Implications of sharing copyrighted works on the Internet

Abstract

The decentralised structure of the Internet has increasingly empowered end-users to disseminate creative works to an unprecedented extent. Since EU copyright law reserves all acts of digital reproduction and communication to the public of their works to the copyright holders, it is necessary to define what modes of lawful dissemination remain for the end-user. While it is indisputable that Internet users are free to communicate and share the public domain and any and all authorised materials, it is questionable whether and under what conditions end-users are entitled to share - or at least download - unauthorised copyrighted works pursuant to the U.S. fair use doctrine, or under the European copyright exception of private copying. Considering that the scope of the distribution right set out by Article 4(2) of the InfoSoc Directive is confined to the distribution of tangible copies of copyrighted works,463 it is worth pointing out from now that the sole exclusive rights called into question by Internet users “sharing” intangible copies are the right of reproduction and the right of communication to the public.464

Keywords

National Court Copyright Owner Copyright Infringement Software Provider Ninth Circuit 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 466.
    See A&M Records v. Napster, 114 Federal Supp.2d (N.D. Cal. 2000), p. 901; A&M Records v. Napster, 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Circuit), hereinafter Napster.Google Scholar
  2. 467.
    See BMG Music v. Gonzales, N. 05-1314 (argued October 27 — decided December 9, 2005), 7th Circuit, on appeal from U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, N. 03 C 6276, hereinafter BMG Music v. Gonzales.Google Scholar
  3. 469.
    See Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 104 Supreme Court 774, 78 L. Ed. 2d, p. 442 (1984)-hereinafter Sony — at pp. 475–476.Google Scholar
  4. 470.
    See UMG Recordings, Inc. v. MP3.Com, 92 Federal Supplement 2d 349, p. 351 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).Google Scholar
  5. 471.
    See BMG Music v. Gonzales, pp. 2–3.Google Scholar
  6. 472.
    Ibidem, p. 3.Google Scholar
  7. 473.
    Ibidem, p. 4.Google Scholar
  8. 474.
    See Sony, p. 442.Google Scholar
  9. 475.
    See Harper & Row Publishers v. Nation Enterprises, 105 S. Ct. 2218 (1985), p. 563.Google Scholar
  10. 476.
    See BMG Music v. Gonzales, p. 3.Google Scholar
  11. 477.
  12. 479.
    See Gordon, ‘Fair Use as Market Failure: A Structural and Economic Analysis of the Betamax Case and Its Predecessors’, (82) Columbia Law Review 1982, p. 1600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 480.
    See Merges, ‘The End of Friction’, op. cit., p. 130.Google Scholar
  14. 481.
    Gordon, ‘Fair Use as Market Failure’, op. cit., p. 1601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 485.
    The case was mentioned by Bernault and Lebois, Peer-to-peer et propriété littéraire et artistique. Etude de faisabilité sur un système de compensation pour l’échange des oeuvres sur internet, Institut de Recherche en Droit Privé de l’Université de Nantes, June 2005, available at: http://alliance.bugiweb.com/usr/Documents/RapportUniversite Nantes-juin2005.pdf, at p. 34. However, no proper reference to the source of this case was made available by these authors.Google Scholar
  16. 486.
  17. 487.
    See Bernault and Lebois, Peer-to-peer et propriété littéraire et artistique, op. cit., p. 35.Google Scholar
  18. 488.
    See Ministère Public, Fédération nationale de distributeurs de film, Syndicat de l’édition vidéo et autres, Twentieth Century Fox et a. c. D. Aurélien, Tribunal correctionnel de Rodez, 13 October 2004, commented by Sirinelli, ‘Monopole d’exploitation-Exception de copie privée — Copie privée ou ayant droit privés du droit de copie?’, (14) Propriétés intellectuelles, January 2005, p. 56.Google Scholar
  19. 489.
    See Ministère Public, Fédération nationale des distributeurs de film, Syndicat de l’édition vidéo et autres c. Aurélien D., Court d’Appel Montpellier, commented by Sirinelli, ‘Exceptions au monopole — Copie privée — Statuts des reproductions effectuées par l’intermediaire d’échanges de pair à pair à l’issue de ces derniers — La copie privée de peer en pire’, (15) Propriétés intellectuelles, April 2005, p. 168.Google Scholar
  20. 493.
    See Ministère Public, SACEM, SDRM, SPPF, SCCP c. Alexis B., Tribunal de Grande Instance de Pontoise, 10 March 2005, commented by Sirinelli, ‘Exceptions au monopole — Copie privée’, Exceptions au monopole — Copie privée — Statuts des reproductions effectuées par l’intermediaire d’échanges de pair à pair à l’issue de ces derniers — La copie privée de peer en pire’, (15) Propriétés intellectuelles, April 2005 op. cit., p. 169.Google Scholar
  21. 494.
    See Sirinelli, ‘Exceptions au monopole’, Exceptions au monopole — Copie privée — Statuts des reproductions effectuées par l’intermediaire d’échanges de pair à pair à l’issue de ces derniers — La copie privée de peer en pire’, (15) Propriétés intellectuelles, April 2005 op. cit., pp. 170–171.Google Scholar
  22. 495.
    See Sirinelli, ‘Monopole d’exploitation’, Monopole d’exploitation-Exception de copie privée — Copie privée ou ayant droit privés du droit de copie?’, (14) Propriétés intellectuelles, January 2005 op. cit., p. 59 (“A bien comprendre le raisonnement du tribunal, il conviendrait de ne pas appréhender l’opération dans son ensemble et de ne considérer que le dernier maillon de la chaîne des reproductions. Il serait même possible au copiste d’étancher sa soif d’oeuvres à des sources illégales pourvu que l’acte final de reproduction blanchisse tout [...]).Google Scholar
  23. 498.
    See Dusollier, Droit d’auteur et protection des oeuvres, op. cit., p. 452.Google Scholar
  24. 501.
    Caron and Gaubiac, ‘L’échange d’oeuvres sur l’Internet ou le P2P’, in: Mélanges Victor Nabhan — Hors série Les Cahiers de Propriété Intellectuelle, Edition Yvon Blais, Montréal 2005, p. 32.Google Scholar
  25. 502.
  26. 504.
    Dusollier, ‘L’utilisation légitime de l’oeuvre: un nouveau sésame pour le bénefice des exceptions en droit d’auteur?’, Communications-Commerce Electronique, November 2005, p.17.Google Scholar
  27. 510.
    It is worth noting that the protection of user privacy may come into play in the context of copyright infringement suits based on peer-to-peer transfers of copyrighted works in relation to the processing, retention and disclosure of users’ personal data that right-holders need to identify individual infringers in order to sue them. As argued recently before the Rome District Court in respect of a request for disclosure of user identity made to an ISP by two copyright owners on music files and videogames, user personal data (such as Internet Protocol addresses, user identity and other personal information) can be lawfully retained, processed and disclosed only under the exceptional circumstances embodied in Article 15 of Directive 2002/58/EC on privacy and electronic communications, OJ L 201, 31 July 2002, 37. These exceptional circumstances include State security, defence, public security, and the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences or of unauthorised use of electronic communication systems. In rejecting the copyright owners’ claim, the Rome Court found that, under the Italian and EU laws regarding the interplay between privacy protection and digital copyright enforcement regulations, the user right to confidentiality in electronic communications takes preference, in civil proceedings, over the competing goal of disclosing identity and other personal data related to file-sharers who commit on-line copyright infringement: see Techland and Peppermint Jam Records v. Wind Telecomunicazioni, Tribunale Ordinario di Roma, Order at interim proceedings. N. 26125/2007, 16 July 2007, available at http://www.altroconsumo.it/images/17/173003_Attach.pdf. Judicial remedies available in the EU for purposes of digital copyright enforcement targeted at individuals are analysed at §8.3.1.2., see infra.Google Scholar
  28. 512.
    See Senftleben, Copyright, Limitations and the Three-step Test, op. cit., p. 129, who argued that the payment of equitable remuneration has a mitigating effect on the finding of an unreasonable prejudice; Cohen Jehoram, ‘Restrictions on Copyright and their Abuse’, op. cit., p. 361.Google Scholar
  29. 514.
    See Marzano, Diritto d’Autore e Digital Technologies, op. cit., p. 264.Google Scholar
  30. 516.
    See VG Media v. Fujitsu Siemens, District Court of Munich, Az: 7 O 18484/03, 23 December 2004, available at http://www.juris.de.Google Scholar
  31. 517.
    See ‘German court sets copyright levy on new PCs’, IT World, 24.12.2004, available at http://www.itworld.com; ‘Fujitsu Siemens loses German PC levy case’, The Register, 3.01.2005, at http://www.theregister.co.uk; ‘Tech industry condemns German PC levy’, Out Law News, 21.01.2005, at http://www.out-law.com.Google Scholar
  32. 520.
    See von Lohmann, IAAL (I Am A Lawyer): What Peer-to-Peer Developers Need to Know about Copyright Law, Electronic Frontier Foundation, January 2006, downloaded at: www.eff.org, p. 3.Google Scholar
  33. 522.
    See von Lohmann, IAAL: What Peer-to-Peer Developers Need to Know, p. 11.Google Scholar
  34. 523.
    See Ginsburg, ‘Copyright Use and Excuse on the Internet’, The Center for Law and Economic Studies, Working Paper n.178, Columbia Law School, 2001, p. 29.Google Scholar
  35. 524.
    See Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc., 907 F. Supp. 1361 (N.D. Cal. 1995).Google Scholar
  36. 525.
    See Ginsburg, ‘Copyright Use and Excuse on the Internet’, op. cit., p. 36.Google Scholar
  37. 528.
    See In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, U.S. Court of Appeals 334 F.3d 643 (7th Circuit 2003), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 1069 (2004), reported by Merges, Menell and Lemley, Intellectual Property in the New Technological Age, 2004 Case and Statutory Supplement, Aspen Publishers, New York 2004, pp. 47-57.Google Scholar
  38. 529.
    See In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, cit., p. 54.Google Scholar
  39. 530.
    See In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 252 F.Supp. 2d 634, 653 (N.D. Illinois 2002).Google Scholar
  40. 531.
    See Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, 259 F.Supp.2d 1029 (C.D. Cal. 2003), hereinafter Grokster.Google Scholar
  41. 532.
    See Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, 380 F. 3d 1154 (Court of Appeals 9th Circuit 2004), hereinafter MGM v. Grokster.Google Scholar
  42. 534.
    See Grokster, op. cit., p. 1040.Google Scholar
  43. 535.
  44. 536.
    See Grokster, p. 1041.Google Scholar
  45. 537.
    See Grokster, p. 1037.Google Scholar
  46. 538.
    See Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. Supreme Court, decided June 27, 2005. The text of the decision is available at: http://www.eff.org (§Cases). For a commentary upon this decision, see Ganley,’ surviving Grokster: Innovation and the Future of Peer-to-Peer’, (28) EIPR, 2006, p. 15.Google Scholar
  47. 539.
    See Sony, p. 442.Google Scholar
  48. 540.
    See the Opinion of the Court, in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. Supreme Court, p. 17.Google Scholar
  49. 542.
    See Napster, 239 F. 3d 1004, pp. 1020–1021 (“We are bound to follow Sony, and will not impute the requisite level of knowledge to Napster merely because peer-to-peer file sharing technology may be used to infringe plaintiffs’ copyrights”).Google Scholar
  50. 543.
    See Napster, 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Circuit), p. 1021.Google Scholar
  51. 544.
    See In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, op. cit., p. 52.Google Scholar
  52. 545.
    See Yen, ‘Sony, Tort Doctrines, and the Puzzle of Peer-to-Peer’, (55) Case Western Reserve Law Review 2005, Symposium Issue, available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=661168, p. 25.Google Scholar
  53. 546.
  54. 547.
    The defendants showed several non-infringing uses of their technology: distributing movie trailers, free songs or other non-copyrighted works; using the software in countries where it is legal; and “sharing the works of Shakespeare”: see Grokster, p. 1035.Google Scholar
  55. 548.
    See Grokster, p. 1036.Google Scholar
  56. 549.
    See Ginsburg, Concurring Opinion, in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. Supreme Court (2005), cit.Google Scholar
  57. 550.
    See Breyer, Concurring Opinion, in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.. cit.Google Scholar
  58. 551.
    See Breyer, Concurring Opinion, p. 8.Google Scholar
  59. 552.
    See Ginsburg, Concurring Opinion, p. 7.Google Scholar
  60. 553.
    See Breyer, Concurring Opinion, p. 6.Google Scholar
  61. 554.
    See Breyer, Concurring Opinion, p. 7.Google Scholar
  62. 555.
    See BUMA & STEMRA v. Kazaa, Supreme Court of the Netherlands, The Hague, First Chamber, Order of 19 December 2003, Nr. C02/186HR JMH/AT, available at: http://www.muddlawoffices.com (§Cases). The decision was commented upon by Vollebregt, ‘An analysis of the Kazaa case’, E-commerce Law and Policy, 14 December 2003; and Strachan, ‘The Internet of Tomorrow: The New-Old Communications Tool of Control’, (26) EIPR 2004, p. 123, at p. 135.Google Scholar
  63. 556.
    See BUMA & STEMRA v. Kazaa, Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 4th Three-judge Section, 28 March 2002, available at: http://www.eff.org, §Cases.Google Scholar
  64. 558.
    See Vollebregt, ‘An analysis of the Kazaa case’, op. cit., p. 15.Google Scholar
  65. 562.
    See Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, OJ L 157, 40.4.2004 (hereinafter “IPRs Enforcement Directive”).Google Scholar
  66. 563.
    See European Commission Press Office, Counterfeiting and piracy: Commission proposes criminal law provisions to combat intellectual property offences, IP/06/532, Brussels, 26 April 2006. The Commission’s directive proposal concerning the Community-wide implementation of criminal penalties for the infringement of intellectual property rights is discussed below: see §8.3.1.2, see infra.Google Scholar
  67. 564.
    See Commission of the European Communities v. Council of the European Union, C-176/03, Judgment of 13 September 2005, available at: http://curia.europa.eu. This judgment annulled the Council Framework Decision 2003/80/JHA of 27 January 2003 on the protection of the environment through criminal law, OJ 2003, L 29, p. 55. By this decision, the ECJ upheld the European Commission’s claim that the legislature is competent to require the Member States to prescribe criminal penalties for infringements of Community environmental protection legislation if the Commission takes the view that this is a necessary means to ensure that the legislation is effective.Google Scholar
  68. 565.
    See Strachan, ‘The Internet of Tomorrow’, op. cit., p. 132; see Article 15 of the E-Commerce Directive.Google Scholar
  69. 566.
    See Strachan, ‘The Internet of Tomorrow’, op. cit., p. 130.Google Scholar
  70. 567.
    See UEJF et Licra c/ Yahoo! Inc. et Yahoo France, Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, Ordonnance de référé, 22 May 2000, available at: http://www.juriscom.net.Google Scholar
  71. 568.
    See UEJF, SOS Racisme, J’Accuse, MRAP c. OLM, Planet.com, France Télécom, Free, AOL France, Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, Ordonnance de référé, 13 June 2005, http://www.juriscom.net.Google Scholar
  72. 571.
    See Tribunal Première Instance Bruxelles, 26 November 2004, SABAM c. Tiscali, http://www.juriscom.net, 26 November 2004.Google Scholar
  73. 572.
    See Danish Supreme Court, Order of Friday, 10 February, 2006, TDC Totallsninger A/S v. IFPI Danmark, KODA, Nordisk Copyright Bureau, Danish Musicians’ Union, Danish Artists’ Union, Case no. 49/2005 (2nd division), Transcript of the Court Register of the Appeals and Objections Committee.Google Scholar
  74. 573.
    See TDC Totallsninger A/S v. IFPI Danmark, p. 10.Google Scholar
  75. 575.
    See Strachan, ‘The Internet of Tomorrow’, op. cit., p. 132.Google Scholar
  76. 577.
    The possibility of implementing the notions of wilful or culpable intent to the case of peer-to-peer software providers in civil law jurisdictions was emphasised by Strowel, ‘Le P2P: un problème pressant en attente d’une réponse législative?’, (17) Propriétés intellectuelles, October 2005, p. 428, at p. 431.Google Scholar
  77. 578.
    See Vollebregt, ‘An analysis of the Kazaa case’, op. cit., p. 16.Google Scholar
  78. 579.
  79. 580.
    Vollebregt, ‘An analysis of the Kazaa case’, op. cit., p. 14.Google Scholar
  80. 581.
    See Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v. Sharman License Holdings Ltd, [2005] Federal Court of Australia 1242 (5 September 2005). For a review of this decision, see Lucas, ‘Responsabilité des éditeurs de logiciels permettant des échanges de pair à pair’, (17) Propriétés intellectuelles, October 2005, p. 444.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Personalised recommendations