Source: https://www.mediainstitute.org/2014/01/13/the-tenth-circuit-discovers-copyrights-lost-ark-section-1063-encompasses-a-making-available-right/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 01:48:01+00:00

Document:
As I explored in a 2010 commentary1 and 2011 article,2 copyright enforcement actions against file-sharers brought the scope of the Copyright Act’s Section106(3) “distribution right” to center stage. Advocates for alleged file-sharers urged courts to impose upon copyright owners a requirement to prove that a third person downloaded the digital file in order for the uploader to be liable for copyright infringement. The trial judge in Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas ordered a retrial of the first major file-sharing verdict on the grounds that his original jury instructions failed to explain that actual dissemination of copyrighted sound recordings, rather than merely making them available for dissemination through an online peer-to-peer file sharing application, was required to establish “distribution” within meaning of the Copyright Act.3 Given the architecture of the Internet and privacy concerns, such proof could substantially raise the cost of pursuing such enforcement actions.
Neither court examined the legislative history of the Copyright Act.
From the passage of the first federal copyright law in 1790 through the 1909 Act that governed until 1978, copyright law recognized the “twofold right to make and to publish copies” as the “historic basis of copyright.”7 Had the 1976 Act retained the “right to publish” terminology, it is unlikely that the “making available” question would ever have arisen because the act of publication entails no requirement of receipt of a copyrighted work by a third person. Merely making a copyrighted work available to the public without authorization would violate the right to publish.
Other developments – such as the Sound Recording Amendments Act’s definition of “distribution to the public” to mean “any act by which duplicates of a phonogram are offered, directly or indirectly, to the general public or any section thereof” as well as the Geneva Convention for the Protection of Producers of Phonograms Against Unauthorized Duplication of Their Phonograms11 – confirm this intention.
Judicial clarification of the scope of the distribution right appeared likely as the two major file-sharing trials – Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas and Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum – wended their way to the appellate courts. Yet the appellate decisions did not ultimately reach this question. Nonetheless, the scope of the distribution right remains salient.
Just last month, the Tenth Circuit was the first to confront the scope of the distribution right since this legislative history research has come to light.12 Paralleling the Fourth Circuit’s public library scenario in Hotaling v. Church of Latter-Day Saints, Andrew Diversey sued the University of New Mexico for reproducing copies of his dissertation and making two copies available through its library without his consent. The circumstances were unusual in that Diversey appears to have been motivated primarily by a desire to protest the Linguistics Department’s failure to provide adequate mentoring or to review the final draft of his dissertation. Following unsatisfactory responses from university administrators, Diversey filed a copyright action alleging violations of the reproduction right and the distribution right. The district court dismissed the claims on the ground that Diversey failed to file his complaint within the Copyright Act’s three-year statute of limitations.
Thus, the Diversey case squarely holds that making a copyrighted work available to the public without authorization violates Section 106(3) of the Copyright Act. Hence, no proof of actual receipt by the public is required. Although the Diversey case did not involve Internet file-sharing, its invocation of the legislative history underlying the distribution right would apply equally to file-sharing cases. Furthermore, the court’s conception of “lending” a copy also supports a broad understanding of the distribution right. Time will tell whether other courts follow this path, but the Tenth Circuit has clearly brought the rich legislative history contained in Copyright’s lost ark into jurisprudence.
The “making available” issue will soon get attention in another important institution. The House Judiciary Committee will hold hearings on the “Scope of Copyright Protection” on Jan. 14, 2014.15 David Nimmer, with whom I collaborated on the sections in Nimmer on Copyright pertaining to the distribution right,16 will be one of the panelists. David’s testimony emphasizes the policy arguments in favor of confirming the making available right.17 In my view, Congress should go beyond merely confirming the “making available” interpretation and update copyright’s enforcement regime in light of the dramatic changes brought about by the Internet age. The statutory damages regime is woefully out of date and kilter,18 which may explain courts’ reluctance to follow Congress’s lead.19 Relatedly, Congress should consider developing a small-claims process for dealing with small-scale file-sharing enforcement. It would be a mistake, however, for Congress to impose artificial requirements (such as evidence that files placed in publicly accessible networks are actually downloaded) to vindicate copyright owners’ core protections.
1. See Peter S. Menell, “Exhuming Copyright’s Lost Ark to Interpret the Distribution Right,” Media Institute, Intellectual Property Issues (Oct. 20, 2010), <https://www.mediainstitute.org/2010/10/20/exhuming-copyrights-lost-ark-to-interpret-the-distribution-right/>.
2. See Peter S. Menell, “In Search of Copyright’s Lost Ark: Interpreting the Right to Distribute in the Internet Age,” 59 J. Copyright Soc’y U.S.A. 1 (2011), <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1679514>.
3. See Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas, 579 F. Supp. 2d 1210 (D. Minn. 2008).
4. See National Car Rental System, Inc. v. Computer Associates International, Inc., 991 F.2d 426, 434 (8th Cir. 1993).
5. See Hotaling v. Church of Latter-Day Saints,118 F.3d 199 (4th Cir. 1997).
7. See U.S. Copyright Office, Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law, at 22 (July 1961).
8. See H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 88th Cong, Copyright Law Revision, Part 3: Preliminary Draft for Revised U.S. Copyright Law and Discussions and Comments on the Draft, Transcript of Meeting on Preliminary Draft for Revised U.S. Copyright Law: Discussions of §§ 5-8, at 128 (Comm. Print 1964).
9. See id. at 109-10.
10. See Staff of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 89th Cong., Copyright Law Revision, Part 6: Supplementary Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law: 1965 Revision Bill 13-14 (Comm. Print 1965).
11. Peter S. Menell, “In Search of Copyright’s Lost Ark: Interpreting the Right to Distribute in the Internet Age,” 59 J. Copyright Soc’y U.S.A. 50-51 (2011).
12. Diversey v. Schmidly, 2013 WL 6727517 (10th Cir. Dec. 23, 2013).
14. Id. at *4 n.7.
15. Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, The Scope of Copyright Protection (Jan. 14, 2014), <http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/113th/hear_01142014.html>.
16. See Melville Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright §§4.03, 4.04[D], 8.11 (2013).
17. See Peter S. Menell, “In Search of Copyright’s Lost Ark: Interpreting the Right to Distribute in the Internet Age,” 59 J. Copyright Soc’y U.S.A. 64-66 (2011).
18. See Peter S. Menell, “This American Copyright Life: Reflections on Re-equilibrating Copyright for the Internet Act,” J. Copyright Society (forthcoming 2014) (42nd Brace Memorial Lecture), available at <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2347674>.
Making Interpretive and Policy Sense of Viacom v. YouTube and UMG Recordings v. Shelter Capital Partners,” Media Institute (May 3, 2012), <https://www.mediainstitute.org/2012/05/03/judicial-regulation-of-digital-copyright-windfalls-making-interpretive-and-policy-sense-of-viacom-v-youtube-and-umg-recordings-v-shelter-capital-partners/>.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.