Deemed Distribution of Nude Women . . . I Mean Pictures . . .

The internet, occasionally, has been used to disseminate pictures of nudity. Whether art or free expression, it is distribution, and if the material is copyrightable, then the owner has the right to their distribution. So, does the Ninth Circuit's analysis of pictures of nude women help us understand the copyright issues relating to file sharing?

Perfect10 sues Google, objecting to their use of the Perfect10 pictures in the Gooogle system. Actually, Perfect10 asserts infringement of its display rights, which really does not help us understand file-sharing issues if the files are not pictures, but music. And the Ninth Circuit discusses the genealogy case, Hotaling, and Napster for its analysis.

The Ninth Circuit panel states that "Perfect 10 incorrectly relies on Hotaling v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and Napster for the proposition that merely making images 'available' violates the copyright owner’s distribution right. Hotaling v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 118 F.3d 199 (4th Cir. 1997); Napster, 239 F.3d 1004. Hotaling held that the owner of a collection of works who makes them available to the public may be deemed to have distributed copies of the works. Hotaling, 118 F.3d at 203. Similarly, the distribution rights of the plaintiff copyright owners were infringed by Napster users (private individuals with collections of music files stored on their home computers) when they used the Napster software to make their collections available to all other Napster users. Napster, 239 F.3d at 1011-14." The Ninth Circuit panel calls this "deemed distribution."

Since Google did not have a copy of Perfect10's nude women, but linked to them, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that Google could not distribute copies. File sharers do own a copy of the work. They are a big step down the road to deemed distribution.

Next,the even bigger hurdle, contributory infringement. “One infringes contributorily by intentionally inducing or encouraging direct infringement, and infringes vicariously by profiting from direct infringement while declining to exercise a right to stop or limit it.” Grokster, 545 U.S. at 930.

Deemed Distribution of Nude Women . . . I Mean Pictures . . .

The internet, occasionally, has been used to disseminate pictures of nudity. Whether art or free expression, it is distribution, and if the material is copyrightable, then the owner has the right to their distribution. So, does the Ninth Circuit's analysis of pictures of nude women help us understand the copyright issues relating to file sharing?

Perfect10 sues Google, objecting to their use of the Perfect10 pictures in the Gooogle system. Actually, Perfect10 asserts infringement of its display rights, which really does not help us understand file-sharing issues if the files are not pictures, but music. And the Ninth Circuit discusses the genealogy case, Hotaling, and Napster for its analysis.

The Ninth Circuit panel states that "Perfect 10 incorrectly relies on Hotaling v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and Napster for the proposition that merely making images 'available' violates the copyright owner’s distribution right. Hotaling v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 118 F.3d 199 (4th Cir. 1997); Napster, 239 F.3d 1004. Hotaling held that the owner of a collection of works who makes them available to the public may be deemed to have distributed copies of the works. Hotaling, 118 F.3d at 203. Similarly, the distribution rights of the plaintiff copyright owners were infringed by Napster users (private individuals with collections of music files stored on their home computers) when they used the Napster software to make their collections available to all other Napster users. Napster, 239 F.3d at 1011-14." The Ninth Circuit panel calls this "deemed distribution."

Since Google did not have a copy of Perfect10's nude women, but linked to them, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that Google could not distribute copies. File sharers do own a copy of the work. They are a big step down the road to deemed distribution.

Next,the even bigger hurdle, contributory infringement. “One infringes contributorily by intentionally inducing or encouraging direct infringement, and infringes vicariously by profiting from direct infringement while declining to exercise a right to stop or limit it.” Grokster, 545 U.S. at 930.

File Sharing . . . Do Students Really Have Direct Knowledge?

So the big issue is whether merely placing copyrighted files in a shared folder available to others over the internet infringes the copyright owner's exclusive right to distribute the copyrighted work. But "distribute" is a term of art in the copyright statutes, meaning the exclusive right "to distribute copies ... of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending." 17 U.S.C. § 106(3). Applying the statute, placing a copyrighted file in a shared folder, for public use, seems to show intent to transfer ownership (in contrast to, say, placing the files in a folder accessible only by yourself). This still begs the question of whether an actual transfer must be shown.

The Napster case in the Ninth Circuit approaches this differently, focusing on contributory copyright infringement. “[O]ne who, with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another, may be held liable as a ‘contributory’ infringer.” Gershwin Publ’g Corp. v. Columbia Artists Mgmt., Inc., 443 F.2d 1159, 1162 (2d Cir. 1971); see also Fonovisa, Inc. v. Cherry Auction, Inc., 76 F.3d 259, 264 (9th Cir. 1996). The Ninth Circuit explains, in Napster, that "liability exists if the defendant engages in “personal conduct that encourages or assists the infringement.” Matthew Bender & Co. v. West Publ’g Co., 158 F.3d 693, 706 (2d Cir. 1998). The Ninth Circuit then stated that Napster had direct knowledge of actual infringement, and the walls came tumbling down. Does this "direct knowledge" requirement apply to the student file sharer using a service like Limeware?

File Sharing . . . Do Students Really Have Direct Knowledge?

So the big issue is whether merely placing copyrighted files in a shared folder available to others over the internet infringes the copyright owner's exclusive right to distribute the copyrighted work. But "distribute" is a term of art in the copyright statutes, meaning the exclusive right "to distribute copies ... of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending." 17 U.S.C. § 106(3). Applying the statute, placing a copyrighted file in a shared folder, for public use, seems to show intent to transfer ownership (in contrast to, say, placing the files in a folder accessible only by yourself). This still begs the question of whether an actual transfer must be shown.

The Napster case in the Ninth Circuit approaches this differently, focusing on contributory copyright infringement. “[O]ne who, with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another, may be held liable as a ‘contributory’ infringer.” Gershwin Publ’g Corp. v. Columbia Artists Mgmt., Inc., 443 F.2d 1159, 1162 (2d Cir. 1971); see also Fonovisa, Inc. v. Cherry Auction, Inc., 76 F.3d 259, 264 (9th Cir. 1996). The Ninth Circuit explains, in Napster, that "liability exists if the defendant engages in “personal conduct that encourages or assists the infringement.” Matthew Bender & Co. v. West Publ’g Co., 158 F.3d 693, 706 (2d Cir. 1998). The Ninth Circuit then stated that Napster had direct knowledge of actual infringement, and the walls came tumbling down. Does this "direct knowledge" requirement apply to the student file sharer using a service like Limeware?

File Posting or File Sharing? Which is Illegal?

So put yourself in the position of a judge. The record industry brings to you the head of the local college student. The copyright statutes bring you statutory damages of $750 per violation at a minimum. It is the copyright version of sentencing guidelines, leaving you a complete lack of discretion.

It has to be tough to be the judge. If this does not seem right, what do you do? Well, tighten the liability standards. And that is the question judges now face in file-sharing cases.

Judge Nancy Gertner of Boston felt that "merely exposing music files to the Internet is not copyright infringement" because those doing so could claim "they did not know that logging onto the peer-to-peer network would allow others to access these particular files." Judge Kenneth Karras in New York said just the opposite, that placing a copyrighted music file in a computer folder shared by peer-to-peer software users could amount to illegal publication of it.

At issue is what level of proof is required: just making the copyrighted digital files available on a shared network, or a showing that the digital files were actually shared. Judge Neil Wake of Phoenix is addressing this very issue in Atlantic v. Howell. The Howells contend that their file-sharing program was "not set up to share" and that the files were "for private use" and "for transfer to portable devices, that is legal for 'fair use.'" Judge Wake initially rejected their argument, but is now re-considering. But first, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and Napster.

Yep. The Mormon Church was sued for placing an unauthorized copy of a genealogicial work in its collection and including the copy in its catalog or index system, making the copy available to the public. The District Court said this was not enough, but the Fourth Circuit reversed. It reasoned that "[w]hen a public library adds a work to its collection, lists the work in its index or catalog system, and makes the work available to the borrowing or browsing public, it has completed all the steps necessary for distribution to the public," violating §106(3). So, is a shared folder on limeware a "public library?" Judge Hall, in dissent, reads the statute, and says "the owner of a copyright does not possess an exclusive right to 'distribute' the work in any conceivable manner; instead, it has the exclusive right 'to distribute copies ... of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending [.]' 17 U.S.C. § 106(3)." He notes that all use was in the library, and perhaps should be copyright infringement even if the work was not lent, but just used in the library; but, under the statute, it is not illegal distribution because Congress said "lending" is required. He's the minority in the Fourth Circuit, though.

But what about that public file? If another uses the folder, it seems like that would be lending the file. That fails to answer the question of what needs to be proved: merely an offer or an actual file-share? If one plays a song in the presence of another, is that lending? If the file remains only on your hard disk, but another plays it remotely, is that lending? The Ninth Circuit already has discussed file sharing in Napster, has it not? And everyone knows Napster. Or do they?

File Posting or File Sharing? Which is Illegal?

So put yourself in the position of a judge. The record industry brings to you the head of the local college student. The copyright statutes bring you statutory damages of $750 per violation at a minimum. It is the copyright version of sentencing guidelines, leaving you a complete lack of discretion.

It has to be tough to be the judge. If this does not seem right, what do you do? Well, tighten the liability standards. And that is the question judges now face in file-sharing cases.

Judge Nancy Gertner of Boston felt that "merely exposing music files to the Internet is not copyright infringement" because those doing so could claim "they did not know that logging onto the peer-to-peer network would allow others to access these particular files." Judge Kenneth Karras in New York said just the opposite, that placing a copyrighted music file in a computer folder shared by peer-to-peer software users could amount to illegal publication of it.

At issue is what level of proof is required: just making the copyrighted digital files available on a shared network, or a showing that the digital files were actually shared. Judge Neil Wake of Phoenix is addressing this very issue in Atlantic v. Howell. The Howells contend that their file-sharing program was "not set up to share" and that the files were "for private use" and "for transfer to portable devices, that is legal for 'fair use.'" Judge Wake initially rejected their argument, but is now re-considering. But first, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and Napster.

Yep. The Mormon Church was sued for placing an unauthorized copy of a genealogicial work in its collection and including the copy in its catalog or index system, making the copy available to the public. The District Court said this was not enough, but the Fourth Circuit reversed. It reasoned that "[w]hen a public library adds a work to its collection, lists the work in its index or catalog system, and makes the work available to the borrowing or browsing public, it has completed all the steps necessary for distribution to the public," violating §106(3). So, is a shared folder on limeware a "public library?" Judge Hall, in dissent, reads the statute, and says "the owner of a copyright does not possess an exclusive right to 'distribute' the work in any conceivable manner; instead, it has the exclusive right 'to distribute copies ... of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending [.]' 17 U.S.C. § 106(3)." He notes that all use was in the library, and perhaps should be copyright infringement even if the work was not lent, but just used in the library; but, under the statute, it is not illegal distribution because Congress said "lending" is required. He's the minority in the Fourth Circuit, though.

But what about that public file? If another uses the folder, it seems like that would be lending the file. That fails to answer the question of what needs to be proved: merely an offer or an actual file-share? If one plays a song in the presence of another, is that lending? If the file remains only on your hard disk, but another plays it remotely, is that lending? The Ninth Circuit already has discussed file sharing in Napster, has it not? And everyone knows Napster. Or do they?

The Cook, the Thief, the Lover, and the Wife . . .

That was a marvelously strange movie, years ago, with a wonderful title, written as bald allusion to British politics and Maggie Thatcher. The movie was a failure, despite some stunning visuals, but did present the question of who was responsible. And that's the issue in copyright today.

The Cook? Those who provide technology or software that facilitates copyright infringement. In our recent history, what became the VCR and allowed copying of video for use when we wanted, a precursor to Tivo and DVR's, raised the question of copying for personal use without paying a license fee (even though some copying was obviously not for personal use, but for replicating for others). At one one time the Lover, the content providers like movie and recording studios, opposed the use of VCR's without payment to them, a rather luddite approach. The Cooks today are file sharing services and internet providers and others who provide new technology that facilitate copying.

The Thief? Usually a child or youth or student or young adult who just wants his or her content, and sees an opportunity to get it inexpensively. This is a candy store, and few of the thieves see themselves as stealing.

The Wife? The Court system, who has to sort this mess out. And the primary wife is the Ninth Circuit, the home of the industry seeking protection. One article explains the current conundrum:

The most prominent lawsuits have been brought against vendors of peer-to-peer file sharing software—Napster, Aimster, and Grokster—who have been held liable under the judicial doctrines of vicarious liability and contributory infringement for the copyright violations committed by their users. Although these secondary liability doctrines are well established in copyright law, the Napster and Aimster decisions have expanded the role that illicit intent to profit from others’ copyrighted works plays in determining liability. The expanded scrutiny of intent makes it difficult for developers of copying and distribution technologies to predict their potential liability and undermines the limited immunity for the development of useful technologies that the Supreme Court established in its Sony decision.

Sverker K. Hogberg, Columbia Law Review, http://www.columbialawreview.org/pdf/hogberg.pdf.

So, what approaches are being used? My bias is simple: the economic consequences of the law must be evaluated, and the legal rules that promote the most benefit for society chosen. This is quite different than a "property law" analysis urged by copyright owners; but, copyright law already imposes blanket licenses at times.

We'll think more about this in coming days.

The Cook, the Thief, the Lover, and the Wife . . .

That was a marvelously strange movie, years ago, with a wonderful title, written as bald allusion to British politics and Maggie Thatcher. The movie was a failure, despite some stunning visuals, but did present the question of who was responsible. And that's the issue in copyright today.

The Cook? Those who provide technology or software that facilitates copyright infringement. In our recent history, what became the VCR and allowed copying of video for use when we wanted, a precursor to Tivo and DVR's, raised the question of copying for personal use without paying a license fee (even though some copying was obviously not for personal use, but for replicating for others). At one one time the Lover, the content providers like movie and recording studios, opposed the use of VCR's without payment to them, a rather luddite approach. The Cooks today are file sharing services and internet providers and others who provide new technology that facilitate copying.

The Thief? Usually a child or youth or student or young adult who just wants his or her content, and sees an opportunity to get it inexpensively. This is a candy store, and few of the thieves see themselves as stealing.

The Wife? The Court system, who has to sort this mess out. And the primary wife is the Ninth Circuit, the home of the industry seeking protection. One article explains the current conundrum:

The most prominent lawsuits have been brought against vendors of peer-to-peer file sharing software—Napster, Aimster, and Grokster—who have been held liable under the judicial doctrines of vicarious liability and contributory infringement for the copyright violations committed by their users. Although these secondary liability doctrines are well established in copyright law, the Napster and Aimster decisions have expanded the role that illicit intent to profit from others’ copyrighted works plays in determining liability. The expanded scrutiny of intent makes it difficult for developers of copying and distribution technologies to predict their potential liability and undermines the limited immunity for the development of useful technologies that the Supreme Court established in its Sony decision.

Sverker K. Hogberg, Columbia Law Review, http://www.columbialawreview.org/pdf/hogberg.pdf.

So, what approaches are being used? My bias is simple: the economic consequences of the law must be evaluated, and the legal rules that promote the most benefit for society chosen. This is quite different than a "property law" analysis urged by copyright owners; but, copyright law already imposes blanket licenses at times.

We'll think more about this in coming days.