|
[back to notice text]
Question: How can a webmaster directly infringe copyright?
Answer: Courts are split on whether an operator of a web site that simply acts as a conduit for others to share information may be found directly liable for copyright infringement. Though technically, even a passive operator violates the copyright holder's exclusive right to distribute and display their materials, most courts have required an affirmative step by the operator to further the infringement. Thus creating and maintaining a system where others may post pirated software and information that helps others obtain pirated software would not generally be sufficient whereby actively participating and encouraging the piracy would be. Posting any tools which help users circumvent copy protection ("cracker utilities") is also prohibited by ?1201 of the DMCA, see Anticircumvention (DMCA).
[back to notice text]
Question: What is contributory infringement?
Answer: The other form of indirect infringement, contributory infringement, requires (1) knowledge of the infringing activity and (2) a material contribution -- actual assistance or inducement -- to the alleged piracy. Posting access codes from authorized copies of software, serial numbers, or other tools to assist in accessing such software may subject you to liability. Providing a forum for uploading and downloading any copyrighted file or cracker utility may also be contributory infringement. Even though you may not actually make software directly available on your site, providing assistance (or supporting a forum in which others may provide assistance) in locating unauthorized copies of software, links to download sites, server space, or support for sites that do the above may contributorily infringe.
To succeed on a contributory infringement claim, the copyright owner must show that the webmaster or service provider actually knew or should have known of the infringing activity.
[back to notice text]
Question: What is vicarious liability?
Answer: Vicarious liability, a form of indirect copyright infringement, is found where an operator has (1) the right and ability to control users and (2) a direct financial benefit from allowing their acts of piracy. User agreements or Acceptable Use Policies may be evidence of an operator's authority over users. The financial benefit may include a subscription fee, advertising revenues, or even a bartered exchange for other copyrighted. Under the doctrine of vicarious liability, you may be found liable even if you do not have specific knowledge of infringing acts occurring on your site.
[back to notice text]
Question: Can an internet service allow users to store and listen to compact disks sold by record companies through an internet connection?
Answer: Probably not. According to the court in UMG Recordings v. MP3.Com, an internet company may not store MP3 music files to facilitate their retransmission. Reproducing audio compact disks into MP3s does not transform the copyrighted work. An internet operator must do more than merely retransmit the original work in a different medium. The court in UMG also found that storing digital files in this way would have an adverse market effect on the record companies.
[back to notice text]
Question: Does the fair use doctrine permit individuals to upload and download digital audio files containing copyrighted music through a file-sharing service that facilitates transmission and retention of the files by its users?
Answer: The courts that have considered this issue to date have held that this type of "peer to peer file sharing" violates the copyright owner's exclusive right to reproduce their copyrighted material and does not constitute a fair use. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals applied the four factor fair use analysis to address this issue. First, the court found that the purpose and character of such a use was not transformative, since the work was merely retransmitted in a different medium. Also, such use was found to be commercial in nature and resulted in the exploitation of copyrighted works since it saved the users the expense of purchasing the authorized copies. The court also focussed on the fourth factor, the effect of the use on the market. The court concluded that the internet service harmed the market for the plaintiff's copyrighted material by reducing CD sales and by interfereing with the copyright holder's attempts to charge for the same internet downloads. A&M Records v. Napster, 239 F.3d 1004; see also MGM v. Grokster
[back to notice text]
Question: Where is the fair use doctrine codified?
Answer: The fair use doctrine was originally a judge-made doctrine embodied in case law. See Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F.Cas. 342 (1841). Congress later codified it at Title 17 of the United States Code, Section 107. This section provides:
Section 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A [setting forth copyright owners' exclusive rights and visual artists' artistic rights], the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include ? 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; 2. the nature of the copyrighted work; 3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
[back to notice text]
Question: What is copyright infringement? Are there any defenses?
Answer: Infringement occurs whenever someone who is not the copyright holder (or a licensee of the copyright holder) exercises one of the exclusive rights listed above. The most common defense to an infringement claim is "fair use," a doctrine that allows people to use copyrighted material without permission in certain situations, such as quotations in a book review. To evaluate fair use of copyrighted material, the courts consider four factors:
- the purpose and character of the use
- the nature of the copyrighted work
- the amount and substantiality of copying, and
- the market effect.
(17 U.S.C. 107) The most significant factor in this analysis is the fourth, effect on the market. If a copier's use supplants demand for the original work, then it will be very difficult for him or her to claim fair use. On the other hand, if the use does not compete with the original, for example because it is a parody, criticism, or news report, it is more likely to be permitted as "fair use." Trademarks are generally subject to fair use in two situations: First, advertisers and other speakers are allowed to use a competitor's trademark when referring to that competitor's product ("nominative use"). Second, the law protects "fair comment," for instance, in parody.
[back to notice text]
Question: What is fair use?
Answer: Copyright law seeks to promote the production and distribution of creative works by conferring property rights on authors. The principle of fair use serves to mediate between these property rights and the constitutional rights of public access and free speech embodied in the First Amendment. Fair use serves an important social function by allowing for the use of parts of creative works for the sake of criticism, commentary, and reporting. To decide whether a use is "fair use" or not, courts consider:
- the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit education purposes;
- the nature of the copyrighted work;
- the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and,
- the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.[17 U.S.C. 107(1-4)]
The principles of fair use are invoked when the transaction costs associated with gaining authorization from copyright owners to make use of works is too burdensome in reasonable circumstances. Fair use also permits the reproduction of art and information for the private, noncommercial sharing of those works. Fair use allows for market competitors to use copyrighted works in ways that allow them to extract the public domain aspects of those works in order to develop innovative products.
[back to notice text]
Question: Why are copyright holders concerned about piracy?
Answer: Free speech is protected by the U.S. Constitution but so are property rights. Copyright law provides incentives for creating. One of the incentives for creating software, music, literature and other works is being able to reap the financial benefits as the creator. Illegitimate distribution of copies may prevent the copyright holder from benefiting from the sale of legitimate copies of the product. The theory is that significantly fewer people would buy copies from the copyright holder if other copies were available cheaper or for free.
| 
FAQ: Questions