Category: Copyright

Grokster all over again?

I’m not a lawyer, but two related stories caught my eye today:

First, on the question of whether “making a file available” counts as copyright infringement, a New York court says it does.  Obviously this isn’t the final word, but the pessimist in me sees this as the start of a trend. On one hand, libraries and video rental stores could be liable for making materials “available,” but on the other hand what good is a right to “distribution” without the ability to the places that a copyrighted work is available.

C-Net forgets Grokster today in reporting about Muxtape and Mixwit, two services that allow users to upload files to share with others. While the article seems to say that the services are likely safe under the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA. However, quite unlike YouTube or Google, these services might be seen as creating a business model around infringement. I don’t completely agree with that standard, but haven’t we heard this before?

Shaming Infringers

Winny copyright infringers ‘should be identified’ : DAILY YOMIURI ONLINE

Japan is figuratively considering bringing back the stocks for copyright infringers:

a report on copyright violation issues concerning the person-to-person file sharing software Winny, proposing that Internet service providers should be required to disclose the identity of customers who have used the software to illegally exchange copyrighted movies and music. …

The service providers are required to protect the confidentiality of communications in line with the Constitution. However, the law stipulating the responsibilities of the providers allows them to disclose a person’s identity in cases where that person has clearly violated other people’s rights.

I don’t know Japanese culture well enough to say how this could turn out. It seems like an obvious effort to shame infringers, but it’s possible that it could have the opposite or even no effect.  On the other hand…

Closet pop idols breathed a little easier Thursday after the announcement of a deal between video site YouTube and a large recording rights body, allowing punters to record and post their own versions of songs by major artists like Mr. Children and Spitz without fear of legal reprisal.

Covering songs is a pretty common practice among J-Pop fans, although it appears from this article that lip syncing vids will still be off limits.

A Turn-it-in Story

Patry shares a good story about a high school student who risked a failing grade by not “turning it [her paper] in” to the plagiarism checking service.  He closes with an analysis I completely agree with (and even uses the correct pluralization of “bravo”):

Brava to the student, her teacher, and her supportive father. I have complained numerous times about efforts to “educate” students about copyright. Teaching students that they have to agree to whatever terms a private company imposes on them because their own school district will refuse to award a grade unless they do, teaches, in my opinion, the wrong message: first, it assumes all students are cheats; second, it teaches them that their own teachers are willing to abdicate their responsibility to private companies; and third, it teaches them their own teachers do not care what the terms imposed by those private companies are. I don’t think those are the value we want our students to learn.

History suggests copyright crusade is a lost cause

History suggests copyright crusade is a lost cause (Ars Technica)

The fundamental lesson is that property rights are not—and never have been—created by Congressional fiat. Property rights emerge spontaneously from the social fabric of a community. …
If copyrights are a form of property right, then the history of American property rights provides clues about how the copyright system will need to evolve in the future. It suggests that Congress’s current strategy of imposing ever more draconian penalties for breaking laws that lack broad public support is a recipe for failure.

I couldn’t have said it better myself.