What Happens If File Sharing Can Also Be Prosecuted As Trademark Infringement?
from the messy dept
In the arguments over ACTA, one criticism seemed widely accepted: that it tries to bundle together two quite different challenges -- tackling counterfeit goods, like fake medicines, and dealing with unauthorized file sharing. One popular suggestion was that ACTA should be split in two in order to handle those separately – for example, David Martin, the politician who played a key role in convincing the European Parliament to reject ACTA this week, supports this approach.
But a case reported on TorrentFreak suggests that the distinction between the two worlds is starting to blur:
A New York federal court has ordered a rare default judgment in favor of John Wiley & Sons, one of the world’s largest book publishers. Robert Carpenter from Poughkeepsie, New York, has been ordered to pay the publisher $7,000 in damages for sharing a copy of "WordPress All-in-One For Dummies" on BitTorrent. According to Judge William Pauley, the man is guilty of both copyright and trademark infringement.
The judge specified that $2,000 of those damages were "for Carpenter’s counterfeiting of Wiley’s Trademarks". As TorrentFreak notes:
To our knowledge, this is the first time that sharing files on BitTorrent has been viewed as counterfeiting, a description that’s usually reserved for fake goods sold as the real deal.
That's troubling, because it would seem to open the door for anti-counterfeiting measures aimed at tackling serious trademark infringement to be applied routinely to P2P sharing of copyright files simply because they are exact copies of originals. That, in its turn, would mean that separating ACTA's measures against counterfeit goods from those dealing with online infringement might not be enough to solve the treaty's problems, since the former would still apply to the digital world. Yet another reason to bin ACTA completely and to start again from scratch.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
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: acta, bittorrent, counterfeiting, david martin, european parliament, file sharing, robert carpenter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Ridiculous!
Absolutely ridiculous. (Of course, default judgments usually are: Go to court, kids; it's good for you!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ridiculous!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ridiculous!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only kind of intellectual property I still had respect for was trademark, i.e not passing yourself off as someone else, a kind of identity fraud.
I don't see how a copy can be pretending you are someone else but hey, I am not a lawyer paid to turn up into down.
If they can squirm around that and the system doesn't just throw it out as absurd, then that has to go too. Ouch.
Is intellectual property a form of mental illness? I thought it was something to do with pragmatics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Trademark's value was not in it being IP it's value is in consumer protection, for a judge to not only devalue but effectively remove what used to be the principal point of trademark law and shift it permanently into the realm of imaginary property rights damages consumer protection while making IP law even more ridiculous.
Hopefully, however, it will lead to the opposite of what the IP brandishing companies intend and spur the people to remove all IP laws and force them back to actually providing things people want at a price people can afford, business in other words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another question is how can there be a penalty reserved for selling fake goods, for goods not sold?
Then one has to walk in the weeds past how does an IP address alone lead to the bad people, why are courts giving over names of people not in the jurisdiction of the court, and how can they honestly accept that allowing 1000 people in a case isn't going to overwhelm the court with each and every Doe having different answers and all of them needed to be a part of each and every ruling in the case?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Perhaps Judge Pauly sees the "digital product" as proverbial "schrodinger's cat", as in it both exists in an intangible state (on the internet) and therefore it can never be determined if it is a true reproduction or a false original (by his reasoning skills, or lack thereof). He did the most sensible thing and declared it to be both copyright and trademark infringement (or he finally figured out what question the answer "42" was for... i.e.: How many times can I get away with making bad rulings from the bench?).
Based on his copyright/trademark ruling, until someone figures out a way to observe atoms flowing on the internet without disturbing their quantum signatures, we will never know if we're looking at a copy of an original, or an original of a copy (during the period when time flows backwards). The only way to be certain that it was original would be to store it on an Imaginary Property Quantum Hard Drive, which then would need to be immediately destroyed to prevent anyone from ever making a copy of the original. (Note: Only one Imaginary Property Quantum Hard Drive can exist. If there was more than one, the others would be only copies and in direct violation of I.P.Q.H.D. copyright, trademark, and yes, probably even patents.)
In Judge Pauley-land, everybody using the internet is guilty of any and all types of infringement, you just haven't been sued/prosecuted/received a demand for money letter... yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So which one is the non infringing one in the world of quantum IP?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It will probably end up in probate law since it's all 'relative'
yes yes.. I know.. it's been a long week for me and only Wednesday
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And if you did the same thing with a movie with a specific titled released by a specific studio would you not be in violating the trademarks of the studio and project's title?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you make an exact copy of a movie including title and cast then I'd think that would clearly be a copyright issue. If you marketed it as Hellaciously Good Movies, who made the original then trade mark would kick in as you're not them.
If you bittorrent a copy of the original movie then we get back to IP copyright silliness which we disuss so much around here.
The expense of making a true repoduction, not the original, in the case of a movie or video trumps that as being an option.
As a thought problem/experiment both questions are interesting but each, in their own way are too expensive to do in the real world and would probably not repay whoever did it. An interesting question as you frame it though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm not 100% certain but I believe that usually counterfeit manufacturers are charged with trademark violation, not fraud. Possibly both. All you really have to do to violate trademark is to distribute a product in commerce using a trademark that you're not authorized to use and it's a violation.
It's a fascinating development because the implications are so broad with DMCA safe harbor protections stripped away. And interestingly, it targets the main villains that the MPAA says it's gunning for, while likely not applying to non-commercial file swappers and torrent users.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Only if you are passing off that product as an absolute original and not as a manufactured item of dubious origins.
This is the problem with intangible items. If you created a replica DVD of Ironman and made it look like to any moron in a hurry similar to the 'real' product whether you actually have the movie on the DVD (or it's blank) is a trademark violation of the original trademark holder.
In this case the book in question was NOT a physical item and was not sold or intended (intent plays a huge role) as a Replica passing itself off as an original, therefore trademark should not come into play.
Trademark is intended as a mark of commerce (hence the name) to show providence and allow the consumer to know they are buying good(s) by a specific organisation with all the goodwill(reputation) that has been created by that product and organisation. Passing off a replica that may or may not be of the same quality dilutes the goodwill of the organisation. This is why trademark ONLY can be used for goods that are still in commerce. If the product or "mark" is not in commercial usage then the trademark lapses.
IMHO this decision was absolutely wrong by the Judge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The Court reasoned that although the Lanham Act forbids a reverse passing off, this rule regarding the misuse of trademarks is trumped by the fact that once a copyrighted work (or, for that matter, a patented invention) passes into the public domain, anyone in the public may do anything they want with the work, with or without attribution to the author.
It seems like a key element is passage into the public domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Errr no, in most cases they are not exact copies, especially in movies and music. Those files are compressed or downgraded for size of file purposes. Not many want to download a 9 gig movie or a set of wav files. Ebooks are often changed as to format for the same reason or to tailor the download for a particular e-reader. While e-publishers may do the same thing it is unlikely they are using the same software to result in an exact duplicate file.
[ 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 ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The email the judge in this case received after his decision:
You were supposed to W-A-I-T until A-F-T-E-R we passed ACTA, or slipped the same language into another law/treaty in the middle of the night just before a three day holiday weekend, and during the start of another war or just after a major international incident, so no one would know of our devious plot until it was too late.
Way to jump the gun, Pauley!
Signed, your corporate/government (same thing really) overlords.
P.S. The check is NOT in the mail, at least not for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The email the judge in this case received after his decision:
Pauley is sitting on another copyright trolling case and has given the troll almost 9 months to get around to chasing Does. So much for the 4 month rule about having to file...
http://ia700800.us.archive.org/33/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.389859/gov.uscourts.nysd.389859 .docket.html
Funny as other NY judges are severing these cases and pointing out how extortive they are here is a Judge just handing out candy to the trolls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The email the judge in this case received after his decision:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The email the judge in this case received after his decision:
IIRC One of the lesser Str8 pron copyright trolls tried trademark infringement in their filings, but like all trolling operations a court was never offered the chance to rule on those merits. It was another bite at the apple to try and get better settlements out of people.
Literally there are thousands of these cases out there, and they all follow the same patterns. Occasionally you get slight variations - trademark, tugboat liability, its not actually copyrighted for the time frame we allege the infringment, I lied on the copyright application about the dates to qualify for $150,000 vs actual damages, its a movie covered by an older copyright but we moved scenes around and got a new copyright in just our names, et al.
I expect to see a new flurry of "trademark" copyright trolling cases filed, as the trolls look to avoid the few limitations the courts have placed onto the mass copyright trolling cases. I expect to see them fourm shopping trying to get Judge Pauley rather than one of the Judges who have said these cases are mostly bull and an abuse of the courts time and resources.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The email the judge in this case received after his decision:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Default judgment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Default judgment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Default judgment
I've noticed in several of these copyright troll operations they are providing defective service, then moving for default. Only after the defendant is contacted by an outside party for a comment for a news story do they even know they were ever sued.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent
Now is for the higher courts to overrule that or not, or somebody to find an earlier judgment that negates the claims of counterfeiting trademarks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's more likely that the studios will bitch slap a few 98 lb weaklings to beef up the precedent then use that to leverage some meaningful cooperation from the internet ecosystem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yeah, it's very troubling for anyone into pirating stuff, because it is another clear avenue for legal action, one that isn't stuck behind DMCA or other impediments. It's a clear and simple yes or no issue.
It's nice to see a jugde that understands that a knock off copy (even if it's a perfect copy) is still a counterfeit.
[ 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 ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is a Precedent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There is a Precedent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The Disney logo being on Disney's version of the jungle book however is not only not misrepresenting anything it would be downright rude to remove it.
The argument usually given by Trademark holders for why they enforce their trademarks against counterfeiters is that the products are of lesser quality and the customer is being duped. No customer is being duped in the case of an exact copy of a digital product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Disney didn't make the copy, they are the only one with the rights to do that. So by putting their trademark logo on the copy (even if it's a perfect digital copy of the work) would still appear to be a trademark violation.
let's look at the knock off purse, as an example. Some of those products are made on the same production lines, with the same materials, by the same workers. But the ones that are not sanctioned by the trademark holder are counterfeit. They are exactly the same (or just about) but they are not approved by or sanctioned by the trademark holder.
I think this is a major in for anyone producing content. Bypass the copyright laws, and go right to something that is cut and dry - are you the trademark holder or are you not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
An exact copy of intangible goods requires no intentional placement of a trademark that was not originally intended to be there, this is why we have the word COPY in copyright. A copy of intangible goods is NOT a manufactured replica and therefore NOT a breach of trademark.
This is the problem with intangible goods. In counterfeit goods they are actually manufactured somewhere and then the logo in your example is physically emplaced by intent to confuse and defraud.
Also it is interesting in that if "The Jungle Book" was originally trademarked to Disney for the purpose of Movies, films etc and they no longer commercially sell that product the trademark is instantly lapsed since trademark only applies whilst 'in trade' . The logo of "Disney" is still being used in trade yes, but again unless they physically created a DVD and placed the LOGO of Disney (or other distinguishing marks) then there is no trademark breach, only a maybe breach of copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also a trademark is only for specific classifications. Which means something like the "Disney" is only trademarked for specific purposes ONLY whilst they use that trademark in commerce with that name so if they for example had "Disney" trademarked in the foodstuff classification and were selling "Disney Twizzles" and then stopped selling it, after a reasonable time another entity could call there Twizzles "Disney Twizzles" (especially if they had a common world trademark like a surname of Disney) and it would be valid and not in breach.
Note: this doesn't mean Disney lawyers would not try to bring every bit of their arsenal to bear on the person with the name Disney though who had the audacity to do such a heinous thing *eyeroll*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bittorent pornotrolls and trademark infringement allegations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bittorent pornotrolls and trademark infringement allegations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bittorent pornotrolls and trademark infringement allegations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bittorent pornotrolls and trademark infringement allegations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let me fix that for you
Yet another reason to bin copyright, patent, and trademark, and revert to law that restricts itself to securing people's natural rights, instead of abridging them to grant monopolies to special interests.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
Also see The (un)Nature Of Copyright.
...for those who wonder why these privileges create such problems for society, when it is purported they have been created to solve society's problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let me fix that for you
learn history, the man who wrote that, owned slaves, those words were meant to ONLY apply to white people, when they were written
there is no such thing as a natural right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let me fix that for you
Crosbie owns an idiot? I was not aware. Shame on him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let me fix that for you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And what would that mean for P2P "poisoning"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GOOD NEWS EVERYONE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]