Real Copyright Law And File Sharing Copyright Law
from the what-are-the-differences... dept
We already wrote about the Limewire decision, which didn't seem particularly surprising at all, given that LimeWire was basically doing the exact same things as Grokster. However, some people are noticing a few problematic parts to the ruling. While these parts alone certainly won't change the ruling, it's still worth noting what the judge said and questioning whether or not they're proper. As Eric Goldman notes, he tells his students that when it comes to copyright law there's normal copyright law, and then there's "P2P file sharing" copyright law "and it's a mistake to think those two legal doctrines are closely related."Judges don't like file sharing systems, and even if they have to twist the law to reach the conclusion they want, they'll do so to shut such sites down. It's happened over and over and over again. Goldman notes that LimeWire got in trouble for its advertising efforts -- even though none of those advertising efforts specifically suggested people infringe. Instead, because it advertised itself as a competitor to other file sharing programs that were used for unauthorized file sharing, the court said that's the same as inducing infringement. That seems like a dangerous finding. Just because programs may be targeting the same audiences, doesn't mean that they're inducing infringement. Yes, there were other factors that resulted in the finding of inducement, but using the ads targeting Napster/Grokster users seems questionable.
The second big problem is that the court says part of the reason it found inducement was because LimeWire didn't put in place filters. But that would mean the court's interpretation of the DMCA means that the law requires user-generated websites to install filters. The law says no such thing.
Goldman also highlights that the court found the CEO of LimeWire personally liable for infringement, which seems to go against the whole concept of a limited liability corporation structure. We've seen previous lawsuits on such things go after execs and investors personally, but usually those get thrown out. In this case, the court didn't seem to have a problem with applying the claims to the guy personally.
Of course, there are plenty of other reasons why the court found the way it did, but it's at least a little worrisome to see the court do these things within the overall ruling.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, file sharing
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
judges dont like to share
as in WHO most gives in society
and it aint actors and lawyers and judges let me tell ya
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: judges dont like to share
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: judges dont like to share
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Fine, point to where the inducement standard is found anywhere in any copyright statute? I won't be holding my breath.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, Congress has provided statutory approval to then existing judicial interpretations of the law, and if at any time it so chooses it is free to amend the statute to specifically exclude liability for inducement.
Of course, I recommend you do not hold your breath waiting for this to happen because Congress for many, many years has looked approvingly upon these judicial interpretations. Much is made about a piece of proposed legislation to specifically add inducement to the copyright statutes. Those efforts were rendered moot by Grokster, and congressional "silence" is and has historically been tacit approval of such interpretations.
BTW, prior to the Copyright Act of 1976 fair use was not explicitly set forth in the statutes. By your logic infringements prior to January 1, 1978 (when the new law entered into effect) would not have been able to claim safe harbor under fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Copyrights were much, much different prior to 1976 (for example, you had to apply for them). "Fair Use" was not relevant before the law changed.
Fair use is defined by the Copyright Act of 1976, the Sony Betamax case, and (possibly) the exceptions to the DMCA.
I have never heard of "third party liability" for copyright infringement prior to the Grokster case. It certainly is not part of Title 17. Can you point me to some examples?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The status quo such as Viacom is allowed fair use with full rights to parody, satire, and ridicule trademarks, etc. But the small time filmmaker is not.
Heck, Murdock is always talking out his mouth and ass. He argues against "theft" while "stealing" from anyone he wants.
Copyright no longer has anything to do with protecting works of art/music/literature and everything to do with ensuring the profits continue to flow from their government granted monopolies. It's not about protecting the works, it's about protecting and enlarging the monopolies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Internal e-mails
Hmmm, based on what I read, I got the impression that the inducement charge came mostly from internal LimeWire e-mails which detailed a grand plan to convert people from known copyrighted material to some paid product from LimeWire.
But that would mean the court's interpretation of the DMCA means that the law requires user-generated websites to install filters. The law says no such thing.
I don't think this changes the main point that the law doesn't require filtering, but the additional factor here is that LimeWire already implemented filtering of other content (porn), so apparently the logic was "You already had filters in place; you should have been able to add copyrighted material to the filter". No, that doesn't make any sense, but if you're a judge trying to retrofit the law to your ideas, it's something that can have the appearance of sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@2
you seem ot be trying to distort the reality that if i have a monthly income of say 1000$ and gvie say on avg 10$ a month in charity
that is 1 percent per capita
while a judge who society pays nicely for supposedly helping society which in htis case isnt, may give the same amount and ya know what its like .001 percent thus showing he only does it not for the charity of giving and helping BUT just for public relations
think actors
you i and everyone gives one 10million in movie sales then that actor turns round and gives 10000$ away
10,000,000 , 10,000
one one thousandth of the income is hardly being helpful and charitable its more like we should cut back what we pay people so MORE OF US that do give to help can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OH and dont forget
maybe daddy should have made him publically give his allowance away for ever to many charities
and took away his puter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
dont' stop. just keep scrolling down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Both ways?
It just seems to me that pretending that providers are liable actually prevents a real decision one way or the other on what infringes and what doesn't, which should be decided by courts, case-by-case, with full and fair arguments. The way things stand now seems explicitly designed to, in practice, keep DMCA cases from ever actually going to court with the real parties involved. If providers are compelled by force to remove on notice, then there's no need for the copyright holders to continue pursuing the truly responsible party, and no way for that person to challenge the accusation--or, indeed, the DMCA itself. There are ways to get out of such a tyrannical mess, of course, and both involve getting rid of the notice-removal nonsense entirely.
It's a simple matter of making a decision either way: third parties are not liable, but can point holders to the users who are; or third parties are liable, but to both holders and users equally, AND users can be held liable to providers for putting them in that position if the infringement is found to be real. This way someone ends up having to argue in front of a judge no matter what, and the DMCA can stand or fall on its constitutional merits.
Leaving it undefined but constantly looming, though, creates a horrible and unjust imbalance and fails to establish firm boundaries.
Or the short version: somebody draw a god-damned line already!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Both ways?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]