Download - 2009 IP Club Lecture
A 2009 presentation to the Rutgers Law IP Club
User-Generated Content & Virtual Worlds, 10 Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law 893 (2008).
Digital Attribution, 87 Boston University Law Review 41 (2007).
Amateur-to-Amateur (with Dan Hunter), 46 William & Mary Law Review 951 (2004).
2
Be careful with social software.
3
Incentives theory A brief history
Ancient copyright The Stationers’
Company The Statute of Anne The United States
Constitution Steady expansions in
19th & 20th century 1976 Act 1998 revisions International law
5
(1) literary works; (2) musical works; (3) dramatic works; (4) pantomimes and
choreographic works; (5) pictorial, graphic, and
sculptural works; (6) motion pictures and other
audiovisual works; (7) sound recordings; and (8) architectural works.
Or, colloquially, books, music, plays, films, pictures, photographs, sculptures, building, computer software, etc.
6
Thanks to Tom Bell
General Rights 102 – Base Requirements 106 – Exclusive Rights 106A – VARA 107 – Fair Use
Scope & Limitations 108 - Libraries 109 - First sale 110 – Non-profit Performance 111 - Television 112 - Television 113 – VARA 114 – Music: Sound Recordings 115 – Music: Cover versions 116 - Music: Jukeboxes 117 - Software 118 – Public Broadcasting 119 - Television 120 – Architectural Works 121 – Blind & Disabled 122 – Television
Authors create works due to the incentives offered by copyright’s prospect of financial reward.
Industry professionals purchase the content from authors, package it in copies, market it and distribute it. They are the expert commercial intermediaries.
The public benefits from having access to a broad selection of high quality content.
product
product
payment
payment
Creators
Industry Professionals
Consumers
product
product
payment
payment
Creators
Industry Professionals
Consumers
Congress seems to regard the entertainment industry as the chief “client” of copyright legislation.
To what extent does the story of the Stationers’ Company explain the contemporary landscape of copyright? Have we returned to a licensed
monopoly right? To what extent is copyright law’s
historical expansion (in scope and duration) attributable Lockean, rather than utilitarian, intuitions?
1976 Act? 1998 Acts?
11
product payment
Industry Professionals
12
“The VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman alone.”
-- Jack Valenti (MPAA)
Framing the problem: New technologies, such as cassette tapes and photocopiers, allow consumers to create and exchange copies of works, depriving the copy licensing industry (and the creators who rely on the industry for revenue) of their profits.
Answers to piracy: Expand rights Strengthen enforcement Criminalize infringement Regulate Technology (DRM)
13
product
product
payment
payment
Piracy
Creators
Industry Professionals
Consumers
14
Principles 1) Copyright law
creates private property rights in information patterns
2) This exclusive rights are normatively desirable and benefit society
3) Copying of information patterns should occur only when authorized by the proprietor
15
Principles 1) Information patterns
should be shared for purposes of collaboration
2) Copying of information patterns should be fast, simple & transparent
3) Central control is not desirable – the power in the system should be at the endpoints
16
Widespread copying threatens to destroy the business models of the [music / film / software] industry.
Major lawsuits against tools/platforms that facilitate copying: Napster, Grokster, YouTube DMCA 512 provisions
Congress is generally sympathetic ($$$)
17
18
19 Sharing
Creators
Industry Professionals
Consumers / Creators “Prosumers”?
What if networks facilitate “amateur” authorship?
product
product
payment
payment
Piracy
Creators
Industry Professionals
Consumers
20 Sharing
Creators
Industry Professionals
Consumers / Creators “Prosumers”?
What if networks facilitate “amateur” authorship?
21 Sharing
Creators
Industry Professionals
Consumers / Creators “Prosumers”?
What if networks facilitate “amateur” authorship?
Are there no implications? Is non-commercial copyright
production legally insignificant? What does this say about the
authorial incentive theory? Do the implications turn on
issues of quality? Do the implications turn on
issues of collective coordination? What does this say about the
complexity of copyright law? Does it matter that amateurs do
not seem to understand copyright law?
What about technology?
22 Sharing
Creators
Industry Professionals
Consumers / Creators “Prosumers”?
product
product
payment
payment
Piracy
Creators
Industry Professionals
Consumers
24 Sharing
Creators
Industry Professionals
Consumers / Creators “Prosumers”?
A fan website with multiple authors collects encyclopedic details about the Harry Potter series. The Harry Potter Lexicon
http://www.hp-lexicon.org Formerly praised by J.K.
Rowling as a valuable resource Lawsuit by Rowling claims
copyright infringement District court determines this is
not fair use Subsequently rewritten to
conform to court’s standard
25
Not Fair Use
Lenz uploads a video of her toddler dancing to a Prince song on the YouTube
UMG removes the video from YouTube via the DMCA notice & takedown provisions
Lenz countersues claiming that fair use clearly permits her to post the video, hence the notice was in bad faith.
Following a motion to dismiss, the court allows the claim to proceed.
Who controls the shape of online tools?
26
Clearly Fair Use
Fairey presents himself as a rebel “street artist”
He often appropriates images for his work
Found and changed a photo of Obama via a Google search
Iconic poster distributed “virally” over the Web
Original photograph used by Fairey ascertained by bloggers (originally denied by Fairey)
27
Fair Use?
28
29
The Public Web • Optimal for maximum distribution of information • Vulnerable to commercialization • Small players dependent on search • Major commercial winner: Google
The Semi-Public Platform (Predominant) • Often provides better tools (e.g. for blogs, photos) • Technology is opaque to users • Applications often push to become “sticky” • Major commercial winner: Facebook*
The Walled Garden • Popular model during the 1980’s • Subscription barrier to entry • Must provide some additional value • Major commercial winner: World of Warcraft
Google, Facebook, World of Warcraft, and Web 2.0 businesses see user copyright as a potential liability, not a source of revenue
Cf. radio broadcasters in 1941 – except that copyright is in the hands of the multitudes
If the logic of the Stationers’ Company controls, where does this point for the future evolution of copyright?
Answer: “solve” the copyright dilemma via contract
If users can be bound to surrender copyright interest in exchange for platform/tool access, user copyright interests will not threaten revenue models.
Ironically, this licensing “solution” is a close relative to FSF, Wikipedia, Creative Commons, etc. But it deflates the scope of
the authorial interest for business (not altruistic) reasons
Greg Lastowk
a: lastowka@cam
33
34
City of Heroes = Toolmaker/
Hosting Platform/Proprietor
Marvel = Copyright owner,
potential exploiter
Player = infringers
The users are charged with direct copyright infringement.
The users pay to access City of Heroes and have assigned their authorial interests by contract.
The lawsuit is brought against the toolmaker/platform, using copyright to constrain the power of technological tools.
35
If users are authors, what does the UGC inflection offer? A shift to loss of authorial
rights via contract Cf. status quo
A shift to bearing infringement risks
Cf. status quo A shift to tools hobbled by
concerns over © Cf. status quo
Plus Pay for access Loss of information privacy Loss of information control
36
In a world where authorship powers are now widely distributed, copyright law should look at:
1. Attribution rights 2. Notice
requirements 3. Shorter terms 4. Clear, short,
“bright line” rules 5. Funding the
commons 37