Source: https://cyber.harvard.edu/ilaw/P2P.html
Timestamp: 2017-10-22 17:34:22
Document Index: 127077309

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 101', '§ 201', '§1001', '§1002', '§1001', '§1002', '§1008', '§1201', '§512', '§512']

Berkman Center::Harvard Law School::Internet Law Program::July 1-5 2002::Peer-to-Peer Copying
By William Fisher and Christopher Yang.
While both the digitization of information and the concept of file sharing have existed for many years, the advent of the Internet has made P2P copying possible on a scale never before imaginable. The industry that, thus far, has been affected most dramatically and visibly by the new technology is the music industry. The main reason why the action in this field has been especially intense is that musical files -- especially when compressed using the popular MP3 format -- occupy relatively little space and thus are easily transmitted through P2P networks. That circumstance underlay the enormous popularity of Napster, a modified P2P system, and Gnutella (a �purer� example of the P2P model without an intervening server). Using these systems, it is possible for individuals to create libraries of their favorite songs by downloading free copies of them from the Internet. Alternatively, individuals can "rip" MP3 files from their own CDs using inexpensive or, in many cases, free software designed exclusively for that purpose. Users can then play-back these files in a variety of ways. They can listen to them on a variety of portable MP3 devices or directly from their hard drives, they can send their files via email to other music fans, or they can upload their files to the Internet for anyone to enjoy. And because the music is in digital form, each successive copy sounds as good as the original. The net result has been a radical and rapid shoft in the way music is distributed and consumed. But music is only the first industry to feel the force of this technological revolution. As the bandwidth available to ordinary computer users grows, as file-compression technologies for other types of media proliferate, and as the size of hard drives increases, all other entertainment industries will likely be transformed in similar ways.
It is crucial that, before beginning the module, you have at least a rough understanding of the relevant technology and the principal doctrines of copyright law. If you feel uncomfortable in either dimension, you should consult the attached primers on digital music and the basics of copyright. You should then peruse the case studies, which focus on the legal battle over Napster and the legal status of alternatives to Napster. Next, we suggest that you examine the Readings associated with the module, following as many of the associated links as you find interesting. At that point, you should be well prepared to consider -- either on your own or, better yet, in one of our electronic fora -- the Discussion Topics. The module concludes with a substantial body of Optional Related Material.
The Internet-related controversy that generated the most heat and light during the past year was the titanic struggle between the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and Napster.com. Napster is not a traditional search engine, but a protocol that enables individual computer users to share information concerning the contents of their hard drives. Specifically, it enables a user interested in obtaining an MP3 copy of a particular song to search the drives of other Napster participants for the song in question -- and then, after locating a copy, to download it to his or her own drive. The service proved extraordinarily popular, espcially (but not exclusively) among college students. During the period of maximum usage of the system (winter 2001), a high percentage of the traffic on many university networks consisted of Napster searches and downloads.
Aware that its system facilitated the nonpermissive reproduction of copyrighted material, Napster employed various tactics to minimize its exposure to liability: it neither stored nor cached any digital music (infringing or otherwise) on its servers; it trumpeted a "Copyright Policy" in which it disclaimed responsibility for the activities of its subscribers and insisted that they promise not to violate the law; and it promised to "respond expeditiously to claims of copyright infringement committed using [its] service." Unimpressed, the RIAA filed suit, accusing Napster of both contributory and vicarious copyright infringement.
In its defense, Napster made three legal arguments. First, it invoked the protection of sections 512(a) and 512(d) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which provides to the operators of "transitory digital network connections" and "Information Location Tools" "safe harbors" against liability for copyright infringement. Second, Napster argued that peer-to-peer copying of digital files using its system constitutes ""the noncommercial use by a consumer" of "a digital audio
recording device," which, pursuant to section 1008 of the Audio Home Recording Act, cannot constitute copyright infringement. Because its members are not engaged in copyright infringement, Napster argued, it plainly could not be liable for contributory copyright infringement. Finally, Napster insisted that a significant percentage of the uses of its system involves lawful copying of musical files -- either because the owners of the copyrights in the songs in question do not object to (indeed, encourage) the duplication of their works or because the character of the copying is such as to make it a "fair use." Consequently, Napster argued, its system is manifestly "capable of substantial noninfringing uses," and thus is immunized against liability for contributory copyright infringement by the decision of the Supreme Court in the Sony case.
At the trial-court level, Napter's arguments fared badly. In April of 2000, Judge Marilyn Patel rejected Napster's invocation of DMCA 512(a). On August 10, 2000, Judge Patel rejected all of Napster's remaining arguments and granted a preliminary injunction against the continued operation of the system. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was somewhat less hostile. One day after Judge Patel's second ruling, the Court of Appeals stayed the imposition of the injunction pending an appeal. Oral argument on the appeal was heard on October 2, 2000. The tenor of the questions asked by the three-judge panel suggested that they were more receptive than Judge Patel to Napster's position.
During the next several months, a complex set of maneuvers erratically but seemingly inexorably tightened the noose on Napster. In March, Napster agreed voluntarily to halt illegal song trades by implementing a filtering system designed to catch copyrighted materials. In response, Judge Patel opted not to shut down the service and ordered the record labels to assist Napster in identifying individual infringing file names, as well as song titles and artist names to be blocked. Within a week of setting up its filters, the average number of MP3 files shared by Napster users fell close to 60% according to analysts at Webnoize. By early April, this number had stabilized to 36% and Napster had blocked 311,000 individual songs, as well as 142,000 various misspellings of those song names or artist names. But in a hearing on April 10, 2001, Judge Patel described Napster's filtering efforts as "disgraceful." Patel suggested that "maybe the system needs to be closed down" if it was unable to catch all copyrighted material. Nevertheless, Judge Patel failed to take any further action against Napster and instead opted to await testimony from the newly appointed court mediator, A.J. "Nick" Nichols, who also served as the court expert in Sun Microsystems' suit against Microsoft. In late April, Judge Patel issued a memorandum requiring the record labels to identify at least one infringing file on the ever-changing network before Napster is obligated to block copies of the song. In July, Napster voluntarily shut down its system entirely in order to retool it. The record companies argued that Napster should not be permitted to resume operations until it could guarantee "100% compliance" with Patel's prohibition against infringing activities. Judge Patel agreed, but Napster persuaded the Court of Appeals to overturn this "draconian" remedy. In September, Napster settled a secondary lawsuit against it by the National Music Publishers Association (which represents the owners of copyright in musical compositions, not to be confused with copyrights in sound recordings) for $26 million. (How the company will be able to assemble that much money is far from clear.)
Almost all of the ligitation up to this point had involved struggles over the issuance of a preliminary injunction. In August, the record companies sought to move the case forward, requesting Judge Patel to grant them summary judgment in their substantive case against Napster. In response, Napster argued that three independent circumstances made summary judgment inappropriate: (1) the record companies had not adequately identified and proved their ownership of thousands of songs that they claim were unlawfully transmitted over the Napster system; (2) that Napster should be afforded an opportunity to show their entitlement to one or more of the "safe-harbor" provisions in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act; and (3) that the record companies have themselves engaged in various forms of illegal behavior -- most importantly, price-fixing and other kinds of anti-competitive conduct vis-a-vis music on the Internet. Judge Patel showed little interest in the first two of Napster's arguments. She has taken considerable interest, however, in the third. This is a potentially explosive development in the case. A finding that the record companies have engaged in anti-competitive behavior could benefit Napster in several ways. At a minimum, it could reduce the damages that the company must pay (on the ground that the profits that the record companies claim to have lost were based upon monopolistic pricing). More radically, such a finding could support a judgment that the record companies have engaged in "copyright misuse," which could prevent them from recovering at all. Finally, the record companies could be liable to Napster for damages based upon a violation of the antitrust laws. Patel has yet to issue a definitive ruling on any of these issues, but the fact that the Justice Department has undertaken a separate inquiry into possible anti-competitive behavior by the record companies lends some credence to Napster's position.
Meanwhile, the Napster executives are seeking to remake the company in two ways. First, they are participating in a consortium of companies that plans soon to offer music over the Internet under the trademark "MusicNet." Second, they are hoping by early 2002 to resume operations on a subscription basis. Money collected from subscribers will, they hope, enable them to obtain licenses from the record companies to use their sound recordings legitimately.
Professional and popular reaction to the litigation and to the (pen)ultimate decision of the Court of Appeals has varied widely. Some members of the music industry clearly sympathize with the RIAA. According to Ron Stone of Gold Mountain Management, which represents such artists as Bonnie Raitt and Tracy Chapman, "[i]t is the single most insidious website I've ever seen� its like a burglar�s tool." Prominent individual artists and groups are speaking out as well. One of the most outspoken critics of Napster is the heavy metal rock group Metallica, which sued Napster in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles for copyright infringement and racketeering in April 2000. In a surprising move, the band delivered to Napster 13 boxes containing 60,000 pages of documents identifying usernames of people who allegedly made Metallica songs available online and demanded that Napster "boot" them from the service. Napster complied, blocking 317,377 user names from its service in early May of 2000.
In his interview with Slashdot, Metallica drummer Lars Ulrich stated, "I don't want to sound too combative here, but you know, when somebody f---s with what we do, we go after them." In his testimony to Congress, Lars commented that "if you're not fortunate enough to own a computer, there's only one way to assemble a music collection the equivalent of a Napster user's: theft." Likewise, Sean "Puffy" Combs, CEO of Bad Boy Entertainment, Inc. was horrified at the infringement activities he alleges to have discovered transpiring over the Napster site:
Industry observers suggest that, even if the RIAA prevails, it may gain little. Napster lawyer David Boies was quoted in a 60 Minutes II interview as stating, "This is a case that the record industry can't win. If they shut down Napster today in the United States, it pops up in a different country totally outside their control."
In April, the five major recording labels launched two competing initiatives to tap into the subscription model for downloadable music. In one corner, RealNetworks became the technology partner for MusicNet (backed by AOL Time Warner, Bertelsmann and EMI Group). The remaining two labels, Universal Music Group and Sony Music Entertainment, opted to partner with Yahoo! to launch Duet. Though details remain clouded, both MusicNet and Duet are aggressively aiming for summer 2001 launches for their respective services. While the lack of unanimity across all labels is likely to weaken both offerings, these two joint ventures may further erode Napster's popularity and long-term propspects.
For more information on the RIAA v. Napster suit, please check out the additional resources section.
The (apparent) demise of Napster has contributed to the development and populaization of second-generation P2P systems. The first and best known of these is Gnutella, a program developed by Justin Frankel at Nullsoft (AOL's development house that is credited with creating the MP3 player WinAmp.) The name, "Gnutella," is partly a tribute to the Free Software Foundation�s "GNU" project and partly a play on "Nutella," Europe's popular chocolate-hazelnut spread. Executives at AOL shut down the original Gnutella service one day after a limited beta was released, denouncing it as an "unauthorized freelance project." (Some observers pointed to AOL's announced merger with Time-Warner as the driving force behind this decision. CNN describes Time-Warner as having been "one of the loudest critics of Napster and MP3 piracy as a whole.") Soon afterwards, however, the project was adopted by bands of open-source programmers, and a variety of unofficial sites across the Internet began offering the program for download. (For more information about Gnutella, please visit the additional resources section.) The original Gnutella program was far less user-friendly than Napster and suffered from scalability limitations. Recently, however, three new services -- BearShare, LimeWire, and Gnotella -- have begun offering to consumers improved versions of the program, as well as convenient ways to obtain them.
Other, similar programs include Aimster, which "piggybacks" on AOL's popular instant messenger (estimated to have over 21 million users by Media Metrix in November 2000), and Audiogalaxy, which offers the highly popular "Satellite" software. The most sophisticated of the second-generation P2P systems is FastTrack, developed by a Dutch company. Fastrack is currently used by the most rapidly growing new services, Grokster (based in Nevis, West Indies), Music City Networks (offering the widely hailed "Morpheus" software), and KaZaA.
The increase in the usage of these systems over the past few months has been extraordinary, particularly in the United States. Peer-to-peer copying of music in Europe remains significantly less common that it was during the heydey of Napster. In the U.S., by contrast, the total number of songs copied per month now exceeds the number copied during February 2001, the time of maximum Napster traffic.
Fearing erosion of their markets, the record companies have initiated lawsuits against several of the new companies. A threat to commence litigation against Aimster prompted Aimster to file a declaratory judgment action of its own, seeking to establish the legality of its business practices. Most recently, the RIAA, joined by the Motion Picture Association of American and several individual movie studios, have brought suit against the developer and various corporate users of FastTrack, claiming that, by assisting consumers in copying vast numbers of songs and movies, the defendants have engaged in both contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. It will be several months before any of these suits reach judgment. In the meantime, Internet-based P2P traffic continues to grow. Even more worrisome to the record companies is that millions of copies of the file-sharing programs have already be distributed. Even if the RIAA prevails in all of the pending or planned suits, it will be unable to recall those copies and thus will have great difficulty stopping P2P exchanges.
The statutes and judicial decisions relevant to copyright law on the Internet are numerous and complex. In this section, we will deal primarily with the statutory law that is most relevant to the distribution of online music (and other digital media). This module assumes that you have some background training in, or at least familiarity with, the fundamental principles of copyright law. If this is not the case, we suggest that you first explore some basic copyright tutorials.
The Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et. seq., provides copyright protection both to "musical compositions" and to "sound recordings." Thus, there will generally be two copyrights associated with any single recorded song that is not yet sufficiently old to have passed into the public domain. However, even if the musical composition copyright has fallen into the public domain, a modern recording of it will still be copyrighted.
Under 17 U.S.C. § 201, copyright originates with the author of a work. This author may freely transfer any or all of the exclusive rights that make up the copyright grant (such as the right of reproduction and the right of distribution). Authors of musical compositions and creators of sound recordings often transfer their exclusive rights to music publishers and record companies.
One of the earliest and most influential decisions pertaining to the digital reproduction of copyrighted materials came from the Supreme Court in a 1984 case challenging the legality of the video cassette recorder (VCR). In Sony Corp. v. Universal Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984), the Supreme Court held that copying a television program for noncommercial use within the home did not infringe the copyright in the program. More specifically, the Court determined that the practice of "time-shifting" -- i.e., recording a television program for viewing once and only once at a later time -- was permissible under the fair use doctrine. The Court then ruled that, because one of the major uses of VCRs is time-shifting, the manufacturers of the machines were not liable for "contributory copyright infringement," even if the VCRs were sometimes used for illegal purposes. To escape liability, the manufacturers needed only to show that their products were "susceptible of a significant noninfringing use," which they had done. Whether the Sony doctrine is applicable to technologies like Napster is currently debated.
Despite the fact that the threat of mass piracy supposedly posed by DAT technology never materialized, the recording industry's lobbying efforts did pay off in the form of a piece of legislation specifically designed to appease copyright holders' concerns. The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (AHRA), 17 U.S.C. §§1001-1010, mandates the inclusion in DAT machines of copy-control devices that limit the ability of would-be profiteers to create serial copies of protected works. Under AHRA §1002(a), a "digital audio recording device" must conform to a Serial Copy Management System (SCMS) designed to prevent multiple copies being created from a single work. A "digital audio recording device" is defined as a device capable of rendering a "digital audio copied recording." To trigger the statute, a copy must be a digital reproduction of a "digital music recording" and must be produced either directly or from a transmission. See AHRA §1001. Finally, under AHRA §1002(c), it is unlawful to attempt to circumvent the SCMS. Consumers, however, also benefited from the Act. AHRA §1008 provides that consumers who make noncommercial copies of musical recordings utilizing a covered device or medium shall not be made liable under a copyright infringement theory.
The AHRA has already been interpreted once in the MP3 context -- specifically in a suit against the manufacturers of a portable MP3 player. In that case, the RIAA brought suit against Diamond Multimedia, a company that produces the Rio, an MP3 playback device. The Rio is similar to a walkman and allows an MP3 user to download sixty minutes worth of music files from his or her hard drive and listen to the music remotely. In Recording Industry Association of America v. Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc., 180 F.3d 1072, 1074 (9th Cir. 1999), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found in favor of the defendant, ruling that the AHRA did not apply to the Rio device, because the computer hard drive from which the Rio records could not be considered either a digital audio recording device or a digital music recording within the meaning of the Act. Moreover, according to the court, because MP3 files are not coded with generation status or other copyright information, and because copies cannot be made of the files downloaded to the Rio, the SCMS would serve no useful function.
Despite its victory in court, Diamond Rio and other hardware vendors recently have been involved in the Secure Digital Music Initiative (SDMI) to introduce copyright protection mechanisms to their portable MP3 players. The SDMI is a working group composed of over one hundred and eighty businesses and organizations that are trying to develop specifications for the secure distribution of music over the Internet. The specifications are intended to be cross-platform, so that they will be compatible with many different hardware and software products. SDMI has already fallen behind its initial proposed deadlines (it had hoped to have had its specifications ready for incorporation into merchandise by Christmas 1999), but it has selected a watermarking scheme and guidelines for an encryption scheme that is designed to make copyright information readable from digital music files. This information will be readable by SDMI-compliant portable devices that eventually will refuse to play pirated music files encoded with the copyright protection specifications. We will discuss technological protection mechanisms, including SDMI, in further detail in a later module. For more information about technical alternatives in the context of digital music, check out these resources.
Where copyright protections are in place, it may be unlawful to design a product that will circumvent that technology. The DMCA §1201(a) prohibits the manufacture and distribution of certain devices that circumvent technological protection mechanisms designed to prevent the unauthorized access of protected materials. Prohibitions on the unauthorized access itself will come into effect on the second anniversary of the Act. Jonathan Band, a lawyer in Washington D.C., has written a helpful memo on the DMCA. If you are interested in further details about this protection, take a look at the RealNetworks v. Streambox materials -- a case that has recently been settled.
The DMCA raises additional issues for Online Service Providers (OSPs) that maintain pirated files on their servers or that link to pirated materials. Under the DMCA §512(c)(1) (and, indeed, under all but one paragraph of the section), "the term �service provider� means a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities therefor." The DMCA §512(c)(1) exempts an OSP from liability for housing on its servers copyright infringing material unless the OSP has notice of infringing material and fails to move expeditiously to remove it. Thus, unless the OSP knows that a site hosted by one of its servers contains pirated MP3 files, it is under no obligation to search out such infringing materials on its servers. The OSP must, however, provide a contact person to whom copyright holders can express concerns about possible infringing materials. Once a copyright holder puts the OSP on notice that the infringing materials are present, the OSP must quickly remove them. Thus, if a group such as the RIAA gives notice to an online provider that MP3 files are being transmitted across its systems, it can put pressure on the system administrator take some kind of action to curtail the alleged piracy.
Over the last six months of 2000, the Copyright Office has conducted a series of statutorily mandated public hearings concerning the efficacy and wisdom of the DMCA. While the Copyright Office's final report is expected to be submitted to Congress by the end of February, actual changes are unlikely to be adopted until at least 2002.
Finally, there are three additional U.S. statutory sections of which you should be aware. Please skim the summaries of the following: the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995, the No Electronic Theft Act and the Federal Anti-Bootleg Statute.
1. RIAA v. Napster: Imagine that you are a Supreme-Court justice hearing arguments from both the RIAA and Napster on appeal. How would you rule and why? How do you see your decision affecting the development and usage of P2P technology?
7. The first-sale doctrine in copyright law provides that once a copyright holder has sold the tangible embodiment of his work, he or she ordinarily will not be allowed to control its future disposition. Some critics of SDMI argue that watermarking and encryption technologies will in effect allow the copyright holder to prevent any future sales or transfers of the work and will thereby frustrate the first-sale doctrine. Should the SDMI be required to insure that the original purchaser of a digital music file be able to dispose of it as he sees fit, or will the market force the price of digital music down to compensate for the reduced value to the purchaser of the file who cannot resell or transfer the file in the future?
Ronald G. Dunn, Information Industry Association, H.R. 2281 and H.R. 2180 Hearings before House Courts and Intellectual Property Subcommittee (Sep.16, 1997)
Mike Kirk, American Intellectual Property Association, H.R. 2281 and H.R. 2180 Hearings before House Courts and Intellectual Property Subcommittee (Sep.16, 1997)
Honorable Bruce Lehman, Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, H.R. 2281 and H.R. 2180 Hearings before House Courts and Intellectual Property Subcommittee (Sep.16, 1997)
Roy Neel, United States Telephone Association, H.R. 2281 and H.R. 2180 Hearings before House Courts and Intellectual Property Subcommittee (Sep.16, 1997)
Matt Carolan, "Pirates of the Internet": Discusses the allegations against MP3.com as well as discussing generally "current" events relating to copyright on the Internet
Mark Pesce, "Napster, The Media Network That Might Upstage The Web": Provides some detail on how the Napster service operates
Scott Rosenberg, "The Napster Files": Provides some detail on how the Napster service operates
John Healey, "Napster Set to 'Fingerprint' Songs:" Napster introduces new software which will randomly sends fingerprints from a user's computer to detect any copyright violations.
Christopher Jones, "Swedish Retailer Pushes MP3": Swedish company claims to be the first in Europe to offer secure digital music distribution
Business Week e.biz 25: Fanning chosen by Business Week as one of the top influential people in eBusiness for 2000
Karltaro Greenfeld, "Meet the Napster:" Profile of Fanning and the events leading up to the creation of Napster
Thomas Melville, "Shawn Fanning - He Is Radically Redefining How We Use the Internet:" Profile of Fanning by Success Magazine
Tess Taylor, "An Interview with Hilary Rosen:" Interview with Rosen conducted by The Los Angeles Music Network
Michael Robertson: Biography on the MP3 website
Aaron Pava, "Michael Robertson Interview:" Interview with Robertson conducted by ZDNet
Michael Robertson, "Top 10 Things RIAA Should Do:" Suggestions outlined by Robertson for the RIAA to bridge the gap in communications
Signal or Noise? A conference co-sponsored by the Berkman Center and the Electronic Frontier Foundation that explored the legal and social implications of online music distribution. The conference was held on February 25, 2000. The proceedings may be found in a RealVideo archive. For more information on the legal and social implications MP3 technology, read the briefing book prepared in connection with the conference. In addition, Harvard's policies regarding Napster and other P2P technologies are discussed in a November 15, 2000 roundtable discussion.
The Future of Music Policy Summit: held January 10-11, 2001 in Washington, D.C. to capture the views of music, business, and technology
All Shook Up - The Music Industry Confronts the Internet and Consolidation: Conference sponsored by the The Harvard Journal of Law & Technology on April 21, 2001. Keynote speaker was Nicholas Butterworth, President and CEO of MTVi.