Are there alternatives? Worona’s talk is very persuasive in its discussion of why old models (based on counting copies) do not work for new technologies (which replicate bits) and how it is possible to develop new models that really can “compete with free.” I have written about such models before, and also noted in a post last week this article by Tim Lee about an alternative path for copyright law that could support such new ways of profiting from intellectual property without crippling technological innovation. Some of those alternatives deserve further discussion. (and a lively discussion is continuing on the Cato Unbound site).

First, it is worth noting the survey, reported by Ars Technica, that suggests that young people are willing to pay for music if it is offered on terms that seem reasonable to them. Although I can imagine the skepticism this will generate within the content industries, it at least suggests that innovations, rather than lawsuits, are worth a try; both may be risky, but the rewards will be greater from the latter.

Lee’s article briefly catalogs a variety of business models, in several different content industries, that rely on new ways to make a profit. One that caught my eye was the Web service called Imeem, which combines a legal music downloading service with social networking opportunities. Revenue is generated through advertising, and the music is licensed using revenue-sharing agreements with the four major record labels. Users can create and share playlists and download music from those shared lists for free. As Lee says, “It is only a slight exaggeration to say the Imeem deal amounted to a de facto legalization of online file sharing, provided that the labels get a cut of any associated revenues.” Is this the future of the music business? I don’t know for sure, but I do know that I, as a music lover who has never obtained a music file from any online source other than iTunes, will now be looking on Imeem first; legal, ad-supported free music  certainly works for me.

In his talk at Cornell, Worona suggested that, when a business learns that it will have to compete with free – with someone offering the same or substitutable product at no cost – the appropriate response is not to call the FBI, as the recording industry has done, but to call its own marketing departments. That is what Imeem has done, and they are giving the money tree yet another shake; let’s hope the music industry is paying attention this time.

Share This

What does deserve extended comment however, is one of the news stories that repeats a couple of common misconceptions that need to be dispelled. This report on the E-Commerce Times site offers the opportunity to clarify and correct two important errors about the DMCA and fair use.

First, the E-Commerce story quotes a source who refers repeatedly, and defiantly, to “this ruling.” This is probably just careless language, but it also re-enforces the mistaken notion that receipt of a DMCA takedown notice means that infringement definitely has taken place. In fact, a rights-holder sends a takedown notice, using very specific provisions that the DMCA added to chapter 5 of the copyright act (17 U.S.C. 512), because they merely believe that their copyright is being infringed. There is no required quantum of evidence beyond a “good faith belief that use of the material… is not authorized,” nor must a rights holder consider possible defenses to the claimed infringement. These provisions were never intended to substitute for a judicial determination on the question of infringement; they are intended, instead, to help the ISP avoid liability for any possible infringement by users of the service. The ISP does have to remove the material or block the user upon receipt of a take down notice, but they also must notify the user of the action and restore the material if the user sends a counter notice stating their own good faith belief that the removal was wrongful. Thus the notice and takedown process helps establish if there really is a conflict and gives the ISP a protected role when there is, but it leaves the resolution of the issue of infringement up to a court. The mere fact that the AP sent these initial notices is in no way any sort of “ruling” or definitive decision.

The second error in the E-Commerce story is its reference to “the fair use provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act,” which, we are told, the AP hopes to clarify. There is, of course, no fair use provision in the DMCA; fair use is much older than that piece of relatively recent legislation. Indeed, fair use is a doctrine initially created by judges in the early 19th century (in the US) to mitigate the harmful effects of the copyright monopoly. The DMCA, which took effect only in 2000, does not add anything to the fair use analysis, nor does it, in theory, narrow its scope; where fair use is mentioned in the DMCA it is only to emphasis that Congress did not intend the provisions of the DMCA, which attempt to deal with some of the new issues arising in a digital environment, to alter the applicability of fair use.

This last point is important, because it reminds us that we are not dealing with any new provision about what uses are acceptable in the digital realm. Instead, the same old provision about fair use (17 U.S.C. 107), which emphasizes the privileged status of news reporting and has traditionally been held to protect short quotations, would be applied in deciding whether or not these passages from AP news stories were used by bloggers in a manner authorized by law. The assertions by AP that these uses are not fair use seem difficult to credit, but the point is that a court would have to decide the issue (if the AP decided to push that far; it is a much more costly and serious step than merely sending a takedown notice), and the standard used to make that decision would be the familiar four factors of fair use, just as they were outlined by Justice Story in 1841.

Share This

First sale has never been popular with the content industry; both licensing arrangements and DRM can be seen as modern attempts to exercise control over the downstream use and distribution of IP beyond what is allowed by copyright law. Back at the beginning of the 20^th century, in fact, the Supreme Court had to deal with a case involving what I like to call the first “end user licensing agreement.” In Bobbs Merrill Co. v. Straus (1908), the Court found that an attempt by a publisher to mandate the retail price at which stores could sell the book “The Castaway” by Hallie Rives failed because of the doctrine we now call first sale. The publisher of this obscure novel inserted a “requirement” underneath the copyright notice that the retail price of the book must not be less than one dollar, and sued the store owned by Isidor Straus – Macy’s – when it sold copies for less.

In the past few weeks, two cases have been decided, one in the copyright arena and one dealing with patents, that again remind us of the continuing importance of first sale/exhaustion in a balanced system of IP protection.

In Universal Music v. Augusto the facts sounded strangely similar to Bobbs Merrill; a music company tried to distribute free promotional CDs of its music and prevent the resale of those CDs by simply placing a notice on the face of the disc. In granting summary judgment for the E-Bay vendor who resold some of this CDs, Judge Otero of the Central District of California noted that this kind of restraint on subsequent transfer had been rejected over 100 years ago. Also implicated rejected in this decision is the attempt to create a license transaction merely by a one-sided statement that that was what was occurring. The court rightly found that the CDs were transferred to the recipients (by gift, in this case) and were therefore subject to the exhaustion of the distribution right.

The patent case, Quanta Computer v. LG Electronics, also involved an attempt to control subsequent uses of a product embodying a patented process after the initial sale of that product. LG sued to collect a licensing fee from Quanta because Quanta used chips containing a process patented by LG, even though those chips were manufactured by an intermediary company (Intel) that had itself licensed the process from LG. In essence, LG wanted a cut on every downstream product that contained the already-authorized chips, but the Supreme Court said no: “The authorized sale of an article that substantially embodies a patent exhausts the patent holder’s rights and prevents the patent holder from invoking patent law to control postsale use of the article.”

As sturdy as these recurring issues are, however, we should not conclude that copyright law is ticking along without difficult, adequately resolving conflicts in the 21^st century with its arsenal of 20^th century doctrines. The current Issue of “Cato Unbound,” on “the future of copyright,” does a superb job of alerting us, if we didn’t already see it, that copyright law is struggling to keep up in the digital age. The lead essay by Rasmus Fleischer, begins with the fascinating point that in the 21st century we have moved to trying to regulate tools with our copyright law rather than content. In a digital age, he points out, many of the distinctions our law relies upon, like the difference between copying and distribution, no longer make any sense. As Fleischer says, “the distinction is ultimately artificial, since the same data transfer takes place in each.” This point undermines the comforting thought, expressed above, that first sale, for example, is still doing its job in copyright law, since the move to a digital environment makes application of an exception to the distribution right, but not the right of reproduction, highly problematic.

Fleischer’s article goes on to paint a fairly gloomy picture about a “copyright utopia” being advocated by the content industries, especially big entertainment companies, that could seriously undermine both technological innovation and civil liberties. He ends with the “urgent question regard[ing] what price we will have to pay for upholding the phantasm of universal copyright.”

In a reply essay, “Two Paths for Copyright Law,” Timothy B Lee suggests that things may not be as bleak as Fleischer suggests. He reminds us that it is only a very recent development that anyone has even considered question the legality of private, non-commercial copying for home use, and he opines that the effort to now assert control over such copying has already proved a failure. The alternative — the second path for copyright — is, as has been suggested before in this space, the development on new business models, which will largely be funded by advertising, to meet the non-commercial demand for content. The role of copyright law, in this scenario, is to protect content creators from unfair and unauthorized commercial exploitation of the works by competitors. It is commercial competition that copyright is intended to regulate, he suggests, not use by consumers. And he catalogs a wide variety of business models already being adopted by the major content industries, even as the pursue lawsuits against customers and strict laws from Congress, that seem to recognize the inevitable move towards a market solution, rather than a legal one, to the challenges posed by new technologies.

Some copyright doctrine remains unchanged over a hundred years, yet we have to adapt to rapid innovation even as we preserve what works in our law. The essays by Fleischer and Lee paint two different pictures of the future of copyright; the attraction of Lee’s vision, for me, is that it looks at what copyright has traditionally been designed to accomplish, the control of commercial competition, and offers hope that if we stay focused on that role for the law, the market will adjust to the technological innovations for users that currently frighten the content industries so.

Share This

What caught my professional attention, however, was this report of an ongoing controversy between Twitter and some of its customers about the terms of service to which every user agrees when they sign up for the service. The specific argument concerns the degree to which Twitter was obligated to pursue complaints of harassment directed against another user. On that issue, Twitter seems to be caught between a rock and a hard place — if they do not take steps to stop harassment they seem to condone a clear violation of a condition of use that they imposed, but if they do take action they may put in jeopardy the “safe harbor” protection from liability based on user postings that they gain under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

The broader issue, in my opinion, is the role of these terms of use statements in governing the relationship between users and the providers of Internet services. For one thing, it seems that such contractual agreements can be changed at the will of the provider. As the article cited above tells it, rather than address the harassment issue, Twitter indicated that it would wash its hands of the issues and simply “update” its terms of service. More amazing yet is the statement that Twitter borrowed its TOS from Flickr, apparently without much attention to what they contained. A Twitter executive is quoted as saying that, as a start-up, Twitter just “threw something up early on and didn’t give it a lot of thought.”

Who knew that these Internet companies had such a cavalier attitude to the non-negotiable contracts they are imposing on Internet users? Actually, the terms Twitter uses, and says they borrowed from Flickr, are much less lengthy and burdensome than those now used by Flickr itself; since acquisition by Yahoo! the terms of use that a new Flickr user agrees to (standard Yahoo! terms) prints out to seven type-filled pages, where the Twitter TOS amounts to only two pages. These click-through terms are being enforced by courts as binding contracts, even when the Internet service provider doesn’t “give them a lot of thought.” In the case about the plagiarism detection site Turnitin, high-school student users were held to the terms of service they clicked through even though they made valiant efforts to modify those terms.

As more and more communication on campus happens over these kinds of proprietary sites and networks, and as commercial Internet tools become more common for student and faculty worker, these contracts will increasingly control what we can do. Often they give the owner of the site or tools an exploitable interest in the work created or stored there. Yet very few people even realize that they are binding themselves to detailed and enforceable terms whenever they click “I agree.” It is therefore becoming ever more important that courts find ways to introduce some nuance into their enforcement of these click - through agreements, rather than simply enforcing them blindly as the Virginia court did in Turnitin. At least one proposal for such a nuanced approached, that considers when a contract, especially a non-negotiable online contract, should be preempted by federal copyright law and the policy that law is aimed at enacting, is found in this complex but compelling article on “Copyright Preemption of Contracts” by Christina Bohannan. We can but hope that courts will develop a more sophisticated approach to these contracts, whether they use Bohannan’s proposed approach or some other, as they become more aware that such contracts may undermine both the policy behind copyright law and the traditional rules of contract formation, and they may do so, if left unchecked, based on very little thought or reflection by the party that is imposing the terms.

Share This

Turnitin is a web-based service that compares submitted papers to vast database of essays available on the web and it is own proprietary database. It offers instructors a report on how likely it is that the given paper is plagiarized. Four high school students from Virginia who were required to submit their work to Turnitin or get a zero challenged the company in court. The district court’s opinion, dismissing all of the students claims, was issued March 11 and has provoked a lot of reaction, The Chronicle of Higher Education has a story about those reactions here, and William Patry discusses several aspects of the case in his blog post called “Turn-it-it and Kiss-it-goodbye.”

One aspect of the decision worth mentioning is its discussion of the claim that Turnitin infringes copyright because it adds a copy of every paper to its database as soon as the paper is submitted so it can be compared to later submissions. The plaintiffs tried to prevent this by indicating their lack of consent to have their work copied in this way on the papers they submitted, but the court found that the click-through contract they were obligated to agree to in order to submit in the first place took precedence. More on that in a moment. On the copyright issue, the court found that the company had a valid fair use defense regarding their storage and use of student work, even if the contract giving them permission had failed (which it did not).

I have been torn about the fair use analysis the court used in this case. I have a hard time justifying to myself the business model Turnitin use, although my doubts are likely bound up with broader concerns about this kind of attempt to use technology to force people to behave with integrity. But, to my mind, Turnitin’s business model is as dependant on infringement as is Grokster. The district court disagreed, finding that Turnitin made a transformative use of the works it archived for later comparision. What strikes me most about this decision is the way “transformative use” has become a talisman, invoked whenever the court wants to find fair use. The copyright statute seems to indicate pretty clearly that even non-transformative uses can be fair use, but courts are now so enamored with the notion of transformation that they are now finding it even in unlikely situations because it has become the sine qua non of fair use. This is both good and bad for higher education; some educational uses of copyrighted works seem to be purely iterative, not transformative, and fair use in those cases seems increasingly hard to argue. On the other, the more the concept of transformative use is expanded, the better it will be for educational; some of those uses that don’t seem transformative to me may well seem so to our courts.

The other, more troubling aspect of the Turnitin decision was the court’s attitude to the click-wrap license. The plaintiff students had no choice but to click through the license; they faced a zero if they didn’t and there was no way to communicate with Turnitin until they had accepted the license. Nevertheless, they tried to make their objection to the term that allowed Turnitin to copy and save their work as soon as possible; they included a notice with their paper that said they did not consent. Tough luck, said the court; you agreed to the license and you have to live with it. This strict enforcement of a “take it or leave it” license even when the party on whom it is imposed objects in a timely way seems to make a mockery of the notion of a contract as a bargain that may be “unconscionable” if there is no meaningful chance to negotiate.

If we need further confirmation that the court was aiming at a particular result and disregarding a reasoned discuss of the law, there was its astonishing dismissal of the plaintiff’s argument that, as minors, contracts they entered into are voidable. The court recognized that this was the usual rule in contract law, but said that the plaintiffs could not avail themselves of it because they had accepted the “benefits” of the contract. What benefit had they accepted, I wondered. Standing to sue, the court replied, the right to bring the case to challenge the contract itself. By this logic, of course, no contract could ever be challenged on the basis of “infancy.” Such absurd and circular reasoning can only serve, as Bill Patry says, to increase the cynicism so many people feel toward our courts.

Share This

When our “new” Copyright Act was adopted in 1976, one of things it did was explicitly preempt state copyright protection. Before the 1976 Act, unpublished works were protected by a wide variety of different state laws (many with perpetual duration), and federal copyright protection usually only took effect when something was published. This created lots of confusing and difficult situations, so Congress took almost all works, published and unpublished, under federal protection, including the limited federal term of protection.

For some odd reason, Congress crafted an exception for sound recordings that were made prior to February 15, 1972. Those recordings, instead of being subject to the normal copyright rules, continue to be protected by state law until 2067. State protection, which was usually created by judges rather than legislators, often allowed perpetual protection for unpublished works, but were not designed to deal with other materials. Leaving these historical sound recordings subject to the patchwork of state laws has meant that, in fact if not by intent, these historical materials are subject to the most restrictive of state laws and for all practical purposes unusable until 2067. For the earliest recordings, which date from the 1890s, this amounts to a copyright term of over 170 years. Since even preservationists are reluctant to make copies under this bizarre and uncertain regime, many recordings are locked up by copyright for longer that the usable life of the medium in which they are recorded; they will be irretrievably lost before they are available in the public domain.

So here is an opportunity to reform our copyright act to mitigate one of its most pernicious effects – the unnecessary loss of our cultural heritage merely to time and decay – without harming anyone’s economic interests. In fact, compilations of some of these old recordings that are available for sale in other countries but technically infringing in the US could finally be sold here as well. The recording industry frequently lobbies Congress for full performance rights in sound recordings, and there was legislation to add such rights introduced into both houses late last year (the “Performance Rights Act”). Whether or not it is a good idea to subject radio stations to all the licensing fees such a law would require, this seems like a good time to demand a quid pro quo in the shape of repealing the foolish overprotection of historical sound recordings.

Share This

The best thing about this article, however, is the discussion of it, with the wonderful title “Good Artists Copy, Great Artists Steal” on the Info/Law blog. I don’t think I have the chance to point to Info/Law before, but it is an excellent place for information and analysis about the “convergence of intellectual property doctrine, communications regulation, First Amendment norms, and new technology.” This post, which also reports on a recent infringement action filed against Jerry Seinfeld and his wife, is an nice example of a careful yet entertaining dissection of the legal principles at stake in each of the two reported stories.

The point, of course, is that the Internet has fostered a culture of easy borrowing and creative remixing that is at odds with much of our current law. There is a great deal in that culture that is valuable, with its emphasis on user creativity and sharing, and its conflict with much of the prevailing rhetoric about intellectual property is becoming too obvious, and too ubiquitous, to ignore.

Share This

I participated in a trial of the Sony reader last year, and was very pleased with the visual display and the ease of use. But I was disappointed by the range of books available, which is probably the fault of my quirky and eclectic reading habits, and with the awkward way the reader displayed PDF files. Now the Amazon Kindle is getting a lot of attention. Several people have noted the limited selection (and Kindle does not allow reading of PDF files at all), but the debate about e-books has now begun to recognize another issue that reduces the value of e-books, digital rights management. UPDATE — Comment by Kim Knoch (click on comments above) explains that there is a way to read PDF files on Kindle for a small fee.

DRM is used, of course, to protect the value of a proprietary e-book by preventing copying and display in other devices. But the e-book vendors seem to have missed the obvious fact the DRM reduces the value of the e-book for consumers. By definition, DRM limits the options for readers, and in a our world of constant innovation and a plethora of devices that compete for our dollars, options are value.

A blog from the Free Software Foundation dedicated to a campaign against DRM – Defective by Design – makes this point in a post called “Don’t let DRM get between you and a good book.” The defective by design campaign is primarily a consumer movement, focused on electronic freedom and privacy (the threat DRM may sometimes pose to privacy is another important issue). They make the point that, with DRM limited e-books, every time an updated device is released it could require that consumers buy a new version of their favorite books. They also argue that DRM is bad for authors and publishers as well, supporting a form of “digital censorship.”

The same concern about DRM in e-books is also raised on a recent post on the if:book blog from the folks at the Institute for the Future of the Book. “The future of the sustainable book” is part of a much larger discussion, all of which is worth attention. Regarding all sorts of electronic texts, this telling remark clearly places DRM protected proprietary e-books low on the scale of sustainability: “since I work in book publishing, job one is to figure out what it means to create a sustainable book. Lots of models come to mind. Good ones like Wikipedia (device-neutral and always in the latest, free, edition) and bad ones like the Kindle, (which tries to create a market for an ebook reader with designed obsolescence).”

Today a e-mail appeared in my inbox that proclaimed that the era of DRM is over. The author was referring to a recent announcement by Sony BMG that they were finally considering following the lead of much of the rest of the music industry and selling music in an open MP3 format. This is good news, but it is not the end of DRM by any means. Many other issues regarding electronic protection measures remain, and we are still waiting for a truly usable, portable e-book and reader.

Share This

Each time Congress proposes to address file-sharing at universities, this is one of the concerns that unites the higher education community against the proposals. Another concern is that the cost of implementing new mandates will be very high, even though university networks account for only a small portion of the overall problem. The recent proposal in Congress (see article here from the Chronicle of Higher Education) is a case in point. The proposal to require that universities develop a plan to address file-sharing is a little bit insulting – most schools already have a plan – and the instructions to offer alternatives to illegal music downloading and to explore technological solutions to the problem are unfunded mandates that could cost hundreds of millions of dollars. And filters that stop music sharing may also inhibit legitimate collaboration; the history of Internet filters suggests that they are often more effective at preventing legal activity than illegal.

The problem posed by illicit file-sharing will not be solved by increased enforcement measures; the genie is already out of the bottle in that regard — P2P swapping has grown beyond the bounds of any attempt to stop it using either law or technology. What are needed to curb the growth of P2P are business models that make legal acquisition of digital music and movies more attractive than the illegal alternatives. Georgia Harper from the University of Texas (see her blog here) has been a vocal advocate of business model development as a solution to some of our current copyright problems, and a conversation between Georgia and some speakers at a recent conference caused me to start wondering what such business models would look like.

One possibility came to my attention (rather belatedly, I suppose) while watching a football game on Saturday. Verizon Wireless was heavily advertising its V-Cast Song ID service, which allows a user who hears music that they like to capture a sample of the audio, identify the song and purchase a copy directly from, and to, their cell phone (see news report here). This, it seems to me, is exactly the kind of value-added service that can move listeners back to legal music downloading services, and it represents a much more positive solution to the problem of file-sharing than any of the legal remedies yet proposed.

Share This

This latter point is especially troubling. Poor countries are not just consumers of cultural production, they do also produce it. The digitization of so much western/northern literature could have two negative effects on this production. One would be to push developing world literature further to the margins in the developed world. The other is that, in so far as technology is available within those developing countries, the easy access to material through Google could marginalize a country’s own cultural production even within its borders.

Nevertheless, Grafton is properly amazed at the level of access that digitization has made possible. As he says, picking up his opening theme, “Even [Alfred] Kazin’s democratic imagination could not have envisaged the hordes of the Web’s actual and potential users, many of whom will read material that would have been all but inaccessible to them a generation ago.” Digitization offers great things, but a realistic valuation of those benefits recognizes that no single means of access should replace all the others; the Internet will continue to coexist with libraries, archives and whatever the future holds that we can not yet imagine; all will be part of any genuinely comprehensive look at human history.

On Second Life — On a less exalted plane, the New York Post reported last week on a law suit filed by and against Second Life entrepreneurs alleging copyright infringement of products designed and sold entirely within the virtual environment. See another comment on the lawsuit here. As the comment points out, many educators are looking closely to consider the educational potential of Second Life or other virtual worlds. This lawsuit raises some interesting questions that will need to be answered in order to exploit that potential. For example, do real world laws protecting the rights of creators even apply to Second Life? Is copying someone else’s design in Second Life stealing, as the plaintiffs allege, or is it merely part of a giant “video game” that should not have real world legal consequences? The answer to that question should be a prerequisite to placing educational content into Second Life; teachers typically want to protect the content they produce, or at least share it on their own terms. Whether Second Life will be subject to real world laws, intra-world regulation amongst its members, or merely arbitrary decisions enforced by Linden Labs, its owner, will have a profound impact on how much time, money and content educators are likely to invest in Second Life.

Interestingly, the same defendant who argues that Second Life is a giant video game in which real world laws should not apply also claims that his home in Second Life was subject to an illegal search and seizure by the plaintiffs when they entered to photograph the allegedly infringing items. Just goes to show how hard it is for us to escape our real world notions of property and privacy.

Share This