Ps q. Countless lawsuits against individuals 6 Copyright © 2019 M. E. Kabay. All rights reserved.

Video Piracy (2) Ø 2005 -08: Prosecution of Missouri man (Curtis Salisbury) q. Uploading taped copy of movies q. New law banning such copying q. Tried to profit financially q. Charged with conspiracy, copyright infringement, and two violations of the law banning camcorders in theaters Ø MPAA estimates 90% of pirated movies on ‘Net taped illegally in theaters Ø Distributed via P 2 P networks 7 Copyright © 2019 M. E. Kabay. All rights reserved.

The Arguments for Piracy 1. Everyone’s doing it 2. We won’t get caught 3. It’s the company’s fault: they should charge less 4. But I need it and I don’t want to pay for it 5. It doesn’t hurt anyone 6. It only hurts a company – I wouldn’t steal from an individual 7. No software/music/movie should be copyrighted – it should always be free See http: //www. mekabay. com/ethics/seven_reasons. htm or http: //www. mekabay. com/ethics/seven_reasons. pdf 8 Copyright © 2019 M. E. Kabay. All rights reserved.

Legal Issues Ø Creation of unauthorized copies Ø Distribution of copies to others Ø Revenue loss – compensatory damages Ø Legal responsibility for distribution channels 9 Copyright © 2019 M. E. Kabay. All rights reserved.

Legal Responsibility Ø Considerations for assessing responsibility q. Fairness issues üKnowledge § Foreseeability üControl üBenefit Derived § Financial q. Economic üCosts borne by society üBenefits to society üCost-benefit 10 Copyright © 2019 M. E. Kabay. All rights reserved.

Recording Devices 11 Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios 1984 Ø Movie industry sued VCR manufacturer q. Claimed Sony responsible for unauthorized reproductions made by consumers Ø Supreme Court ruled in favor of defendant q. Time Shifting at home = fair use q. Sony not liable: Copyright Act does not expressly render liability for another’s infringement q. Sale of equipment not contributory infringement Ø Limitations: does not imply that all use is permissible fair use Copyright © 2019 M. E. Kabay. All rights reserved.

Digital Video Recorders Ø DVRs (e. g. , Ti. Vo) – profitable entertainment opportunities Ø Fair use questioned (applicability of Sony case? ) q TV without commercials (concern for commercial TV) q Sharing programs over Internet ü Replay. TV § Recorded commercials as well as program § No sending of programs outside home ü Ti. Vo To Go § Program transfer to other devices § FCC approval – personal use or registered list ü Slingbox: Transfer of live TV signal to other devices q Space-Shifting: analogy to time-shifting 12 Copyright © 2019 M. E. Kabay. All rights reserved.

Audio Recording Devices Ø Audio recording in the old days before digital tools q Fair-use traditionally assumed üInferior quality of original copies üFair-use equitable balance may have likely okayed copying for personal use q Historically no significant worry about distribution – chain-taping gave terrible quality Ø Digital audio recording formats (DARs) changed landscape q CDs, i. Pods, phones, Internet… q Identical copies possible q Large-scale copying easy q Distribution a cinch 13 Copyright © 2019 M. E. Kabay. All rights reserved.

Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) Ø 2% royalty by sellers and importers of digital audio recording devices q Paid to Copyright office q Distributed to artists, publishers, etc. Ø Requires integration of Serial Copy Management System (SCMS) q Creates copy limitations Ø Closes door on debate about home use audio recording device liability Ø Applies to devices that have principal purpose of copying sound and music q Computer manufacturers not required to pay q Defines digital audio recording media q Does not include media used to make copies of computer programs q But CD-ROMs & DVDs used for both. . 14 Copyright © 2019 M. E. Kabay. All rights reserved.

MP 3 and Portable Music Ø MP 3 format = MPEG Audio Layer 3 q. MPEG: Moving Picture Experts Group q. Common digital audio encoding and compression format q. Capable of reproducing quality of original uncompressed sound q. Compresses traditional file to 5 -10% of original size Ø Software: i. Tunes, Windows Media Player Ø Hardware: i. Pods Ø Major concern: Unlawful duplication & distribution via peer-to-peer (P 2 P) networks 15 Copyright © 2019 M. E. Kabay. All rights reserved.

Liability (1) Ø Traditional offline world q. Suitable targets for bringing lawsuits q. E. g. , significant distribution hubs Ø Online q. Decentralized Internet changes situation q. E. g. , 1 individual with Internet access can make copies and distribute millions of copies worldwide q. Effort aided by Online Service Providers (OSPs) ü(aka Internet Service Providers, ISPs) 16 Copyright © 2019 M. E. Kabay. All rights reserved.

Liability (2) Ø Contributory Liability q. You are responsible when you know others’ use of your facilities is for unlawful activities üKnowledge (reasonable) üPurpose or control q. Reasonably know something unlawful is taking place Ø Vicarious Liability q. When you are liable for the actions of another, even though you might not be directly responsible for the wrongdoing üE. g. , individuals who potentially profit from wrongdoing 17 Copyright © 2019 M. E. Kabay. All rights reserved.

Religious Technology Ctr v. Netcom 1995 (1) Ø RTC owns copyrights to certain Church of Scientology works by founder L. Ron Hubbard q. Critic posted portions of works on a Usenet group (BBS) q. Managed through Netcom’s servers Ø Netcom did not monitor content q. Refused to bar critic from the system when asked by RTC q. RTC sued Netcom for copyright infringement 18 Copyright © 2019 M. E. Kabay. All rights reserved.

Religious Technology Ctr v. Netcom 1995 (2) Ø Court concluded q. RTC raised genuine question whether Netcom knew critic was infringing rights and whether Netcom participated in infringement q. Found direct and vicarious infringement claims fail Ø Bottom line: q. ISPs not directly and absolutely liable for customers’ copyright infringements 19 Copyright © 2019 M. E. Kabay. All rights reserved.

Peer-to-Peer (P 2 P) Networks Ø P 2 P file-sharing q. Materials transmitted directly from one user to another q. Ability to search hard drive of another, locate file, and transmit file q. Wide sharing of digital materials (e. g. , photos, music, videos) Ø Napster dispute q. Napster users could download tracks q. Real-time index q. Napster itself did not directly copy or transmit copyrighted files 20 Copyright © 2019 M. E. Kabay. All rights reserved.

Entertainment Industry Response Ø Facing new technologies developed by pirates q Bit. Torrent, EDonkey q Free. Net, Tor – The Onion Router (anonymized services) Ø Offering of online subscriber services q E. g. , Rhapsody, Music. Now, i. Tunes q E. g. , Movie. Link Ø Filtering technologies – block music xfrs Ø Technical Protection / Security Measures q Digital watermarking – embedded codes Ø Lobbying Congress for new legislation Ø Individual lawsuits 21 Copyright © 2019 M. E. Kabay. All rights reserved.

A&M Records v. Napster 2001 22 Ø Napster allowed users to make, access, transfer MP 3 music files stored on individual computer hard drives q Napster claimed fair use Ø Court of Appeals found q A&M would likely succeed in claim of contributory infringement claim and vicarious liability q Contributory Liability ü Notice ü Ability to block suppliers of infringing material q Vicarious Liability ü Right to control See http: //tinyurl. com/rvkwt ü Financial benefit q Audio Home Recording Act does not cover downloading MP 3 files Copyright © 2019 M. E. Kabay. All rights reserved.

P 2 P Evolved Ø 2001: Lesson from Napster q. P 2 P relying on operator servers and control require policing to avoid facilitation of infringement Ø 2002: Ka. Za. A q. Located outside USA q. Jurisdiction and international litigation considerations 23 Copyright © 2019 M. E. Kabay. All rights reserved.

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc v. Grokster Ltd Ø 2003: Grokster & Streamcast sued by MGM q Entertainment industry losses significant q Demanded injunction & damages Ø District court ruled in favor of defendants q MGM could not prove liability q Even if allegations true Ø MGM appealed decision to Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals q Affirmed lower court’s ruling q Found no requisite knowledge of P 2 P infringement (that services would be used to do so) q Applied precedent from Sony case (1984) q Services were capable of being used in noninfringing ways 24 Copyright © 2019 M. E. Kabay. All rights reserved.

MGM v. Grokster 2005 Ø MGM appealed judgments in favor of Grokster to Supreme Court Ø SCOTUS concluded that: q. Record contained evidence of purpose to cause copyright violation q. Substantial evidence in MGM’s favor q. Summary judgment in favor of Grokster erroneous q. Reversed lower courts & ruled in favor of MGM 25 Copyright © 2019 M. E. Kabay. All rights reserved.

DMCA Ø DMCA: Digital Millennium Copyright Act q 1998 q 17 USC § 101 et al. Ø Outlines q. Anti-circumvention provisions q. Anti-trafficking provisions Ø Provides exceptions, including q. Fair use q. Freedom of speech q. Interoperability 26 Copyright © 2019 M. E. Kabay. All rights reserved.

ISPs & DMCA (1) Ø Illegal to defeat measures for copyright control Ø Forbids selling/distributing measures to defeat copy-controls Ø Forbids removal of copyright information Ø Protects ISPs against claims of infringement under some circumstances (see next slide) 27 Copyright © 2019 M. E. Kabay. All rights reserved.

ISPs & DMCA (2) Ø Incorporates changes into section 512 of Copyright Act that affect ISP liability Ø Shields ISP if performing merely technical routing functions Ø Notice and Take-Down q. If ISP knows of infringing material, must work to remove q. If sufficient notice, can remove without liability to subscriber Ø Safe harbor applies for links q. Similar burden on ISP for liability shield benefit 28 Copyright © 2019 M. E. Kabay. All rights reserved.

Criticisms of the DMCA Ø Reduction of fair-use freedoms? q What if document has copycontrols to prevent data extraction (e. g. , PDF with security)? q Would typing out quotations be violation of DMCA? Ø Invasions of privacy? q ISPs must reveal names of users suspected of violating law q Provides channel for copyright holders to access information without a warrant? 29 Copyright © 2019 M. E. Kabay. All rights reserved.

Liability EXHIBIT 9. 5 Flowchart to Address Legal Responsibility When New Technologies Are Used to Infringe Can the product be used to infringe copyrights? No Is there evidence, by your words or actions, that you encouraged users to infringe copyrights? Yes NOT LIABLE Aimster Grokster • Active assistance • Commercial viability depends on infringement • Failed to take simple steps to prevent infringement No Did you have knowledge of specific infringing uses at a time that you had the capability to prevent them? Yes LIABLE Napster Netcom NOT LIABLE Sony No Yes Is the product capable of substantial noninfringing uses? • How much use is substantial • Do potential future uses matter? • How does one appraise potential future uses? Burgunder p 324 No LIABLE

Digital Sampling and Remixing Ø Sampling Defined q Re-using snippets or portions of sound recordings q E. g. , Puff Daddy – I’ll be Missing You ü 1997 #1 hit single written by Sauce Money (rapper from Brooklyn) LISTEN ü Based on 1983 Every Breath You Take song from 1983 Song of the Year written by Sting and performed by The Police (Synchronicity album) q Puff Daddy asked for and received permission to use sample in performance Ø Examples of Remixing q Britney Spears – My Prerogative (Bobby Brown) 31 Copyright © 2019 M. E. Kabay. All rights reserved.

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music Original (with musicians in ties): http: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=E 4 ufiti. ABBo& NR=1 Spoof by 2 Live Crew (censored version): http: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=65 GQ 70 Rf_8 Y Ø “Pretty Woman” q 1964: Roy Orbison “Pretty Woman” Song ü Assigned rights to Acuff-Rose, Inc. q 1989: 2 Live Crew “Oh, Pretty Woman” parody ü Copied opening riff & lyrics ü Informed Acuff-Rose of use, explained would credit with ownership & pay fee for use Ø Acuff-Rose q Refused to grant permission for use q Sued 2 Live Crew for copyright infringement Ø District Court q Granted summary judgment in favor of 2 LC q Acuff-Rose appealed decision Ø Appeals Court q Reversed District Court decision q Found no fair use q 2 Live Crew appealed decision (MORE ON NEXT SLIDE) 32 Copyright © 2019 M. E. Kabay. All rights reserved.

Campbell v. Acuff Rose (2) Ø SCOTUS 1994 concluded Court of Appeals erred Ø Found 2 Live Crew use fair use through parody q Purpose and character üGoal of copyright generally furthered by transformative works q Fair use extends to parody under Section 107, like comment and criticism ü 2 Live Crew’s song reasonably could be perceived as commenting or criticizing original üTaste does not matter to fair use q Commercial nature of the use not dispositive q No more than necessary was taken from original Ø Significant victory for parodists Ø Illustrates flexibility of fair-use doctrine 33 Copyright © 2019 M. E. Kabay. All rights reserved.

Digital Sampling and Remixing Issues (1) Audio Sampling and remixing Ø Probably unlawful copyright infringement without permission Ø Case-by-case determination q Facts specific to a case guide Ø Acuff-Rose suggests q Parody probably okay depending on ü amount of snippets ü Importance of snippets Ø Mash-ups q Not parody, but arguably ü Highly-creative ü Transformative 34 See takedown of Hitler Parodies parodied by http: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=Pz. Uo. Wkb. N Copyright © 2019 M. E. Kabay. All rights reserved.

Digital Sampling and Remixing Issues (2) Ø Other Intellectual Property Issues q. State statutes protecting personal rights üRight of Publicity § Right to profit from own distinctive personal attributes q. To sample or remix, may also need permission of: ü vocalist, artist, in addition to licensing copyrights to underlying composition and sound recording 35 Copyright © 2019 M. E. Kabay. All rights reserved.

Digital Sampling and Remixing Issues (3) Ø “They Say That I Stole This” Ø Girl Talk master sampler Ø NPR’s On the Media 2010 -12 -26: Ø Twenty years ago a series of lawsuits criminalized the hip-hop sampling of artists like Hank Shocklee and Public Enemy. And yet, two decades later, artists like Girl Talk have found success breaking those sampling laws. OTM producer Jamie York talks to Girl Talk, Shocklee and Duke Law professor James Boyle about two decades of sampling - on both sides of the law. Gregg Gillis aka Girl Talk Ø Stream: http: //www. onthemedia. org/transcripts/2010/12/24/04 Ø Origin Download mp 3: of photograph unknown. Found using Google Images at http: //clubnotes. pmpblogs. com/files/2010/11/girl-talk. jpg No contact information given for asking permission to use image. Decided to take a chance and use it anyway because it’s a http: //audio. wnyc. org/otm 122410 d. mp 3 GREAT PICTURE and because it seems unlikely that Gregg Gillis or anyone else will mind very much and sue me for copyright 36 infringement because I amused my students. Let’s hope I’m right and that I am not offending any students or other viewers by this blatant unauthorized use of an image. Copyright © 2019 M. E. Kabay. All rights reserved.