Source: http://www.copyhype.com/2011/11/sopa-new-remedies-for-existing-liability/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 05:50:23+00:00

Document:
posted November 14, 2011 by Terry Hart.
That every person for every injury done him in his goods, land or person, ought to have remedy by the course of the law of the land and ought to have justice and right for the injury done to him freely without sale, fully without any denial, and speedily without delay, according to the law of the land. 1Chief Justice Thomas Philips, The Constitutional Right to a Remedy, 78 New York University Law Review 1309 (2003), paraphrasing Arkansas Constitution art. II, § 13; Illinois Constitution art. I, § 12; Maine Constitution art. I, § 13; Maryland Constitution Decl. of Rights, art. 19; Massachusetts Constitution pt. 1, § 11; Minnesota Constitution art. 1 § 8; New Hampshire Constitution pt. I, art. 14; Rhode Island Constitution art. I, § 5; Vermont Constitution ch. I, art. 4; and Wisconsin Constitution art. I, § 9.
Ineffective remedies are often just as bad as no remedy at all. While innovative, sustainable services continue to develop, offering consumers exciting and convenient new ways to enjoy content that remunerates creators, rogue actors still find it easy to profit off the misappropriation of someone else’s time and talents.
The Stop Online Piracy Act (H.R. 3261) gives creators more tools to address this type of commercial piracy. Since it was introduced, however, it has been subject to much criticism, and with the House Judiciary Committee holding a hearing on the bill Wednesday, the criticism is sure to continue.
While some of the criticism is legitimate — few bills are perfect when they are first introduced, hence the need for hearings — a lot of it is unfounded. One thing that should be kept in mind is that SOPA does not expand the scope of copyright law, of what is protected or what is not.
The Stop Online Piracy Act creates new remedies, it does not create any new liability.
To see why SOPA doesn’t expand the scope of copyright law, compare its definitions to current law. These definitions, for sites “dedicated to the theft of U.S. property”, incorporate existing standards of liability. That is, sites or services that fall within the scope of these definitions are already potentially liable for copyright infringement. All Section 103 of SOPA does is give copyright holders a new tool to more effectively protect their work from commercial misappropriation.
The first definition of a site “dedicated to the theft of U.S. property” under SOPA is one that “is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in, offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates” copyright infringement.
(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person’s knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. 217 USC § 1201(a)(2).
But in a broader sense, this definition draws upon the theory of liability originally set forth in Sony Corporation v. Universal City Studios — the “Betamax” case. There, the Supreme Court held that the sale of a good “does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes. Indeed, it need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing uses.” This holding borrowed from the staple article of commerce doctrine in patent law. A corollary to this doctrine is that “where an article is ‘good for nothing else’ but infringement … there is no injustice in presuming or imputing an intent to infringe.” 3Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer v. Grokster, 545 US 913, 932 (2005).
There is recognition in Sony itself that its holding on contributory infringement doesn’t extend to products or services which have no purpose other than infringement. Justice Blackmun said in his dissent, “If virtually all of the product’s use, however, is to infringe, contributory liability may be imposed; if no one would buy the product for noninfringing purposes alone, it is clear that the manufacturer is purposely profiting from the infringement, and that liability is appropriately imposed.” Blackmun’s dissent bore a strong resemblance to an earlier draft of what, at one point, was the majority opinion in Sony. 4Jonathan Band & Andrew J. McLaughlin, The Marshall Papers: A Peek Behind the Scenes at the Making of Sony v. Universal, 17 Columbia – VLA Journal of Law & the Arts 427 (1993). The language of that draft bears an even stronger resemblance to SOPA’s definition of a site “dedicated to theft of U.S. property”: “Sony can be liable for contributory infringement only if the Betamax’s ‘most conspicuous purpose’ or ‘primary use’ is an infringing use.” 5Draft Majority Opinion of Associate Justice Harry A. Blackmun at 35 (June 13, 1983).
When some of your great grandfathers were little boys, there was a great war between England and France. Many of the battles were fought at sea. England had good ships and brave sailors and bold captains in plenty; but the best sailor and the boldest captain of them all was Lord Horatio Nelson.
He laughed: and putting the glass to his blind eye, he said: “I don’t see the signal. Keep mine flying for closer battle. Nail it to the mast.” And he kept on fighting till he won the battle; and for his great victory he was made lord admiral of the fleet. 6The Brave Lord Nelson, Timely Topics, Vol. v. No. 1, pg 286 (Sept. 7, 1900).
The second definition of a site “dedicated to theft of U.S. property” under SOPA is a site where “the operator of the U.S.-directed site is taking, or has taken, deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability of the use of the U.S.-directed site to carry out acts that constitute” copyright infringement.
The doctrine of willful blindness is well established in criminal law. Many criminal statutes require proof that a defendant acted knowingly or willfully, and courts applying the doctrine of willful blindness hold that defendants cannot escape the reach of these statutes by deliberately shielding themselves from clear evidence of critical facts that are strongly suggested by the circumstances. The traditional rationale for this doctrine is that defendants who behave in this manner are just as culpable as those who have actual knowledge. It is also said that persons who know enough to blind themselves to direct proof of critical facts in effect have actual knowledge of those facts.
The doctrine of willful blindness applies to copyright law just as much as it does to law in general. 7In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, 650 (7th Cir. 2003), “Willful blindness is knowledge, in copyright law as it is in the law generally”; See also Island Software and Computer Service v. Microsoft, 413 F.3d 257, 263 (2nd Cir. 2005).
The Court dubs this “inducement”, and it has been recognized as a form of secondary liability within copyright law for decades. In 1971, for example, the Second Circuit said that “one 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.” 8Gershwin Publishing v. Columbia Artists Management, 443 F.2d 1159, 1162.
The Stop Online Piracy Act incorporates long standing principles of liability, principles that have applied to service providers and web site operators since the beginnings of the world wide web. The actions that would subject a provider to SOPA’s provisions are the same ones that would subject it to a copyright infringement suit under existing law and are actions that would not be protected under DMCA safe harbors.
What has been missing has been effective remedies against operators and providers that clearly fall within the scope of this liability: sites that have been purposely designed for the sole purpose of infringement, sites whose operators have taken deliberate steps to blind themselves from the use of their sites to engage in wrongdoing, and sites whose operators have actively promoted the use of their sites for piracy. For smaller content producers and individuals especially, this lack of effective recourse has proven damaging.
The goal of SOPA is to remedy this lack of effective recourse, and ensure that creators have “justice and right” freely, fully, and without delay for the injury caused by rogue sites.
1. ↑ Chief Justice Thomas Philips, The Constitutional Right to a Remedy, 78 New York University Law Review 1309 (2003), paraphrasing Arkansas Constitution art. II, § 13; Illinois Constitution art. I, § 12; Maine Constitution art. I, § 13; Maryland Constitution Decl. of Rights, art. 19; Massachusetts Constitution pt. 1, § 11; Minnesota Constitution art. 1 § 8; New Hampshire Constitution pt. I, art. 14; Rhode Island Constitution art. I, § 5; Vermont Constitution ch. I, art. 4; and Wisconsin Constitution art. I, § 9.
2. ↑ 17 USC § 1201(a)(2).
3. ↑ Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer v. Grokster, 545 US 913, 932 (2005).
4. ↑ Jonathan Band & Andrew J. McLaughlin, The Marshall Papers: A Peek Behind the Scenes at the Making of Sony v. Universal, 17 Columbia – VLA Journal of Law & the Arts 427 (1993).
5. ↑ Draft Majority Opinion of Associate Justice Harry A. Blackmun at 35 (June 13, 1983).
6. ↑ The Brave Lord Nelson, Timely Topics, Vol. v. No. 1, pg 286 (Sept. 7, 1900).
7. ↑ In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, 650 (7th Cir. 2003), “Willful blindness is knowledge, in copyright law as it is in the law generally”; See also Island Software and Computer Service v. Microsoft, 413 F.3d 257, 263 (2nd Cir. 2005).
8. ↑ Gershwin Publishing v. Columbia Artists Management, 443 F.2d 1159, 1162.
Curiously, the bill doesn’t provide any protection against copyfraud, allowing anyone to claim copyright to anything (including already public domain material) without verification of their legal status as copyright holders.
What protections above and beyond what already exist in Section 506 do you think are needed? And is “copyfraud” really a problem? Could you cite a real-life example for us?
Well people can and do claim copyright in material that is in the public domain all the time. “West Side Story”, “A Fifth of Beethoven” and “A Lover’s Concerto” come immediately to mind. But protection only goes to the new material, not to the public domain material. No fraud is involved.
I know Prof. Mazzone has written on the topic: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=787244 I don’t remember what all he argues (I read it a while back), but I do remember thinking he had a solution in search of a problem.
Do you think that having to send MORE THAN ONE MILLION takedown notices to one site is right?
Can you see that it’s possible for one or two of those notices to be in error? Do you really thing Warner was using it maliciously… or the fact that there needed to be over a million take-down notices is reasonable?
Right. SOPA is busy focusing on the problem, which is that DMCA notices are inadequate to deal with sites like Hotfile where infringement is so rampant. Pointing to the Hotfile situation and saying that Warner Bros.’s possible copyfraud is the problem misses the forest for a few trees. The DMCA provides penalties for misuse of takedown notices, and if Warner Bros. is liable for that, then so be it. But I think it makes sense to focus on the cause (rampant infringement on Hotfile) and not the symptom (a few mistakes by Warner Bros. while fighting with inadequate tools).
A few mistakes? They had a bot dedicated to fraudulent claims. He hit me so I hit him back doesn’t work for grade schoolers but its cool if its a giant company with so much legal funding no one can hope to really accomplish anything.
Copyfraud seems to me to be one of those virtual problems that people bring up in discussions like these. “Virtual” because claiming copyright and the ability to enforce that claim are two different things entirely. As long as a mechanism exists for the purpose of evaluating conflicting claims – such as when one party claims copyright over a work that another party claims to be in the public domain – the interests of both parties are adequately protected.
… because claiming copyright and the ability to enforce that claim are two different things entirely. As long as a mechanism exists for the purpose of evaluating conflicting claims – such as when one party claims copyright over a work that another party claims to be in the public domain – the interests of both parties are adequately protected.
The line between a claim of ownership and the ability to enforce that claim is not nearly so bright as you suggest, at least not in SOPA. A person claiming ownership of a work may send a notice to a payment provider of advertising network claiming that a site is “dedicated to the theft of U.S. property,” and the payment processor or advertising network is then required to (“shall”) stop doing business with that site (unless the owner of the site jumps through various hoops and agrees to certain onerous terms in order to contest the accusation). There may be penalties for misrepresentation, but the claim itself is sufficient to impose obligations on third parties to stop doing business.
If you are such a site, than yeah.. i can see how you’re upset.
Otherwise this is a compromise. If were up to me, the language would be much stronger, and the scope much broader.
If you’re a LEGAL site, there’s ZERO difference between this and the DMCA. You still have the same protections as under DMCA, and there is NO further burden.
Making up boogey-man scare tactics is nothing new… the same stuff was said about the DMCA before it was passed.
The difference is all revenue streams don’t get cut off as soon as someone accuses you. If your a start up that is used 99% of the time for legitimate purposes if someone reports them for a 1% mistake they can be bankrupt by the time they get it straightened out, legal fees aren’t cheap and any downtime just means your customers find someone else. This greatly increases 3rd party liability because any site that provides a communication service (i.e. facebook, youtube, twitter) can be destroyed because of one bad user. Obviously those companies are now big enough to survive and fight erroneous claims, but they didn’t start that way. But even still how long will it take Viacom make a claim against youtube under this, I bet the letter is already typed and addressed.
If one user on my blog posts a link to a movie and it gets reported I can’t say my site wasn’t used for that, now I have to prove its not dedicated to it. Seeing as how rojadirecta is still waiting for their day in court I highly doubt it will be as easy as you claim. A lot of content owners have already expressed dissatisfaction sites that aren’t dedicated to infringement that will not be able to afford to fight this. Like music blogs that the labels provided all the cases of infringement that were sited and the internet wayback machine.
This bill PROTECTS site owners who act resonably.
You’re not going to get cut off for one post to an infringing site. If you happen to get a notice from a creator, as long as you take down the offending link, nothing will happen to you.
Besides, the example you gave is NOT WHAT THE BILL IS ABOUT.
If you’re running TPB or NinjaVideo.. than yeah, you will get shut off and you do deserve it.
I agree its NOT WHAT THE BILL IS ABOUT, the problem is it is so broadly written that it allows for things like my example. Those are sites content owners have already called rogue sites and already have expressed interest in shutting down. Do you really believe that a horribly written law won’t effect people other than the targets you want to see burn?
” If you happen to get a notice from a creator, as long as you take down the offending link, nothing will happen to you.” By the time I get my notice I am already blocked from the DNS and receiving no revenue. If I have to argue fair use, that this was a one-off case of infringement or something along those lines I could be out of business before a court says what I was doing was perfectly legal. Punishment should not come before it is proved I am in violation of the law. Infringement is not a “you know it when you see it issue.” As I already stated WB has claimed infringement on content it provided to blogs, thanks to ICE those blogs are still gone and have been threatened with criminal charges if they dare to fight the claim. Similar mistakes in the future can put companies out of business with SOPA. This bill allows the content owner to file a complaint that has no judicial review.
I agree shut down TPB and ninjavideo(which was already shut down, without SOPA), but this bill goes way too far. There is too much liability for anyone who allows user generated content and the is absolutely no due process. I am all for a law that takes down the people who you like to shout THIS LAW IS INTENDED TO TARGET, but this bill they want to pass will harm way too many innocent bystanders and new companies trying to legally compete with big industry players.

References: § 13
 § 12
 § 13
 art. 19
 § 11
 art. 1
 § 8
 art. 14
 § 5
 art. 4
 § 9
 § 1201
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 13
 § 12
 § 13
 art. 19
 § 11
 art. 1
 § 8
 art. 14
 § 5
 art. 4
 § 9
 § 1201
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.