Category: Intellectual Property


Copyright pirates, they’re certainly no Boy Scouts

And if they were … well, I guess they wouldn’t be able to get this new activity badge, would they? The MSNBC story notes:

Boy Scouts in the Los Angeles area will now be able to earn a merit patch for learning about the evils of downloading pirated movies and music. . . .

The movie industry has developed the curriculum. “Working with the Boy Scouts of Los Angeles, we have a real opportunity to educate a new generation about how movies are made, why they are valuable, and hopefully change attitudes about intellectual property theft,” Dan Glickman, chairman of the Motion Picture Association of America, said in a statement Friday. Scouts will be instructed in the basics of copyright law and learn how to identify five types of copyrighted works and three ways copyrighted materials may be stolen.

An interesting way to try to rein in the Young and the Lawless, no? There are obvious issues here — in particular, whether the Boy Scouts should be turning over instruction on a somewhat controversial issue to an advocacy group. On the other hand, if executed well, this could be a good idea. Given the widespread use of file sharing programs, and misunderstandings about law, I suspect that many Scout-age youth could use a sobering reminder that they can’t just copy anything and everything.


For the True IP Geek: Podcasts of IP Conferences

The Berkeley Center for Law & Technology has now made podcasts of its fabulous August IP conference available online here.

And the UC Davis Law Review has made our March “Intellectual Property and Social Justice” conference available as free podcasts on iTunes.

Putting audio of academic conferences online is a tremendous advance. It makes the leading scholarship available worldwide to those with access to the Internet. At the same time, it enables scholars who cannot attend multiple sessions occurring simultaneously to listen to what they missed–or to review sessions they found especially valuable.

Law Reviews should make this a standard practice.

The obvious next step: YouTube.

Net Neutrality: Law, Money, and Culture


Bill Moyers enters the fray in the raging legal debate over net neutrality tonight, with a documentary on PBS. The Wu/Yoo debate on the topic gets the central issues on the table: should we permit dominant ISP’s (like Verizon and Comcast) to discriminate among the “bits” on their networks, giving more rapid service to preferred sites? I’ve offered some tentative thoughts on the matter, and these continue in that vein.

The net neutrality battle may offer us a classic efficiency-equity tradeoff. Imagine a world where everything on the internet came to you four times faster, but dominant ISP’s could cut deals with certain sites that made their content come 10 times faster. On many classic economic accounts, that would be Pareto-optimal–everyone’s better off. As some very smart people (like Philip Weiser) have claimed, that differential pricing could finally lead to revenue levels that would remedy the US’s unacceptably slow pace of getting people connected to broadband (and faster) networks.

But on the other hand, what about the competitive disadvantage of those unable to cut the deals? Compare this article reprinted in the Boston Pilot (the Boston Roman Catholic Archdiocese’s official paper) touting net neutrality and this piece from Brookings-AEI disparaging it as a form of “price control.” The economists just tend to miss the cultural importance of media consolidation. That’s what convinced me that the stakes are ultimately a “battle for mindshare” (to use Hannibal Travis’s evocative metaphor), and can’t be cast in simple economic terms.

Read More


This Is My Domain, Well Everyone’s Really: Google and Full Text Public Domain Books

library 2.JPG

I remember watching Tarzan as a kid and hearing the declaration “The jungle…this is my domain…and I protect those who come here. For I am Tarzan, lord of the jungle” at the beginning of every episode. Well Google has taken up the public domain cry and in effect has said “This is public domain and we share it with all. For we are Google, lord of information.” Google’s latest cool offering is in Google books. As Google puts it “Starting today, you can go to Google Book Search and download full copies of out-of-copyright books to read at your own pace. You’re free to choose from a diverse collection of public domain titles — from well-known classics to obscure gems.”

The CNET article about the service notes that Google seems to be taking a somewhat conservative approach to the definition of what is in the public domain including screening access based on different country’s laws. Indeed Google cautions users to “please confirm the legality of your actions. The rules of public domain differ from country to country, and we can’t offer guidance on whether any specific use is allowed. Please don’t assume that a book’s appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world.”

My guess is that the disclaimer is a way to combat some publisher who argues Google is liable for contributory infringement. And to me the country access restriction is an interesting way to try and honor differing countries copyright laws without only using the most restrictive definitions, but I wonder whether Google will use that same technology to honor reduced access to this information for political demands. This point was at issue with China already.

Finally some of you may want to check out Paul Heald’s (Georgia) abstract and summary for his empirical study of public domain and copyrighted best sellers. The study examines the hypothesis that copyright extension is necessary to ensure that copyright holders would “restore older works and further disseminate them to the public.” I heard Paul present the piece at the IPSC conference a few weeks ago and his use of the data to reach his conclusion about whether works are under-exploited is worth a look. I won’t tell you the conclusion because that would be a spoiler.


Copyright and Bar Exam Questions

pmbr.gifA federal district court recently held that PMBR was liable for a copyright violation for using questions from the Multistate Bar Examination in its classes and materials. PMBR, the “Preliminary Multistate Bar Review,” is a bar exam preparation course. The opinion is available here.

The court concluded that many of the questions in PMBR’s materials are similar to those on the Multistate Bar Exam. In assessing damages, the court noted that “[s]ince plaintiff lost no hypothetical royalties, I cannot award actual damages in compensation. I can and will, however, factor the uniquely proprietary nature of the infringed questions

into apportionment of defendants’ profits.” Accordingly, the court awarded the plaintiffs nearly $12 million, one third of PMBR’s gross revenues during the time period of the violations. Moreover, the court held:

Defendants will be enjoined from copying, duplicating, distributing, selling, publishing, reproducing, renting, leasing, offering or otherwise transferring or communicating in any manner, orally or in written, printed, photographic or other form, including any communication in any class or other presentation, any questions obtained directly from any of NCBE’s copyrighted secure tests.

Hat tip:


What Does It Mean to Be Interoperable?

PlugsInteroperability and content protection (a/k/a DRM) have been much in the news lately. As Deven blogged below, the French DADVSI law recently passed the French Parliament and then last week was modified by the Constitutional Council. Meanwhile, Apple is grappling with Norwegian regulators over the interoperability issue as well. And Randy Picker recently raised the issue of interoperability and video game servers over on the University of Chicago blog.

In the abstract, most people are in favor of interoperability, just like they are in favor of lower taxes, bigger houses, and better-tasting beer. But when it gets down to nuts and bolts, what’s the best way to provide for interoperability? More specifically, does an interoperable content-handling device need to protect the content in exactly the same way as the original device (which would arguably limit the amount of innovation)? Is there some sort of threshold of “good enough” protection that could be identified and mandated (and if so, by whom)? Or is it solely up to one party to decide?

Of course, there are many who hate content protection in all its forms; their answer is no doubt that the law should provide the broadest exception for interoperability possible, because that weakens content protection the most. This post is not really aimed at those people; debating the limits of an interoperability exception with diehard content protection opponents is a bit like discussing Carthaginian-Roman relations with Cato the Elder.

Read More


French Interoperability: Reversed, Pinned, and Twisted into a Pretzel?

combo lock 2.JPG

In what has been a whirlwind of changes, the French law to promote interoperability has apparently been eviscerated as unconstitutional. What began in around March as a strong stance mandating that owners of proprietary DRM systems share information to allow interoperability and prevent one company from dominating the online music market has become what appears to be an industry influenced law that, as the article notes, may generate the opposite results. The law is called the Dadvsi law (wikipedia entry here)

The law was seen by some as aimed against Apple because “iTunes files downloaded through Apple’s music service are protected by the company’s FairPlay DRM technology, designed to play exclusively on Apple devices such as the iPod.”

So how much influence did Apple and other industry players exert on this process? I ask this because not only did the interoperability mandate vanish but according to the article reverse engineering to gain interoperability (formerly allowed) is not only prohibited but may be fined; a new licensing system will be established so that those wishing to use the systems will pay a license; and the decriminalization of file sharing with “fine[s] of 150 euros ($191) or 38 euros ($48.50) for uploading or downloading music respectively” is now “a criminal offense and potentially face several years in prison or a fine of 500,000 euros ($638,200).”

Although the fines dor file sharing seem to have been almost written by the music and tech industry, perhaps most interesting change is the licensing system. What do patent, market defenders, and others think? It is unclear what rate the French government will impose through the licensing authority but nonetheless will a system that requires a company to license its technology help or hurt interoperability?


Froomkin’s Law Review Copyright Wiki

copyright-symbol1a.jpgOne of the things I always attempt to do with my scholarly work is to ensure that I keep the copyright in my name. This gives me the maximum freedom in how I choose to use and distribute my work in the future. Law reviews have a welter of different policies with regard to copyright that sometimes vary from year to year and from author to author. After negotiating, I have been able to secure copyright in my work with most journals, with just a few exceptions. Having knowledge about a journal’s past copyright practices can be very helpful. I know of at least one author who was told by a law review that it was against their policy to give him copyright. This was false, since the law review had given me copyright in my piece in the very same issue. Once he told them about the discrepancy, the journal editors quickly changed their position and gave him copyright.

To help bring more clarity to the confusing and contradictory world of law review copyright experiences, Michael Froomkin has developed a wiki to track the copyright policies of various law reviews. He describes the project as follows:

The purpose of this website is for legal academics and others to share our copyright experiences with law journals and other legal publishers. As academics, we have an interest in ensuring the widest dissemination of our work. Historically, Law Journals have tended to use standard-form copyright agreements that reqire a copyright assignment, and have tended to impose unreasonable restrictions on our rights to share and re-use our own work.

This is starting to change. Increasingly, law journals, are adopting reasonable policies, or at least are open to negotiation. Due to the transitory nature of student-run law journal staffs, some staffs are actually unaware of their own past practices.

On the pages linked from here, legal writers describe their copyright experiences and law journals describe their policies. The information is as good or bad as what you contribute to it.

Hat tip: Paul Caron


IP Wars

YouTube has a good but not great take on Darth Vader’s little known brother, Chad. I wouldn’t watch all the way to the end but the first three minutes are solid and for any fan of the Star Wars films there are some good plays on the dialogue and scenes. Which leads me to a perhaps sad yet currently inevitable note. The IP Wars drone on and YouTube faces a copyright lawsuit.


Perhaps someday a young attorney or scholar will ask an aging IP attorney “You fought in the IP Wars?” with awe because we will have unraveled how to develop, and let’s face it, make money on information yet manage to keep the information free-flowing so that expression and education can flourish. In a sense I think that conundrum is what Professor Yochai Benkler highlights in his book the Wealth of Networks. As someone wrestling with these questions, I anticipate and welcome your thoughts on the big question but here are the details of the YouTube suit to give some context of one slice of the IP Wars and perhaps offer facts with which to test the possible solutions. In addition, thanks to Bruce’s entry Don’t Write Angry for noting when arguments become more yelling matches rather than explorations of what to do to fix the problem. Now on with the current episode of IP Wars.

Apparently someone posted the video of the Reginald Denny beating during the 1992 riot in Los Angeles. According to the article, Robert Tur, the man who made the film, has sued claiming that the posting hurts his ability to license the video and that YouTube has profited from more than 1,000 viewings of the film. It seems that rather than ask YouTube to take down the clip under DMCA provisions, Mr. Tur filed suit. YouTube removed the clip after it knew about the lawsuit.

Whether Mr.Tur really makes that much money from licensing would be interesting to know. I frankly had not thought of the video until the lawsuit and would not want to pay to see it. Furthermore, it seems that historians should be allowed to show the clip in its entirety but of course that position runs smack into fair use problems. Nonetheless, consider that a Saturday Night Live clip was a hit on YouTube. It had at least 5 million downloads (assumedly from many who did not see the show which in 2004 seemed pleased with peaks of around seven million viewers) but NBC asked that it be removed. NBC does sell the clip on iTunes but it also allowed the clip to be seen on its Web site in an embedded player. I wonder whether NBC just hates great, free advertising or whether it really believes it can make more money by aggressive policing of its IP.


Don’t Write Angry!

GroundhogWay too much writing about copyright issues is done by first, allowing your blood pressure and heart rate to rise as high as possible, and then second doing your entire article (or blog comment) in “steamed” mode. This tends to lead to not-so-insightful analysis. An example appeared in this morning’s Washington Post in Steven Pearlstein’s article, “A Sound Marketplace For Recorded Music,” which focuses (eventually) on the record labels’ lawsuit filed last month against XM Satellite Radio.

The RIAA complaint alleges that XM’s new “XM + MP3” service, which transmits to XM’s associated “Inno” receiver, falls outside the statutory license provisions for digital music transmissions and therefore violates the Copyright Act. There’s some interesting issues there, but they’re hard to glean from Pearlstein’s article.

First, Pearlstein makes the standard swipes at “monopolists” shutting down “innovation.” This isn’t much more illuminating than the standard rhetoric from large copyright owners, that “pirates” are destroying incentives. It gets very murky when you realize that “innovation” and “piracy” are not distinct categories — you can have innovative pirates. Whether a given service is or should be legal can’t be determined based on these labels, unless you’re an extremist.

Read More