Thursday, August 06, 2009
My new blog
I launched a new blog today, called Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars. Here's the link. The blog is based on a book I just published of the same title, available here and here.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Rocky Mountain Ratings
A recent decision by a district court in Colorado, Health Grades, Inc., v. Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, Inc. (HT to Eric Goldman and Mike Masnick at Techdirt) raises once again courts’ confusion over foundational holdings by the Supreme Court in its 1991 Feist compilation opinion, confusion that has resulted in inappropriate extension of copyright to facts, prices, and ratings. In the Colorado case, the opinion was on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, meaning that there has been no decision on the merits of the protectibility of the material in question, and also meaning that there can be no present appeal.
-“Regina Powerteam-far ahead of the pack in cleaning ability.”
-Of all the lightweights tested “only one worked well.”
-On medium pile carpeting Powerteam “did the job with the least effort.”
-In fact, it's the only one Consumer Reports calls an “adequate substitute for a full-sized vacuum.”
On appeal, the Second Circuit observed, “In truth, CU is not really objecting to Regina's copying CU's expression. The statement of policy in its magazine and its position in its brief before us is that any mention of CU in commercial advertising will diminish its effectiveness as an unbiased evaluator of products.” Based on this, it is not surprising the court of appeals vacated the injunction, but it did not examine what was copyrightable in plaintiff’s work, probably because the quotations were from an article. The copying was de minimis at best, but the decision rested on fair use.
The facts in the Colorado case were described this way by Judge Kane:
“Health Grades is a Delaware corporation based in Golden, Colorado. It is in the business of developing and distributing objective ratings of hospitals, physicians and other healthcare providers. Its “1-3-5 Star” ratings and provider awards are based on data and information obtained from a variety of sources, most of which are publicly available. Health Grades determines its ratings and awards for individual providers by analyzing these data using its own proprietary methodologies. Health Grades publishes its ratings and awards for healthcare providers, along with other information, on its website.”
“Members of the public may access and view the ratings, awards and other information on Health Grades’ website by executing a “click-through” Limited License and User Agreement (Limited License) set out on the website. The Limited License grants “a personal, revocable,
nonexclusive, non-transferable license to access and view this Site and the Site Materials, and to copy, download, store and/or print only a single copy of any Site Materials, solely for your non-commercial use and not for resale or distribution to anyone else.”
“RWJ is a hospital located in Hamilton, New Jersey. From 2004 through 2006, RWJ, through its authorized employees, accessed the Health Grades website more than 200 times after entering into the required Limited License. RWJ then proceeded to use materials from the
Health Grades’ website, specifically including Health Grades’ name and the ratings and awards it had given RWJ, in at least nine press releases and articles promoting the hospital and/or its services. Health Grades’ name and its ratings of and awards to RWJ were also published on the
RWJ Hamilton website. RWJ did not have permission from Health Grades to use its name, ratings or awards in this manner. “
In rejecting defendant’s argument that the ratings are facts, and therefore unprotectible, the court held:
“According to its complaint, Health Grades’ healthcare ratings for RWJ and other medical providers are a product of Health Grades’ collection of data and information from a variety of sources, which it then analyzes and weighs using its own proprietary methodologies to produce a Health Grades’ rating of 1, 3 or 5 stars and/or awards for each healthcare provider reviewed. These ratings and awards are not, therefore, facts “discovered” by Health Grades in the manner described in Feist, but rather are expressions created by Health Grades. These ratings only exist because Health Grades has selected, weighed and arranged facts it has discovered to present the collected data in a form, Health Grades’ ratings and awards for specific health care providers, that can be used more effectively by the reader to make judgments about providers. Taking Health Grades’ allegations as true, therefore, its healthcare provider ratings are independent creations by Health Grades and display at least the minimal degree of creativity necessary to be deemed original expressions.”
The court confused Feist’s holding that an original selection, coordination, or arrangement of facts is protectable as a compilation, with protection for the facts themselves. Originality will always be the result of judgment, artistic, or otherwise, but not all exercises of judgment are copyrightable. The judgment that this is the best route to go home is no more protectible than a judgment about what a fair price is for a coin, a car, a commodities futures contract, or how many stars a hospital deserves.
To be fair to Judge Kane, he relied on an opinion by the great judge Pierre Leval in CCC Information Services, Inc. v. Maclean Hunter Market Reports, Inc. , 44 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 1994). CCC Information Services proves that even the great have not so great days, and Judge Leval would, I believe, agree that the opinion was not successful. In reversing a district court opinion that had found that the Red Book was unoriginal, the court of appeals held:
The district court was simply mistaken in its conclusion that the Red Book valuations were, like the telephone numbers in Feist, pre-existing facts that had merely been discovered by the Red Book editors. To the contrary, Maclean' s evidence demonstrated without rebuttal that its valuations were neither reports of historical prices nor mechanical derivations of historical prices or other data. Rather, they represented predictions by the Red Book editors of future prices estimated to cover specified geographic regions. According to Maclean's evidence, these predictions were based not only on a multitude of data sources, but also on professional judgment and expertise. The testimony of one of Maclean' s deposition witnesses indicated that fifteen considerations are weighed; among the considerations, for example, is a prediction as to how traditional competitor vehicles, as defined by Maclean, will fare against one another in the marketplace in the coming period. The valuations themselves are original creations of Maclean.
In the end, however, the decision properly turned on the originality of the Red Book as a compilation—and therefore an infringement—of the compilation authorship, and thus the court's discussion of valuations as individually protectible is dictum. The dictum is erroneous. Judge Leval' s basic point—that valuations are constructed not discovered—is true enough, but not determinative. Protection is not based on one being merely the originator of the material in question: If that were true, protection could be granted to ideas, methods of operation, systems, and the like. Instead, to be an “original work of authorship,” the material must also (1) not be de minimis, and (2) not be an idea, method of operation, or the like. Prices fail on both counts, as the Copyright Office observed in Examining Division, Literary Online Practices, Chapter 20. C.II. D.3.d (2003): “Prices are not generally considered copyrightable because the determination of prices is considered a business decision and thus they represent facts”). The Office also later criticized CCC Information Services in a May 25, 2005 “Statement of Interest of the Register of Copyrights” submitted in New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc. v. IntercontinentalExchange, Inc., 389 F. Supp. 2d 527 (S.D. N.Y. 2005), where the court held: “The argument that NYMEX settlement prices do not embody facts is without merit. The numerical settlement price that arises from NYMEX' s judgment and discretion rejects no more than pure fact or idea of the present price of a futures contract. Regardless of the judgment and creativity involved in determining each NYMEX settlement price, there is plainly only one settlement price . . . Moreover, because NYMEX's settlement prices are the actual prices and are the only way to express the idea of a settlement price stated in numbers—the expression of the price is therefore not sufficiently distinct from the idea of the price to warrant copyrighted protection.”). See also Miracle Blade, LLC. v. Ebrands Commerce Group, LLC., 207 F. Supp. 2d 1136, 1150–1151 (D. Nev. 2002) (“Plaintiff's allegations that defendant copied plaintiff’s price should also not be considered since price is a non-copied plaintiff’s price should also not be considered since price is a non-copyrightable fact.”); Project Development Group, Inc. v. O.H. Materials Corp., 766 F. Supp. 1348, 1354 (W.D. Pa. 1991), aff’d, 993 F.2d 225 (3d Cir. 1993) (“The quantities estimated and prices selected, by nature of the estimate and bid process, do not possess the requisite originality under the copyright laws.”).
Judge Kane also relied on a 9th Circuit opinion, CDN Inc. v. Kapes, 197 F.3d 1256 (9 Cir. 1999), which confusingly stated the question presented as follows:
Whether CDN's selection and arrangement of the price lists is sufficiently original to merit protection is not at issue here. CDN does not allege that Kapes copied the entire lists, as the alleged infringer had in Feist. Rather, the issue in this case is whether the prices themselves are sufficiently original as compilations to sustain a copyright.
This passage is hopelessly contradictory. The first sentence seems to indicate the court was not evaluating the work as a compilation, a conclusion heightened by the reference to “the prices themselves.” This view is undercut by the Court's final statement of the issue as whether there is sufficient originality as a compilation. Later in the opinion, the court states that “the prices listed are not mere listings of actual prices paid; rather they are CDN's best estimate of the fair value of that coin,” but in the next paragraph the court stated “Our holding that the prices are copyrightable is consistent with . . . CCC
Judge Kane’s holding on the contract claim is worth a separate discussion; while he found the claim preempted under the Copyright Act, he held that a contract claim might not be preempted based on a promise not violate trademark law. One can appreciate plaintiff being irked by defendant’s use of its rating, but the Copyright Act should not be abused to stop what is, even according to Judge Kane, a preempted contract claim.Monday, June 08, 2009
My "new" fair use book
West Publishing just put out a "new" treatise of mine on fair use in copyright. Here is a link to buy it ($200, free shipping!). "New" is in quotes because the book goes back to 1985, when BNA published the first edition. The book got off to a good start: the week after it was published the Supreme Court cited it in its Harper & Row, Publishers v. Nation Enterprises opinion, the case about the Nation magazine's unauthorized publication of excerpts from former President Gerald Ford's memoirs before those memoirs were published. The Court later cited it in the 2 Live Crew parody case, as have lots of lower courts. In 1995 a second edition was published. But the book languished beginning in the late 1990s and went out of print. I discovered it was out of print in a funny way: I was asked for two copies of it by an erstwhile client. I called up BNA and asked for the copies. They said they doubted they had them because the book was out of print and they had destroyed all the copies. This was news to me, but at least all rights reverted to me. (This didn't include, btw, the electronic files which were on a funky proprietary system).
In my contract for the book with West, the problem of not notifying the author when the book goes out of print is well taken care of: under the rights given to West for the "new" book, the book can't ever go out of print even if West decides never to publish another copy and pulls it off of Westlaw. Gone, apparently, are the days when authors had their copyrights revert when the book goes out of print, but let's thank our stars for the termination rights in Section 304.
Anyway, to continue the saga of the out of print fair use book. In 2007, West published the 7 volume, 6,000 page general treatise on copyright I wrote. Given that the fair use treatise was out of date, I folded into that general book most of the old fair use treatise as Chapter 10, revised and updated to about 500 pages. (Since I didn't have the electronic files, see above, this meant OCR'ing the hard copy and a lot of clean-up work).
I have come to think though, given the increased importance of fair use, and the fact that the fair chapter was lost amongst the 6,000 pages of the larger treatise, that I should spin it off into its own book again, so that's what this "new" book is. While it remains part of the 6,000 general treatise, the spin off has two new chapters not found in the general treatise. One chapter is on the early 18th century English cases from whence fair use arose, and the other chapter is on current international issues. The old English cases are both interesting and important for showing the boldness of the common law judges in forging the doctrine. I expect to expand the international chapter in the next edition given the increased importance of limitations and exceptions and the debates about the three-step test.
The book will be updated once a year and will be reissued every year as a new soft copy to avoid those ultra-annoying pocket parts as well as loose-leaf inserts.
In my contract for the book with West, the problem of not notifying the author when the book goes out of print is well taken care of: under the rights given to West for the "new" book, the book can't ever go out of print even if West decides never to publish another copy and pulls it off of Westlaw. Gone, apparently, are the days when authors had their copyrights revert when the book goes out of print, but let's thank our stars for the termination rights in Section 304.
Anyway, to continue the saga of the out of print fair use book. In 2007, West published the 7 volume, 6,000 page general treatise on copyright I wrote. Given that the fair use treatise was out of date, I folded into that general book most of the old fair use treatise as Chapter 10, revised and updated to about 500 pages. (Since I didn't have the electronic files, see above, this meant OCR'ing the hard copy and a lot of clean-up work).
I have come to think though, given the increased importance of fair use, and the fact that the fair chapter was lost amongst the 6,000 pages of the larger treatise, that I should spin it off into its own book again, so that's what this "new" book is. While it remains part of the 6,000 general treatise, the spin off has two new chapters not found in the general treatise. One chapter is on the early 18th century English cases from whence fair use arose, and the other chapter is on current international issues. The old English cases are both interesting and important for showing the boldness of the common law judges in forging the doctrine. I expect to expand the international chapter in the next edition given the increased importance of limitations and exceptions and the debates about the three-step test.
The book will be updated once a year and will be reissued every year as a new soft copy to avoid those ultra-annoying pocket parts as well as loose-leaf inserts.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Barbara Ringer
Former Register of Copyrights Barbara Ringer died this morning at 83. A very private person, there will be no ceremony. It is impossible to overstate Barbara's contributions to U.S. copyright law, including her highly distinguished service as Register of Copyrights from 1973-1980 and as Acting Register from 1993-1994. A career Copyright Office lawyer, she worked with the legends of the Office, including Abraham Kaminstein and Arthur Fisher. Her knowledge of both U.S. and international copyright law was breathtaking and unsurpassed, making me look like a pisher. There was no one who knew more about arcana, such as renewal, the manufacturing clause, and conceptual separability. The regulations, which she and then General Counsel Jon Baumgarten drafted on passage of the 1976 Act to implement that Act involved a herculean effort, and it was hardly the only one going on at the time: an 1,100 page report to Congress performance rights was also being prepared and was issued in June 1978. But she was also a big picture person, with moving law U.S. so that we could eventually join the Berne Convention as a top goal, one widely shared within the Copyright Office; she assisted with that effort even after leaving the Office.
Its not that things came easy for her; they didn't. Barbara had to sue to get her position as Register. But Barbara had personal and political skills that could meld together the contentious factions that threatened to tear apart every compromise in the 20 year road to passage of the 1976 Act. Her influence with the Congressional committees was unrivalled, especially in the House of Representatives, where Chairman Robert Kastenmeier had a warm, trusting relationship with her, a relationship made possible by Barbara's impeccable integrity, her concern that every voice be heard, her refusal to let an injustice be done but her pragmatic willingness to take less than what she might want for the greater good. She also was not afraid to speak her mind, especially on behalf of authors, the real authors. While one hears, constantly, corporate chieftains claiming that they're out there fighting for the creators, we all know that is b.s.: the creators are merely an expense item on a balance sheet, to be reduced as much as possible. We also hear politicians make similar paeans to creators, yet when was the last piece of legislation that was passed that benefited creators at the expense of corporations? When was the last time you heard a government official suggest such a thing?
Barbara did. In what is, I believe, the most arcane copyright case the Supreme Court has heard, Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder, 469 U.S. 153 (1985), the Court, in a 5-4 decision, rules against the songwriter in favor of the music publisher in interpreting Section 304(c)(6)(A). In brief, the question was who receives the royalties from exploitation of a derivative work prepared during the term of the grant, after termination? It was clear that during the term of the grant, the songwriter received royalties according to his or her contract with the music publisher. But what after the songwriter terminated the music publisher's contract? Did the songwriter receive 100% of post-termination royalties, or, would the songwriter continue to receive royalties according to the contract? (The derivative work, in that case a sound recording of the song, could be exploited post-termination because the statute says so). The Second Circuit, per the great Judge James Oakes held for the songwriter, but the Supreme Court reversed.
Barbara was outraged, and testified before the Senate about the Court's error and the injustice it worked to authors. About music publishers, she said that had not bargained for the post-termination windfall and had done nothing to deserve it. We shall not see the likes of Barbara again; farewell.
Its not that things came easy for her; they didn't. Barbara had to sue to get her position as Register. But Barbara had personal and political skills that could meld together the contentious factions that threatened to tear apart every compromise in the 20 year road to passage of the 1976 Act. Her influence with the Congressional committees was unrivalled, especially in the House of Representatives, where Chairman Robert Kastenmeier had a warm, trusting relationship with her, a relationship made possible by Barbara's impeccable integrity, her concern that every voice be heard, her refusal to let an injustice be done but her pragmatic willingness to take less than what she might want for the greater good. She also was not afraid to speak her mind, especially on behalf of authors, the real authors. While one hears, constantly, corporate chieftains claiming that they're out there fighting for the creators, we all know that is b.s.: the creators are merely an expense item on a balance sheet, to be reduced as much as possible. We also hear politicians make similar paeans to creators, yet when was the last piece of legislation that was passed that benefited creators at the expense of corporations? When was the last time you heard a government official suggest such a thing?
Barbara did. In what is, I believe, the most arcane copyright case the Supreme Court has heard, Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder, 469 U.S. 153 (1985), the Court, in a 5-4 decision, rules against the songwriter in favor of the music publisher in interpreting Section 304(c)(6)(A). In brief, the question was who receives the royalties from exploitation of a derivative work prepared during the term of the grant, after termination? It was clear that during the term of the grant, the songwriter received royalties according to his or her contract with the music publisher. But what after the songwriter terminated the music publisher's contract? Did the songwriter receive 100% of post-termination royalties, or, would the songwriter continue to receive royalties according to the contract? (The derivative work, in that case a sound recording of the song, could be exploited post-termination because the statute says so). The Second Circuit, per the great Judge James Oakes held for the songwriter, but the Supreme Court reversed.
Barbara was outraged, and testified before the Senate about the Court's error and the injustice it worked to authors. About music publishers, she said that had not bargained for the post-termination windfall and had done nothing to deserve it. We shall not see the likes of Barbara again; farewell.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
In Memoriam Sir Hugh Laddie
Baruch dyan ha-emet. “Blessed is the Judge of Truth,” is an expression uttered when one hears news of a terrible loss, especially death. It is the expression I used when I heard of the death of Sir Hugh Laddie, zikhrono livrakha.
Sir Hugh was buried today in London. He was born in 1946. His mother is, I believe still alive at the age of 91. Though he didn’t learn a great deal of Yiddish, his mother was fluent in it: when her grandparents fled Russia to England, the only way to communicate with them was in Yiddish. His father died some time ago, but this last year was the first Kol Nidre he had missed, due to his health. Although Hugh did not accept the existence of a divine spirit, Kol Nidre had been for him a day of intense family bonding, and so the inability to go to it this last year was a source of regret.
When I stopped my blog, Hugh posted a comment urging me to resume. I haven’t resumed it , but the loss of my dear friend warrants a farewell.
Sir Hugh studied at Aldenham School and St Catharine's College, Cambridge. In 1980, he and his co-authors Peter Prescott and Mary Vitoria published the first edition of their landmark treatise, The Modern Law of Copyright and Design. (Last year a fourth edition was published). At the time it was seen as a quite courageous thing to do because the existing standard textbook in England - Copinger and Skone James - was taken for granted. At the time of Hugh’s treatise, there was no perceived need for anything else. Paul Torremans, reviewing the third edition in EIPR in 2001, described some of the chapters as revolutionary: they dared to have views that did not jibe with the status quo, and to express those views publicly.
After being called to the bar, Sir Hugh also performed valuable public service: in 1992 he was appointed Vice Chairman of the Copyright Tribunal, a statutory body that settles disputes between collecting societies and users of copyrighted works over royalty rates. In 1986, he was appointed a Queen’s Counsel (having been called to the bar in 1969). From 1981 to 1986, he served as a counsel for Her Majesty’s Treasury, a capacity in which he represented the British Government and the British Patent Office in all areas of Intellectual Property law litigation.
After 25 years as a successful IP barrister (during which he developed a well-deserved reputation as an expert patent and trademark lawyer too), he was appointed a Justice of the High Court in 1995, hearing cases in the Chancery Division and Patents Court (which includes copyrights).
On the bench, he continued the honesty and humor that was as much a part of his personality as his searing intellect and personal warmth. Here, for example, is an excerpt from a BBC story, about a dispute between two bands:
The judge in a court case involving two groups called Blue has been demonstrating his knowledge of the finer points of the pop and rock world.
Mr Justice Hugh Laddie is in charge of the case in which pop act Blue are being sued by a 1970s rock band of the same name. The original Blue want to prevent them from using the name, saying their own career and reputation is being damaged. They are suing the contemporary boy band and their label EMI/Virgin, for up to £5m.
As proceedings began at the High Court, Mr Justice Laddie defied the image of Britain's crusty, out-of-touch judiciary with some pithy examination of counsel. The judge - known for his broad taste in music - appeared surprised when the older band's barrister said their reputation was being threatened.
"Are you seriously saying that fans of one group would mistake one for the other?" he asked Charles Purle QC.
“There is somewhat a difference of appearance. One is aged like you and me, the other is a boy band." Mr Purle said: "My clients were a boy band in the 1970s."
The judge replied: "Oh no. Boy band is a style of music that is a bit more recent than the Charleston."
He resigned in 2005, the first High Court judge to do so in 35 years. His resignation caused a furor (in British spelling "furore," signifying a great degree of sturm und drang than the shorter, more base U.S. emotion). An article in the Times Online awhile after his resignation, a few wonderful quotes from Sir Hugh:
I was at the Bar for 25 years. I had a truly stupendous time. I still think, if you’re lucky and get a good practice, it’s a great job.” But with the heavy and tiring workload — “it was the only thing my wife and I would argue about” — he had no doubt about becoming a High Court judge. “There was only one direction — down. You can’t stay at the top for ever.”
For the first five years, he enjoyed it. But aspects jarred. “One thing is that you are really isolated. You can go all day without speaking to another judge.” So he set up a common room where judges could meet weekly for teas. Laddie, who was senior judge of the Patents Court, also believed strongly that the courts should serve litigants, not the profession. “That meant I was determined to try to cut costs to a point where I used to irritate people.
“Everyone has egos — it’s a matter of how difficult you find it to control.” Laddie did not endear himself to counsel when, at the start of a case, having read the papers, he would make clear his preliminary views. “Obviously I had provisional thoughts — it would be amazing if I didn’t. Some would say: he’s made up his mind. I hadn’t, of course.”
Laddie also objected to sitting on Chancery cases beyond his expertise. Had he taken a case outside his field at the Bar, he’d have left himself open to a negligence action, he says. But the moment he was a judge he was expected to do just that. “It was challenging — like high-wire walking — but I didn’t think it fair for clients to be learning at their expense.” Most worrying were the cases involving unrepresented litigants, with applications “ in an area of law that I knew nothing about”.
Nevertheless, despite the extremely hostile reactions of some of his colleagues to his resignation, in July of this year, Sir Hugh defended the British judiciary: "They were not people who used quill pens. They're computer literate, savvy, quite ordinary, nice people and not hidebound traditionalists.”
Rather than retiring to the country and practicing his fly-fishing technique, Sir Hugh joined the IP boutique Willoughby & Partners as a consultant. In that capacity, I had the great joy to hire him in 2007 as an expert on UK law for an amicus brief I filed in a case involving Uri Geller. Plaintiff asserted that a resident of Pennsylvania who was a critic of Geller’s committed a violation of UK law by uploading an allegedly infringing video on to YouTube’s servers, from which the video was hosted for others to view. Sir Hugh wrote in his report, however, that “a finding of infringement through authorization is dependent upon there being a finding that the person who was authorized, committed an infringement of United Kingdom copyright by performing, in the United Kingdom, one of the activities set out in section 16(1).” He concluded: “It follows from this that if the primary acts of which the plaintiff complains took place outside the United Kingdom there cannot be infringement of British copyright. Alleging authorization makes no difference to this. It is not an infringement to authorize a non-infringing activity.” After I filed Sir Hugh’s report, plaintiff did not even bother to file an answer and the case was settled.
In addition to being a consultant to the Willoughby firm, Sir Hugh became Professor Laddie when, in 2006, he became a Professor of Intellectual Property Law at University College London. There he founded the Institute of Brand and Innovation Law (IBIL). He wrote me a note recently about this post:
I thought that being a Professor entailed nothing more than walking around looking sombre while talking in obscure English. Apparently there's more to it than that. There are lectures, exams, exam-marking and begging people for support funds. At least on the last issue I got some help from a friend. I had sent out a number of begging letters to various firms of lawyers and was having dinner with this friend. I told him what I had done. .. . He asked me whether I had telephoned all the people to whom I had sent a letter. I was horrified. I didn't think it was part of my job to actually phone people up and ask. He pointed out, not unreasonably, that most people do not respond to letters asking for money and that really what you have to do is to speak to them either face-to-face or on the phone so that they feel too embarrassed to refuse. … I have got quite used to it now. I have developed an extremely thick skin and, by English standards, I think I have been rather successful.
In connection with the University’s Institute of Brand and Innovation Law , in June of this year, he gave an interview on the question of piracy in China and made these remarks. (I would love to know whether they made their way to USTR):
China has become a scapegoat for the West’s intellectual property problems, a leading lawyer said today. Sir Hugh Laddie, a former High Court judge, said that although China had issues with counterfeiting and other forms of intellectual property theft, there was a “complete misconception” about the scale of the problem relative to other countries. Sir Hugh said: “Of course there is counterfeiting in China, but the same goes on in the US and Europe. Pro rata, the biggest source of pirated computer software in the world in the US.”
Sir Hugh’s courage extended to his decisions on the bench, most famously in the Arsenal case. Marty Schwimmer described Sir Hugh’s actions in the case this way,
A vendor sold scarves with the Arsenal football club name and indicia. The issue turns on whether use of a team name in such way is trademark use in that sense that the team name designates the origin of the good, or is the team name and logo merely decorative use in the sense that the wearer of the scarf is merely communicating allegiance to that team. It's my understanding that Laddie himself tends toward the latter view ... . Laddie referred the case to the ECJ. Now that the ECJ has ruled that of course it's trademark use, Laddie has refused to follow its decision, apparently relying on the fact that the ECJ made fresh findings of fact, something it had no power to do.
The court of appeals reversed him. Reversal by a higher court doesn't of course mean HL was wrong, only that he had the courage to point out the dangerous usurpation by the EU, an "Emperor Has No Clothes" statement that must have embarrassed the court of appeals. May we all emulate him. Nor did his opinion stem from antipathy toward EU rights. Quite the contrary, in his earlier, 2001 Burrell Competition Lecture, "National I.P. Rights: A Moribund anachronism in a Federal Europe," 23 E.I.P.R. 402 (2001), he concludes "Now that we are in a single market, our domestic economy is Community-wide. So should our I.P. rights be. ... I can only hope that the Community trade mark will prove such a success that users will vote with their feet and will use it to the exclusion of national rights."
In the field of copyright, two of Sir Hugh’s articles should be laminated and placed on your desk so they may be re-read often. The first is his 1995 Stephen Stewart lecture, "Copyright: Over-strength, Over-regulated, Over-rated", published in 18 European Intellectual Property Review 253 (1996). Sir Hugh began the lecture this way:
The purpose of this lecture, given in honour of the memory of a clever and perceptive copyright lawyer, is to consider the current state of copyright law in this country. Does it meet current commercial needs? My purpose this evening is to ask questions and possibly raise doubts. Copyright is one of the quartet of monopolies which form the core of what is now known as intellectual property law. The others, of course, are patents, trade marks and registered designs. I suppose that since the introduction of the unregistered design right in the 1988 legislation, there really is a quintet of such rights. Each, in its own way, places a fetter on the right of others to compete in the market-place with the originator of the right or his employer. Therefore, to some extent, each distorts trade.
If this were all, these monopolies would work against the interests of the public at large. At the simplest level it can be said that the existence of a monopoly enables the monopolist to increase his prices or restrict supply as he pleases. Of course, we know that that is much too superficial a view. It ignores all the benefits to the public at large which can flow from the increased creativity and investment which are the product of a well-balanced monopoly system. But we must always bear in mind that monopoly legislation is the end result of a balancing act: is the restraint on competition justified by the benefits which it gives to society at large? In this lecture I would like to consider this basic balancing act as it applies to copyright.
One of the areas where he felt the balance was out of whack was with the length of copyright and the low standard for originality, seen in this passage:
[A]s a result of the Term Directive, the copyright in the first category of works, that is to say, literary works and so on, is now life of the author plus 70 full years. This additional 20 years has been imposed throughout the Member States of the European Union to bring us into line with the domestic law of Germany. As is now familiar in copyright law, the process was one of leveling up the protection rather than levelling down. The result of this new term is that if, for example, a young computer programmer writes a new piece of computer software, he generates a monopoly which will normally last for over 100 years. Depending on his longevity, it may last more than 150 years. Similarly, if a politician writes letters or speeches which are of general historic interest, they also may be protected for a century or more. Indeed, if a modern-day architect were to design a new Albert Memorial, he would have the satisfaction of knowing that his copyright is likely to be sprightly and in the prime of life long after the concrete and steel of his architectural creation have started to crumble.
The question to be asked is: what justification is there for a period of monopoly of such proportions? It surely cannot be based on the principle of encouraging artistic creativity by increasing the size of the carrot. No one is going to be more inclined to write computer programs or speeches, compose music or design buildings because 50, 60 or 70 years after his death a distant relative whom he has never met might still be getting royalties. It is noticeable that this expansion of term is not something which has only occurred in the last decade. On the contrary, it has been a trend which has been in evidence for the whole of this century. Before the 1911 Act, the term of copyright in artistic works extended to seven years after the author's death. In 1911 this was extended to 50 years after death. The growth of term is in fact greater than these figures suggest. Life expectancy in 1910 was far shorter than it is now. The result is that a monopoly which was expected to last about four decades in 1910 should now be expected to last on average more than three times as long.
Indeed, I believe that the same criticism of excessive duration can be leveled at the 50-year flat term which applies to films, recordings and broadcasts. It may be possible to pick out a few creations of exceptional artistic or commercial merit where one could argue for lengthy protection - for example, the recordings of Rostropovich or the Beatles - but is it right that all copyright should be protected on the basis of what might be thought justified for the exceptional few? Furthermore, it is possible to argue that these long copyright terms are not necessary to protect the commercial exploitation of the works themselves. Most works protected by copyright are exploited very rapidly, if at all. This is so whether we are considering films and records or literary works such as computer software. Even books such as those that win the Booker prize are only commercially successful for a short time and then, to all intents and purposes, pass away. Yet the dead hand of copyright lingers on, in most cases serving no useful purpose.
Another of the problems with copyright law is that, unlike inventions protected by patent or designs protected by registration, the requirements for qualification are so low as to be virtually non-existent. Virtually any written material, any sketch and any film footage or sound recording is automatically protected. This has practical consequences. In Elanco v Mandops, the Court of Appeal accepted, as it had to, that a label of instructions placed on the side of a barrel of herbicide was a copyright literary work. No doubt depending on the youth of the literary genius who wrote it, the label will be protected for more than a century and perhaps for as long as a century and a half - certainly well beyond the date when for safety or commercial reasons the product has been removed from the market. So one of the troubles with copyright, then, is that it springs up to protect nearly every creation of the human mind, be it ever so trivial. As another member of the judiciary put it, the fact that our system of communication, teaching and entertainment does not grind to a standstill is in large part due to the fact that in most cases infringement of copyright has, historically, been ignored.
He criticized the insane criminalization of the economic tort of copyright infringement: “We have … reached the stage where taxpayers' money is being used to enforce private rights which many might think are more than adequately protected by civil remedies. I should also mention that it appears that in most cases it is not the poor and weak who are using these criminal provisions but the rich and well organised.” Importantly for the current debates around the world on air use versus fair dealing, Sir Hugh came out in favor of fair use, beginning with criticisms of the 1988 UK Copyright Act’s enumerated and lengthy list of possible fair dealings:
These detailed and pedantic exceptions to copyright protection, and their predecessors in the 1956 Act, are not only difficult to understand in some cases, but they also reinforce the perception that virtually all reproductions of copyright works, no matter how innocuous, are infringements. Is it surprising then, that when, for the purposes of advertising the film "Carry on Cleo', a poster was created which was a harmless but humorous spoof of a similar poster for the Elizabeth Taylor/Richard Burton film "Cleopatra', it was held to infringe copyright.
It would be possible to go on criticising the width of our copyright laws, but perhaps I have said enough. It might be more useful to inquire why our law has developed as it has. I have mentioned already the value and size of the industries which now believe they need extensive copyright protection to safeguard their income stream. They, quite properly, lobby for their interests. But who lobbies against them? There is no trade union of copyright infringers. Support for any limitation on copyright is easily portrayed as support for pirates - the usual pejorative global expression for infringers. It is depicted as support for the parasites of industry. Is it surprising, then, that the scope of protection gets ever wider? I suggest that the drafting of the legislation bears all the hallmarks of a complacent certainty that wider copyright protection is morally and economically justified. But is it?
Sir Hugh’s second speech, his inaugural talk as a professor at UCL, was delivered on December 4, 2007; it is entitled “The Insatiable Appetite for Intellectual Property Rights.” Alas, I do not think it has been published or is available online. In this talk, Sir Hugh noted a point deliberately obscured by the property rights rhetoric, that competition, not ownership is the natural state of affairs:
We believe in competition. It is competition which, by and large, delivers better and cheaper goods and services to the consumer. Competition is the whip
which drives traders to offer more for less to their customers. … If they don’t they will lose market share and profits to competitors who do. In our system, competition is king. It is the enemy of complacency. …
So where do IP rights fit into this? After all, they appear to undermine the very basis of our economic success. They hinder by creating areas of exclusivity. What are they supposed to deliver which justifies this subversion of the free market?
Sir Hugh’s answer was this:
The function of IP rights is to provide an economic incentive to goods and services, which, absent the would not exist or would take many more years to reach the market. They make up for a defect in the competitive system by supplying an incentive where otherwise there would be none.
This answer is orthodox, but here is how Sir Hugh ties the orthodoxy into his views on competition:
IP rights are the carrot to competition’s stick. Their purpose is not to displace competition but to modify it, to create sufficient economic incentive to justify the labour and investment in new products or art, but, after that incentive has worked its magic, to allow the normal forces of competition to have their way. … [O]nce the incentive has had its effect there is no further justification for its retention. It has done its work and competition should be allowed to return.
It is this last point that the property rights rhetoric wish to deny, but which Sir Hugh won’t allow. Sir Hugh concluded as follows:
We should be trying to hone the system so that the greatest rewards and encouragement go to
those industries which need and deserve them the most. Where IP rights perform their function of advancing the science or arts, they should be encouraged to do so. Where or to the extent that they do not, they have no justification and the normal discipline of competition should apply. The gluttony which has resulted in the growth of completely unnecessary or excessively long IP rights undermines the system itself. As Shakespeare wrote in Richard II,
--“With eager feeding food doth choke the feeder.”
We have lost a great treasure; a man whose erudition and practical experience rightly gave his views tremendous influence; a man whose honesty and candor was as rare as it is essential. Sir Hugh faced death as he did life, and we can learn from him in this too. He did not have a fear of death for himself, but instead worried about how his death would upset his beloved wife Stecia and children. Shortly his death he told me:
I am as greedy as the next man and want more of the fun and love-filled days that I have enjoyed in the past. But all these things come to an end at some time and I am not in a position to complain. I have a wonderful wife, three great children, six challenging and fun-filled grandchildren, have had a remarkably enjoyable career and have achieved more than I deserved and, last but not least, have a collection of wonderful and generous friends. What more could I ask for?
Sir Hugh was buried today in London. He was born in 1946. His mother is, I believe still alive at the age of 91. Though he didn’t learn a great deal of Yiddish, his mother was fluent in it: when her grandparents fled Russia to England, the only way to communicate with them was in Yiddish. His father died some time ago, but this last year was the first Kol Nidre he had missed, due to his health. Although Hugh did not accept the existence of a divine spirit, Kol Nidre had been for him a day of intense family bonding, and so the inability to go to it this last year was a source of regret.
When I stopped my blog, Hugh posted a comment urging me to resume. I haven’t resumed it , but the loss of my dear friend warrants a farewell.
Sir Hugh studied at Aldenham School and St Catharine's College, Cambridge. In 1980, he and his co-authors Peter Prescott and Mary Vitoria published the first edition of their landmark treatise, The Modern Law of Copyright and Design. (Last year a fourth edition was published). At the time it was seen as a quite courageous thing to do because the existing standard textbook in England - Copinger and Skone James - was taken for granted. At the time of Hugh’s treatise, there was no perceived need for anything else. Paul Torremans, reviewing the third edition in EIPR in 2001, described some of the chapters as revolutionary: they dared to have views that did not jibe with the status quo, and to express those views publicly.
After being called to the bar, Sir Hugh also performed valuable public service: in 1992 he was appointed Vice Chairman of the Copyright Tribunal, a statutory body that settles disputes between collecting societies and users of copyrighted works over royalty rates. In 1986, he was appointed a Queen’s Counsel (having been called to the bar in 1969). From 1981 to 1986, he served as a counsel for Her Majesty’s Treasury, a capacity in which he represented the British Government and the British Patent Office in all areas of Intellectual Property law litigation.
After 25 years as a successful IP barrister (during which he developed a well-deserved reputation as an expert patent and trademark lawyer too), he was appointed a Justice of the High Court in 1995, hearing cases in the Chancery Division and Patents Court (which includes copyrights).
On the bench, he continued the honesty and humor that was as much a part of his personality as his searing intellect and personal warmth. Here, for example, is an excerpt from a BBC story, about a dispute between two bands:
The judge in a court case involving two groups called Blue has been demonstrating his knowledge of the finer points of the pop and rock world.
Mr Justice Hugh Laddie is in charge of the case in which pop act Blue are being sued by a 1970s rock band of the same name. The original Blue want to prevent them from using the name, saying their own career and reputation is being damaged. They are suing the contemporary boy band and their label EMI/Virgin, for up to £5m.
As proceedings began at the High Court, Mr Justice Laddie defied the image of Britain's crusty, out-of-touch judiciary with some pithy examination of counsel. The judge - known for his broad taste in music - appeared surprised when the older band's barrister said their reputation was being threatened.
"Are you seriously saying that fans of one group would mistake one for the other?" he asked Charles Purle QC.
“There is somewhat a difference of appearance. One is aged like you and me, the other is a boy band." Mr Purle said: "My clients were a boy band in the 1970s."
The judge replied: "Oh no. Boy band is a style of music that is a bit more recent than the Charleston."
He resigned in 2005, the first High Court judge to do so in 35 years. His resignation caused a furor (in British spelling "furore," signifying a great degree of sturm und drang than the shorter, more base U.S. emotion). An article in the Times Online awhile after his resignation, a few wonderful quotes from Sir Hugh:
I was at the Bar for 25 years. I had a truly stupendous time. I still think, if you’re lucky and get a good practice, it’s a great job.” But with the heavy and tiring workload — “it was the only thing my wife and I would argue about” — he had no doubt about becoming a High Court judge. “There was only one direction — down. You can’t stay at the top for ever.”
For the first five years, he enjoyed it. But aspects jarred. “One thing is that you are really isolated. You can go all day without speaking to another judge.” So he set up a common room where judges could meet weekly for teas. Laddie, who was senior judge of the Patents Court, also believed strongly that the courts should serve litigants, not the profession. “That meant I was determined to try to cut costs to a point where I used to irritate people.
“Everyone has egos — it’s a matter of how difficult you find it to control.” Laddie did not endear himself to counsel when, at the start of a case, having read the papers, he would make clear his preliminary views. “Obviously I had provisional thoughts — it would be amazing if I didn’t. Some would say: he’s made up his mind. I hadn’t, of course.”
Laddie also objected to sitting on Chancery cases beyond his expertise. Had he taken a case outside his field at the Bar, he’d have left himself open to a negligence action, he says. But the moment he was a judge he was expected to do just that. “It was challenging — like high-wire walking — but I didn’t think it fair for clients to be learning at their expense.” Most worrying were the cases involving unrepresented litigants, with applications “ in an area of law that I knew nothing about”.
Nevertheless, despite the extremely hostile reactions of some of his colleagues to his resignation, in July of this year, Sir Hugh defended the British judiciary: "They were not people who used quill pens. They're computer literate, savvy, quite ordinary, nice people and not hidebound traditionalists.”
Rather than retiring to the country and practicing his fly-fishing technique, Sir Hugh joined the IP boutique Willoughby & Partners as a consultant. In that capacity, I had the great joy to hire him in 2007 as an expert on UK law for an amicus brief I filed in a case involving Uri Geller. Plaintiff asserted that a resident of Pennsylvania who was a critic of Geller’s committed a violation of UK law by uploading an allegedly infringing video on to YouTube’s servers, from which the video was hosted for others to view. Sir Hugh wrote in his report, however, that “a finding of infringement through authorization is dependent upon there being a finding that the person who was authorized, committed an infringement of United Kingdom copyright by performing, in the United Kingdom, one of the activities set out in section 16(1).” He concluded: “It follows from this that if the primary acts of which the plaintiff complains took place outside the United Kingdom there cannot be infringement of British copyright. Alleging authorization makes no difference to this. It is not an infringement to authorize a non-infringing activity.” After I filed Sir Hugh’s report, plaintiff did not even bother to file an answer and the case was settled.
In addition to being a consultant to the Willoughby firm, Sir Hugh became Professor Laddie when, in 2006, he became a Professor of Intellectual Property Law at University College London. There he founded the Institute of Brand and Innovation Law (IBIL). He wrote me a note recently about this post:
I thought that being a Professor entailed nothing more than walking around looking sombre while talking in obscure English. Apparently there's more to it than that. There are lectures, exams, exam-marking and begging people for support funds. At least on the last issue I got some help from a friend. I had sent out a number of begging letters to various firms of lawyers and was having dinner with this friend. I told him what I had done. .. . He asked me whether I had telephoned all the people to whom I had sent a letter. I was horrified. I didn't think it was part of my job to actually phone people up and ask. He pointed out, not unreasonably, that most people do not respond to letters asking for money and that really what you have to do is to speak to them either face-to-face or on the phone so that they feel too embarrassed to refuse. … I have got quite used to it now. I have developed an extremely thick skin and, by English standards, I think I have been rather successful.
In connection with the University’s Institute of Brand and Innovation Law , in June of this year, he gave an interview on the question of piracy in China and made these remarks. (I would love to know whether they made their way to USTR):
China has become a scapegoat for the West’s intellectual property problems, a leading lawyer said today. Sir Hugh Laddie, a former High Court judge, said that although China had issues with counterfeiting and other forms of intellectual property theft, there was a “complete misconception” about the scale of the problem relative to other countries. Sir Hugh said: “Of course there is counterfeiting in China, but the same goes on in the US and Europe. Pro rata, the biggest source of pirated computer software in the world in the US.”
Sir Hugh’s courage extended to his decisions on the bench, most famously in the Arsenal case. Marty Schwimmer described Sir Hugh’s actions in the case this way,
A vendor sold scarves with the Arsenal football club name and indicia. The issue turns on whether use of a team name in such way is trademark use in that sense that the team name designates the origin of the good, or is the team name and logo merely decorative use in the sense that the wearer of the scarf is merely communicating allegiance to that team. It's my understanding that Laddie himself tends toward the latter view ... . Laddie referred the case to the ECJ. Now that the ECJ has ruled that of course it's trademark use, Laddie has refused to follow its decision, apparently relying on the fact that the ECJ made fresh findings of fact, something it had no power to do.
The court of appeals reversed him. Reversal by a higher court doesn't of course mean HL was wrong, only that he had the courage to point out the dangerous usurpation by the EU, an "Emperor Has No Clothes" statement that must have embarrassed the court of appeals. May we all emulate him. Nor did his opinion stem from antipathy toward EU rights. Quite the contrary, in his earlier, 2001 Burrell Competition Lecture, "National I.P. Rights: A Moribund anachronism in a Federal Europe," 23 E.I.P.R. 402 (2001), he concludes "Now that we are in a single market, our domestic economy is Community-wide. So should our I.P. rights be. ... I can only hope that the Community trade mark will prove such a success that users will vote with their feet and will use it to the exclusion of national rights."
In the field of copyright, two of Sir Hugh’s articles should be laminated and placed on your desk so they may be re-read often. The first is his 1995 Stephen Stewart lecture, "Copyright: Over-strength, Over-regulated, Over-rated", published in 18 European Intellectual Property Review 253 (1996). Sir Hugh began the lecture this way:
The purpose of this lecture, given in honour of the memory of a clever and perceptive copyright lawyer, is to consider the current state of copyright law in this country. Does it meet current commercial needs? My purpose this evening is to ask questions and possibly raise doubts. Copyright is one of the quartet of monopolies which form the core of what is now known as intellectual property law. The others, of course, are patents, trade marks and registered designs. I suppose that since the introduction of the unregistered design right in the 1988 legislation, there really is a quintet of such rights. Each, in its own way, places a fetter on the right of others to compete in the market-place with the originator of the right or his employer. Therefore, to some extent, each distorts trade.
If this were all, these monopolies would work against the interests of the public at large. At the simplest level it can be said that the existence of a monopoly enables the monopolist to increase his prices or restrict supply as he pleases. Of course, we know that that is much too superficial a view. It ignores all the benefits to the public at large which can flow from the increased creativity and investment which are the product of a well-balanced monopoly system. But we must always bear in mind that monopoly legislation is the end result of a balancing act: is the restraint on competition justified by the benefits which it gives to society at large? In this lecture I would like to consider this basic balancing act as it applies to copyright.
One of the areas where he felt the balance was out of whack was with the length of copyright and the low standard for originality, seen in this passage:
[A]s a result of the Term Directive, the copyright in the first category of works, that is to say, literary works and so on, is now life of the author plus 70 full years. This additional 20 years has been imposed throughout the Member States of the European Union to bring us into line with the domestic law of Germany. As is now familiar in copyright law, the process was one of leveling up the protection rather than levelling down. The result of this new term is that if, for example, a young computer programmer writes a new piece of computer software, he generates a monopoly which will normally last for over 100 years. Depending on his longevity, it may last more than 150 years. Similarly, if a politician writes letters or speeches which are of general historic interest, they also may be protected for a century or more. Indeed, if a modern-day architect were to design a new Albert Memorial, he would have the satisfaction of knowing that his copyright is likely to be sprightly and in the prime of life long after the concrete and steel of his architectural creation have started to crumble.
The question to be asked is: what justification is there for a period of monopoly of such proportions? It surely cannot be based on the principle of encouraging artistic creativity by increasing the size of the carrot. No one is going to be more inclined to write computer programs or speeches, compose music or design buildings because 50, 60 or 70 years after his death a distant relative whom he has never met might still be getting royalties. It is noticeable that this expansion of term is not something which has only occurred in the last decade. On the contrary, it has been a trend which has been in evidence for the whole of this century. Before the 1911 Act, the term of copyright in artistic works extended to seven years after the author's death. In 1911 this was extended to 50 years after death. The growth of term is in fact greater than these figures suggest. Life expectancy in 1910 was far shorter than it is now. The result is that a monopoly which was expected to last about four decades in 1910 should now be expected to last on average more than three times as long.
Indeed, I believe that the same criticism of excessive duration can be leveled at the 50-year flat term which applies to films, recordings and broadcasts. It may be possible to pick out a few creations of exceptional artistic or commercial merit where one could argue for lengthy protection - for example, the recordings of Rostropovich or the Beatles - but is it right that all copyright should be protected on the basis of what might be thought justified for the exceptional few? Furthermore, it is possible to argue that these long copyright terms are not necessary to protect the commercial exploitation of the works themselves. Most works protected by copyright are exploited very rapidly, if at all. This is so whether we are considering films and records or literary works such as computer software. Even books such as those that win the Booker prize are only commercially successful for a short time and then, to all intents and purposes, pass away. Yet the dead hand of copyright lingers on, in most cases serving no useful purpose.
Another of the problems with copyright law is that, unlike inventions protected by patent or designs protected by registration, the requirements for qualification are so low as to be virtually non-existent. Virtually any written material, any sketch and any film footage or sound recording is automatically protected. This has practical consequences. In Elanco v Mandops, the Court of Appeal accepted, as it had to, that a label of instructions placed on the side of a barrel of herbicide was a copyright literary work. No doubt depending on the youth of the literary genius who wrote it, the label will be protected for more than a century and perhaps for as long as a century and a half - certainly well beyond the date when for safety or commercial reasons the product has been removed from the market. So one of the troubles with copyright, then, is that it springs up to protect nearly every creation of the human mind, be it ever so trivial. As another member of the judiciary put it, the fact that our system of communication, teaching and entertainment does not grind to a standstill is in large part due to the fact that in most cases infringement of copyright has, historically, been ignored.
He criticized the insane criminalization of the economic tort of copyright infringement: “We have … reached the stage where taxpayers' money is being used to enforce private rights which many might think are more than adequately protected by civil remedies. I should also mention that it appears that in most cases it is not the poor and weak who are using these criminal provisions but the rich and well organised.” Importantly for the current debates around the world on air use versus fair dealing, Sir Hugh came out in favor of fair use, beginning with criticisms of the 1988 UK Copyright Act’s enumerated and lengthy list of possible fair dealings:
These detailed and pedantic exceptions to copyright protection, and their predecessors in the 1956 Act, are not only difficult to understand in some cases, but they also reinforce the perception that virtually all reproductions of copyright works, no matter how innocuous, are infringements. Is it surprising then, that when, for the purposes of advertising the film "Carry on Cleo', a poster was created which was a harmless but humorous spoof of a similar poster for the Elizabeth Taylor/Richard Burton film "Cleopatra', it was held to infringe copyright.
It would be possible to go on criticising the width of our copyright laws, but perhaps I have said enough. It might be more useful to inquire why our law has developed as it has. I have mentioned already the value and size of the industries which now believe they need extensive copyright protection to safeguard their income stream. They, quite properly, lobby for their interests. But who lobbies against them? There is no trade union of copyright infringers. Support for any limitation on copyright is easily portrayed as support for pirates - the usual pejorative global expression for infringers. It is depicted as support for the parasites of industry. Is it surprising, then, that the scope of protection gets ever wider? I suggest that the drafting of the legislation bears all the hallmarks of a complacent certainty that wider copyright protection is morally and economically justified. But is it?
Sir Hugh’s second speech, his inaugural talk as a professor at UCL, was delivered on December 4, 2007; it is entitled “The Insatiable Appetite for Intellectual Property Rights.” Alas, I do not think it has been published or is available online. In this talk, Sir Hugh noted a point deliberately obscured by the property rights rhetoric, that competition, not ownership is the natural state of affairs:
We believe in competition. It is competition which, by and large, delivers better and cheaper goods and services to the consumer. Competition is the whip
which drives traders to offer more for less to their customers. … If they don’t they will lose market share and profits to competitors who do. In our system, competition is king. It is the enemy of complacency. …
So where do IP rights fit into this? After all, they appear to undermine the very basis of our economic success. They hinder by creating areas of exclusivity. What are they supposed to deliver which justifies this subversion of the free market?
Sir Hugh’s answer was this:
The function of IP rights is to provide an economic incentive to goods and services, which, absent the would not exist or would take many more years to reach the market. They make up for a defect in the competitive system by supplying an incentive where otherwise there would be none.
This answer is orthodox, but here is how Sir Hugh ties the orthodoxy into his views on competition:
IP rights are the carrot to competition’s stick. Their purpose is not to displace competition but to modify it, to create sufficient economic incentive to justify the labour and investment in new products or art, but, after that incentive has worked its magic, to allow the normal forces of competition to have their way. … [O]nce the incentive has had its effect there is no further justification for its retention. It has done its work and competition should be allowed to return.
It is this last point that the property rights rhetoric wish to deny, but which Sir Hugh won’t allow. Sir Hugh concluded as follows:
We should be trying to hone the system so that the greatest rewards and encouragement go to
those industries which need and deserve them the most. Where IP rights perform their function of advancing the science or arts, they should be encouraged to do so. Where or to the extent that they do not, they have no justification and the normal discipline of competition should apply. The gluttony which has resulted in the growth of completely unnecessary or excessively long IP rights undermines the system itself. As Shakespeare wrote in Richard II,
--“With eager feeding food doth choke the feeder.”
We have lost a great treasure; a man whose erudition and practical experience rightly gave his views tremendous influence; a man whose honesty and candor was as rare as it is essential. Sir Hugh faced death as he did life, and we can learn from him in this too. He did not have a fear of death for himself, but instead worried about how his death would upset his beloved wife Stecia and children. Shortly his death he told me:
I am as greedy as the next man and want more of the fun and love-filled days that I have enjoyed in the past. But all these things come to an end at some time and I am not in a position to complain. I have a wonderful wife, three great children, six challenging and fun-filled grandchildren, have had a remarkably enjoyable career and have achieved more than I deserved and, last but not least, have a collection of wonderful and generous friends. What more could I ask for?
Friday, August 08, 2008
Restoring Old Posts
The voice of the people has been heard. I will restore the posts, hopefully by tomorrow. This is not what I would prefer, but I respect that almost everyone else feels differently, other than those anonymous posters who were happy for the blog to go anyway. As I mentioned before, because I laboriously deleted the posts one-by-one, I needed a tool to capture the actual URLs for each post, which isn't as easy as it sounds since the URL did not always match the title of the blog. Thanks to Peter Ecklersley, who developed very cool tool to capture the URLs, and the great Blogger support team, almost all have been recaptured. They were recaptured as drafts though and there are posting limits that have to be overridden, so some work needs to be done yet. I will also try and cross reference those posts that were not captured and add them later.
Because so many people wrote asking for an archive, I will also compile an archive and send it to those who asked for it. That archive will not contains comments because the actual posts will be available for people to access. Deleting the comments from the archived posts will helpfully reduce the size of the archive, and avoid unanswered questions about the status of comments.
Thanks all of you for your kind words, and I hope restoring the links will show will my appreciation.
Because so many people wrote asking for an archive, I will also compile an archive and send it to those who asked for it. That archive will not contains comments because the actual posts will be available for people to access. Deleting the comments from the archived posts will helpfully reduce the size of the archive, and avoid unanswered questions about the status of comments.
Thanks all of you for your kind words, and I hope restoring the links will show will my appreciation.
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
Archiving the Blog
It may sound trite to say I am overwhelmed by the response to ending the blog, but I am. I have read all the requests to either restore old posts or create an archive of them. As much care as I gave to the posts (well, most of the time), I regarded them as ephemera. In the past I weeded out old ones I thought unsuccessful. This time, I deleted them one by one, rather than just killing the blog in its entirety since if I had killed the blog in its entirety, that would have simultaneously killed the last post announcing the end of the blog too. But because I eliminated the posts one by one, to restore them, I would have to restore them one by one, by URL, rather than by name of the post. That's way too much work for something I am not wild about anyway.
But, since so many people asked, I am doing this: I am creating a file with most of the posts (weeding out really trivial one). I will organize them by subject matter too, like registration issues, or infringement issues, architectural works, photographs, or discrete policy issues etc. I will finish in a number of days and will happily send the file to anyone who wants it. (You can email me at: williampatry@yahoo.com). I am happy if anyone wants to take the file and host it. I am also happy for anyone to copy any or all of the cached copies and do whatever they want with it. I will also revisit the issue of posting again after I have had a break and if I can figure out the answer to the problems I noted.
Thank you all very much for your comments and support. I still have my day job doing copyright, I still have the treatise which I update twice a year, and I may have a book on copyright discourse if I can find something constructive to say.
Bill
But, since so many people asked, I am doing this: I am creating a file with most of the posts (weeding out really trivial one). I will organize them by subject matter too, like registration issues, or infringement issues, architectural works, photographs, or discrete policy issues etc. I will finish in a number of days and will happily send the file to anyone who wants it. (You can email me at: williampatry@yahoo.com). I am happy if anyone wants to take the file and host it. I am also happy for anyone to copy any or all of the cached copies and do whatever they want with it. I will also revisit the issue of posting again after I have had a break and if I can figure out the answer to the problems I noted.
Thank you all very much for your comments and support. I still have my day job doing copyright, I still have the treatise which I update twice a year, and I may have a book on copyright discourse if I can find something constructive to say.
Bill
Friday, August 01, 2008
End of the Blog
I have decided to end the blog, after doing around 800 postings over about 4 years. I regret closing the blog and I owe readers an explanation. There are two reasons.
1. The Inability or Refusal to Accept the Blog for What it is: A Personal Blog
I have been a full-time copyright lawyer for 26 years. My late mother, aleha ha-shalom, told me repeatedly that I had a religious obligation to learn every day, and I have honored her memory by doing exactly that. Learning also involves changing how you think about things; it doesn't only mean reinforcing the existing views you already have. In this respect, Second Circuit Judge Pierre Leval once said that the best way to know you have a mind is to change it, and I have tried to live by that wisdom too. There are positions I have taken in the past I no longer hold, and some that I continue to hold. I have tried to be honest with myself: if you are not genuinely honest with yourself, you can't learn, and if you worry about what others think of you, you will be living their version of your life and not yours.
I started the blog when I was still in private practice with the above goals in mind and one more: I felt there was no blog devoted to the geekery of copyright; meaning a blog where people who loved copyright could come and discuss copyright issues in a non-partisan way. In order to encourage open discussion I permitted not only comments but anonymous and pseudonymous comments. I did that because I wanted to encourage the largest number of people to participate, and after four years I believe that was the right decision. But it is also the right decision to end the blog. While in private practice I never had the experience of people attributing my views to my firm or to my clients. I moved from private practice to Google I put a disclaimer to the effect that the views in the blog (as in the past) were strictly mine. I also set a policy, which I strictly adhered to, of never discussing cases Google was involved in, and I refrained from criticizing those with whom Google was involved in lawsuits. I did not run ads, including not using Google's AdSense program. I cannot see what more I could have done to make what was a personal blog more separate from my employer.
For the first year after joining Google, with some exceptions, people honored the personal nature of the blog, but no longer. When other blogs or news stories refer to the blog, the inevitable opening sentence now is: "William Patry, Google's Senior Copyright Counsel said," or "Google's top copyright lawyer said... ." There is nothing I can do to stop this false implication that I am speaking on Google's behalf. And that's just those who do so because they are lazy. Others, for partisan purposes, insist on on misdescribing the blog as a Google blog, or in one case involving a think tank, darkly indicating also a la Senator Joe McCarthy, that in addition to funding from Google, there may be other sources of funding too. On Blogger, blogs are free. The blog had no funding because it doesn't cost anything, because I don't run ads, and because it was my personal blog, started before I joined Google.
On top of this there are the crazies, whom it is impossible to reason with, who do not have a life of their own and so insist on ruining the lives of others, and preferably as many as possible. I asked myself last week after having to deal with the craziest of the crazies yet, "why subject yourself to this?" I could come up with no reason why I should: My grandfather chose to be a psychiatrist, but I chose a different professional path, one that doesn't obligate me to put up with such nonsense.
In the end, I concluded that it is no longer possible for me to have a blog that will be respected for what it is, a personal blog. I don't draw any grand conclusions from this and hope others don't either. The decision was 100% mine. No one at Google ever asked, suggested, or hinted that I should end the blog. To the contrary, in keeping with Google's deep commitment to free speech, the company encourages blogs like mine, and has stood completely behind me.
2. The Current State of Copyright Law is too depressing
This leads me to my final reason for closing the blog which is independent of the first reason: my fear that the blog was becoming too negative in tone. I regard myself as a centrist. I believe very much that in proper doses copyright is essential for certain classes of works, especially commercial movies, commercial sound recordings, and commercial books, the core copyright industries. I accept that the level of proper doses will vary from person to person and that my recommended dose may be lower (or higher) than others. But in my view, and that of my cherished brother Sir Hugh Laddie, we are well past the healthy dose stage and into the serious illness stage. Much like the U.S. economy, things are getting worse, not better. Copyright law has abandoned its reason for being: to encourage learning and the creation of new works. Instead, its principal functions now are to preserve existing failed business models, to suppress new business models and technologies, and to obtain, if possible, enormous windfall profits from activity that not only causes no harm, but which is beneficial to copyright owners. Like Humpty-Dumpty, the copyright law we used to know can never be put back together again: multilateral and trade agreements have ensured that, and quite deliberately.
It is profoundly depressing, after 26 years full-time in a field I love, to be a constant voice of dissent. I have tried various ways to leaven this state of affairs with positive postings, much like television news shows that experiment with "happy features." I have blogged about great articles others have written, or highlighted scholars who have not gotten the attention they deserve; I tried to find cases, even inconsequential ones, that I can fawn over. But after awhile, this wore thin, because the most important stories are too often ones that involve initiatives that are, in my opinion, seriously harmful to the public interest. I cannot continue to be so negative, so often. Being so negative, while deserved on the merits, gives a distorted perspective of my centrist views, and is emotionally a downer.
So between the inability or refusal of some people to accept the blog for what it is -- a personal blog --- and my inability to continue to be Cassandra, I decided it was time to pull the plug. I thank profusely all those who have accepted the blog for what it is, and who have contributed so much to it and to my learning over the years. I intend to spend my free time figuring out a constructive way to talk about the difficult issues we face and how to advance toward their solution.
1. The Inability or Refusal to Accept the Blog for What it is: A Personal Blog
I have been a full-time copyright lawyer for 26 years. My late mother, aleha ha-shalom, told me repeatedly that I had a religious obligation to learn every day, and I have honored her memory by doing exactly that. Learning also involves changing how you think about things; it doesn't only mean reinforcing the existing views you already have. In this respect, Second Circuit Judge Pierre Leval once said that the best way to know you have a mind is to change it, and I have tried to live by that wisdom too. There are positions I have taken in the past I no longer hold, and some that I continue to hold. I have tried to be honest with myself: if you are not genuinely honest with yourself, you can't learn, and if you worry about what others think of you, you will be living their version of your life and not yours.
I started the blog when I was still in private practice with the above goals in mind and one more: I felt there was no blog devoted to the geekery of copyright; meaning a blog where people who loved copyright could come and discuss copyright issues in a non-partisan way. In order to encourage open discussion I permitted not only comments but anonymous and pseudonymous comments. I did that because I wanted to encourage the largest number of people to participate, and after four years I believe that was the right decision. But it is also the right decision to end the blog. While in private practice I never had the experience of people attributing my views to my firm or to my clients. I moved from private practice to Google I put a disclaimer to the effect that the views in the blog (as in the past) were strictly mine. I also set a policy, which I strictly adhered to, of never discussing cases Google was involved in, and I refrained from criticizing those with whom Google was involved in lawsuits. I did not run ads, including not using Google's AdSense program. I cannot see what more I could have done to make what was a personal blog more separate from my employer.
For the first year after joining Google, with some exceptions, people honored the personal nature of the blog, but no longer. When other blogs or news stories refer to the blog, the inevitable opening sentence now is: "William Patry, Google's Senior Copyright Counsel said," or "Google's top copyright lawyer said... ." There is nothing I can do to stop this false implication that I am speaking on Google's behalf. And that's just those who do so because they are lazy. Others, for partisan purposes, insist on on misdescribing the blog as a Google blog, or in one case involving a think tank, darkly indicating also a la Senator Joe McCarthy, that in addition to funding from Google, there may be other sources of funding too. On Blogger, blogs are free. The blog had no funding because it doesn't cost anything, because I don't run ads, and because it was my personal blog, started before I joined Google.
On top of this there are the crazies, whom it is impossible to reason with, who do not have a life of their own and so insist on ruining the lives of others, and preferably as many as possible. I asked myself last week after having to deal with the craziest of the crazies yet, "why subject yourself to this?" I could come up with no reason why I should: My grandfather chose to be a psychiatrist, but I chose a different professional path, one that doesn't obligate me to put up with such nonsense.
In the end, I concluded that it is no longer possible for me to have a blog that will be respected for what it is, a personal blog. I don't draw any grand conclusions from this and hope others don't either. The decision was 100% mine. No one at Google ever asked, suggested, or hinted that I should end the blog. To the contrary, in keeping with Google's deep commitment to free speech, the company encourages blogs like mine, and has stood completely behind me.
2. The Current State of Copyright Law is too depressing
This leads me to my final reason for closing the blog which is independent of the first reason: my fear that the blog was becoming too negative in tone. I regard myself as a centrist. I believe very much that in proper doses copyright is essential for certain classes of works, especially commercial movies, commercial sound recordings, and commercial books, the core copyright industries. I accept that the level of proper doses will vary from person to person and that my recommended dose may be lower (or higher) than others. But in my view, and that of my cherished brother Sir Hugh Laddie, we are well past the healthy dose stage and into the serious illness stage. Much like the U.S. economy, things are getting worse, not better. Copyright law has abandoned its reason for being: to encourage learning and the creation of new works. Instead, its principal functions now are to preserve existing failed business models, to suppress new business models and technologies, and to obtain, if possible, enormous windfall profits from activity that not only causes no harm, but which is beneficial to copyright owners. Like Humpty-Dumpty, the copyright law we used to know can never be put back together again: multilateral and trade agreements have ensured that, and quite deliberately.
It is profoundly depressing, after 26 years full-time in a field I love, to be a constant voice of dissent. I have tried various ways to leaven this state of affairs with positive postings, much like television news shows that experiment with "happy features." I have blogged about great articles others have written, or highlighted scholars who have not gotten the attention they deserve; I tried to find cases, even inconsequential ones, that I can fawn over. But after awhile, this wore thin, because the most important stories are too often ones that involve initiatives that are, in my opinion, seriously harmful to the public interest. I cannot continue to be so negative, so often. Being so negative, while deserved on the merits, gives a distorted perspective of my centrist views, and is emotionally a downer.
So between the inability or refusal of some people to accept the blog for what it is -- a personal blog --- and my inability to continue to be Cassandra, I decided it was time to pull the plug. I thank profusely all those who have accepted the blog for what it is, and who have contributed so much to it and to my learning over the years. I intend to spend my free time figuring out a constructive way to talk about the difficult issues we face and how to advance toward their solution.
It was a Crime Alright but was it Pled Properly?
The Sixth Circuit just handed down a case that involves unusual questions of pleading in a criminal indictment, United States v. Teh. Defendant Thian Teh was arrested at the Detroit airport after flying in to the country from Malaysia. Customs had previously seized shipments of counterfeit DVDs sent to defendant's business in Oklahoma. When his luggage was searched at the airport, Customs officials found four boxes with 756 DVDs and 284 DVD sleeve packages. The DVDs were counterfeit and of poor quality. Defendant claimed he didn't know what was in the boxes and that a friend had asked him to deliver them to the friend's daughter. There was bench trial; defendant was convicted and appealed.
Defendant was charged with "fraudulently or knowingly import[ing] ... merchandise contrary to law." He was charges with violating 18 USC 545, which pretty much states what I just quoted. But what was the law that defendant acted contrary to? Obviously the copyright act, but the government never referred to any statute other than Section 545, nor specified at any time how the proof met the contrary to law element of Section 545. This failure, the court of appeals noted, "[w]ithout question ... caused considerable confusion for Teh, the government, and the district court." The indictment did allege that the DVDs were "counterfeit" and "in violation of ... copyrights," but as defendant pointed out "a copyright is not a law."
In the end, the court of appeals confirmed the conviction, as a kind of harmless error, but there is nothing harmless in this type of counterfeiting: it is a cancer on the motion picture industry, and a quite appropriate use of government resources to stop it. Hopefully, in light of the Teh case, some of those resources will be allocated to proper drafting of indictments.
H.T. to C.E. Petit.
Defendant was charged with "fraudulently or knowingly import[ing] ... merchandise contrary to law." He was charges with violating 18 USC 545, which pretty much states what I just quoted. But what was the law that defendant acted contrary to? Obviously the copyright act, but the government never referred to any statute other than Section 545, nor specified at any time how the proof met the contrary to law element of Section 545. This failure, the court of appeals noted, "[w]ithout question ... caused considerable confusion for Teh, the government, and the district court." The indictment did allege that the DVDs were "counterfeit" and "in violation of ... copyrights," but as defendant pointed out "a copyright is not a law."
In the end, the court of appeals confirmed the conviction, as a kind of harmless error, but there is nothing harmless in this type of counterfeiting: it is a cancer on the motion picture industry, and a quite appropriate use of government resources to stop it. Hopefully, in light of the Teh case, some of those resources will be allocated to proper drafting of indictments.
H.T. to C.E. Petit.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Educators Forced to Become MPAA's Cops
On July 30th, the House and Senate conferees approved the Higher Education Act reauthorization conference report, H.R. Rep. 110-803, to H.R. 4137. The bill, expected to become law soon, includes the College Opportunity and Affordability Act. Some may recall efforts last year to condition federal aid to universities on those institutions employing filtering technology. Senate Majority leader Harry Reid would have also mandated that the Secretary of Education compile a 25 “worst offenders" list of those schools with the highest levels of illegal P2P file sharing. The idea wasn’t original, MPAA had already compiled its the top 25 list. MPAA head Dan Glickman put out this press release at the time:
Some college students are abusing powerful taxpayer funded computer networks to download and distribute movies and other copyrighted material which is why we are committed to working with universities to develop and implement plans to address this problem. We commend Senator Reid for his leadership in getting this important legislation passed through the Senate which will help encourage universities to do more.
At the time, Mr. Glickman estimated that downloading at universities cost the industry $500 million annually. Why not the Austin Powers ONE BILLION DOLLARS? Apparently members of Congress later failed to read the MPAA’s January 2008 admission that its numbers in a commissioned survey about the extent of alleged unauthorized file sharing on campus were way off, the result of alleged “human error.” But even the new number was phony and also failed to take into account the fact that most students live off campus.
This raises one of the features of Washington DC that rightly baffles those outside the Beltway: how is that a trade association gets an issue so wrong, but then still manages to get legislation passed that addresses a non-problem that the association deliberately concocted? The answer, supplied by Mr. Glickman, is: leadership.
MPAA’s initial efforts were defeated fortunately, and the history of the bill during late 2007 and early 2008 is recounted in a series of very informative posts by Anne Broache for Cnet here , here, and here. Congress, in the bill that just passed, instead of mandating filtering and bad boy lists, mandated various requirements for educators to undertake, all of which involve spouting MPAA and RIAA’s propaganda. Here are the relevant pages from the Joint Explanatory Statement of the Managers in the Conference Committee report describing the requirements:
Institutional and Financial Assistance Information for Students.
The Senate amendment and the House bill require institutions to make available to current and prospective students the institution of higher education's policies and sanctions related to copyright infringement, including a description of actions taken by the institution of higher education to detect and prevent the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted materials on the institution of higher education's technology system.
Both the Senate and the House recede with an amendment to replace language in (iv) with language requiring institutions to make available the development of plans to detect and prevent unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material on the institution of higher education's information technology system which shall, to the extent practicable, include offering alternatives to illegal-downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property, as determined by the institution of higher education in consultation with the Chief Technology Officer or other designated officer of the institution.
The Conferees have combined elements from both bills to require institutions to advise students about this issue and to certify that all institutions have plans to combat and reduce illegal peer to peer file sharing.
Experience shows that a technology-based deterrent can be an effective element of an overall solution to combat copyright infringement, when used in combination with other internal and external solutions to educate users and enforce institutional policies.
Effective technology-based deterrents are currently available to institutions of higher education through a number of vendors. These approaches may provide an institution with the ability to choose which one best meets its needs, depending on that institution's own unique characteristics, such as cost and scale. These include bandwidth shaping, traffic monitoring to identify the largest bandwidth users, a vigorous program of accepting and responding to Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) notices, and a variety of commercial products designed to reduce or block illegal file sharing.
Rapid advances in information technology mean that new products and techniques are continually emerging. Technologies that are promising today may be obsolete a year from now and new products that are not even on the drawing board may, at some point in the not too distant future, prove highly effective. The Conferees intend that this Section be interpreted to be technology neutral and not imply that any particular technology measures are favored or required for inclusion in an institution's plans. The Conferees intend for each institution to retain the authority to determine what its particular plans for compliance with this Section will be, including those that prohibit content monitoring. The Conferees recognize that there is a broad range of possibilities that exist for institutions to consider in developing plans for purposes of complying with this Section.
Numerous institutions are utilizing various technology based deterrent in their efforts to combat copyright infringement on their campuses. According to a report of the Joint Committee of the Higher Education and Entertainment Communities, many institutions of higher education have taken significant steps to deal with the problem. Indiana University, for example, hosts an extensive "Are you legal?" educational campaign for students on the issues, and enforces campus policies on proper use of the network. It acts on DCMA notices by disconnecting students from the network and requires tutorials and quizzes to restore service. Second offenders are blocked immediately and are sent to the Student Ethics Committee for disciplinary action.
Audible Magic's CopySense Network Appliance provides comprehensive control over Peer-to-Peer (P2P) usage on a university's network. The CopySense Appliance identifies and blocks illegal sharing of copyrighted files while allowing other legitimate P2P uses to continue. It filters copyrighted P2P content by sensing an electronic fingerprint unique to the content itself, which is very similar to the way virus filters operate.
Red Lambda's "Integrity" is a network security solution dedicated to the management of file-sharing activities via protocols like P2P, IM, IRC, and FTP. This technology is able to detect all P2P, OS file-sharing, FTP, IM, proxy use, Skype and application tunneling over HTTP, HTTPS, DNS and ICMP protocols.
The University of Maryland, College Park, severely restricts bandwidth for residential networks and block certain protocols. It designed "Project Nethics" to promote the responsible use of information technology through user education and policy enforcement. A third violation can result in eviction from the university housing system. Montgomery College in Maryland enforces an Acceptable Use Policy on its wired and wireless networks.
Additional existing technological approaches can deter illegal file sharing by automatically processing notices sent by scanning vendors then taking actions such as messaging the user via browser redirection, applying the appropriate sanction and automatically re-enable browsing after a timeout or reconnect fee is paid. Other institutions use technology to appropriately manage their campus networks by limiting and/or shaping bandwidth, such as Packeteer's packet shaping technology.
This statement, in all likelihood written by MPAA, is extraordinary in many respects, especially for its detailed endorsement of private sector products. No general principles here like the text of the bill, and that of course is one of the abuses of legislative history that Justice Scalia and others rightly complain about: the tenor of the legislative history would never have been able to pass as legislative text. But the legislative history was inserted to serve a long-term agenda: there is likely to be an effort in the next Congress to mandate these technologies. The MPAA, with figures no better than the ones they retracted, will complain about universities’ alleged failure to be MPAA’s cops, and will lobby for mandated use of technologies, along with forfeiture of federal funding for not doing so. Why not throw in a 10 year federal prison term (no parole in the federal system, btw) for the President of a University that isn’t up to snuff. Or, how about adopting Sarbanes-Oxley for university officials who will have to swear on penalty of perjury (and imprisonment) that they have fulfilled MPAA’s requirements?
Here is the relevant statutory language:
Some college students are abusing powerful taxpayer funded computer networks to download and distribute movies and other copyrighted material which is why we are committed to working with universities to develop and implement plans to address this problem. We commend Senator Reid for his leadership in getting this important legislation passed through the Senate which will help encourage universities to do more.
At the time, Mr. Glickman estimated that downloading at universities cost the industry $500 million annually. Why not the Austin Powers ONE BILLION DOLLARS? Apparently members of Congress later failed to read the MPAA’s January 2008 admission that its numbers in a commissioned survey about the extent of alleged unauthorized file sharing on campus were way off, the result of alleged “human error.” But even the new number was phony and also failed to take into account the fact that most students live off campus.
This raises one of the features of Washington DC that rightly baffles those outside the Beltway: how is that a trade association gets an issue so wrong, but then still manages to get legislation passed that addresses a non-problem that the association deliberately concocted? The answer, supplied by Mr. Glickman, is: leadership.
MPAA’s initial efforts were defeated fortunately, and the history of the bill during late 2007 and early 2008 is recounted in a series of very informative posts by Anne Broache for Cnet here , here, and here. Congress, in the bill that just passed, instead of mandating filtering and bad boy lists, mandated various requirements for educators to undertake, all of which involve spouting MPAA and RIAA’s propaganda. Here are the relevant pages from the Joint Explanatory Statement of the Managers in the Conference Committee report describing the requirements:
Institutional and Financial Assistance Information for Students.
The Senate amendment and the House bill require institutions to make available to current and prospective students the institution of higher education's policies and sanctions related to copyright infringement, including a description of actions taken by the institution of higher education to detect and prevent the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted materials on the institution of higher education's technology system.
Both the Senate and the House recede with an amendment to replace language in (iv) with language requiring institutions to make available the development of plans to detect and prevent unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material on the institution of higher education's information technology system which shall, to the extent practicable, include offering alternatives to illegal-downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property, as determined by the institution of higher education in consultation with the Chief Technology Officer or other designated officer of the institution.
The Conferees have combined elements from both bills to require institutions to advise students about this issue and to certify that all institutions have plans to combat and reduce illegal peer to peer file sharing.
Experience shows that a technology-based deterrent can be an effective element of an overall solution to combat copyright infringement, when used in combination with other internal and external solutions to educate users and enforce institutional policies.
Effective technology-based deterrents are currently available to institutions of higher education through a number of vendors. These approaches may provide an institution with the ability to choose which one best meets its needs, depending on that institution's own unique characteristics, such as cost and scale. These include bandwidth shaping, traffic monitoring to identify the largest bandwidth users, a vigorous program of accepting and responding to Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) notices, and a variety of commercial products designed to reduce or block illegal file sharing.
Rapid advances in information technology mean that new products and techniques are continually emerging. Technologies that are promising today may be obsolete a year from now and new products that are not even on the drawing board may, at some point in the not too distant future, prove highly effective. The Conferees intend that this Section be interpreted to be technology neutral and not imply that any particular technology measures are favored or required for inclusion in an institution's plans. The Conferees intend for each institution to retain the authority to determine what its particular plans for compliance with this Section will be, including those that prohibit content monitoring. The Conferees recognize that there is a broad range of possibilities that exist for institutions to consider in developing plans for purposes of complying with this Section.
Numerous institutions are utilizing various technology based deterrent in their efforts to combat copyright infringement on their campuses. According to a report of the Joint Committee of the Higher Education and Entertainment Communities, many institutions of higher education have taken significant steps to deal with the problem. Indiana University, for example, hosts an extensive "Are you legal?" educational campaign for students on the issues, and enforces campus policies on proper use of the network. It acts on DCMA notices by disconnecting students from the network and requires tutorials and quizzes to restore service. Second offenders are blocked immediately and are sent to the Student Ethics Committee for disciplinary action.
Audible Magic's CopySense Network Appliance provides comprehensive control over Peer-to-Peer (P2P) usage on a university's network. The CopySense Appliance identifies and blocks illegal sharing of copyrighted files while allowing other legitimate P2P uses to continue. It filters copyrighted P2P content by sensing an electronic fingerprint unique to the content itself, which is very similar to the way virus filters operate.
Red Lambda's "Integrity" is a network security solution dedicated to the management of file-sharing activities via protocols like P2P, IM, IRC, and FTP. This technology is able to detect all P2P, OS file-sharing, FTP, IM, proxy use, Skype and application tunneling over HTTP, HTTPS, DNS and ICMP protocols.
The University of Maryland, College Park, severely restricts bandwidth for residential networks and block certain protocols. It designed "Project Nethics" to promote the responsible use of information technology through user education and policy enforcement. A third violation can result in eviction from the university housing system. Montgomery College in Maryland enforces an Acceptable Use Policy on its wired and wireless networks.
Additional existing technological approaches can deter illegal file sharing by automatically processing notices sent by scanning vendors then taking actions such as messaging the user via browser redirection, applying the appropriate sanction and automatically re-enable browsing after a timeout or reconnect fee is paid. Other institutions use technology to appropriately manage their campus networks by limiting and/or shaping bandwidth, such as Packeteer's packet shaping technology.
This statement, in all likelihood written by MPAA, is extraordinary in many respects, especially for its detailed endorsement of private sector products. No general principles here like the text of the bill, and that of course is one of the abuses of legislative history that Justice Scalia and others rightly complain about: the tenor of the legislative history would never have been able to pass as legislative text. But the legislative history was inserted to serve a long-term agenda: there is likely to be an effort in the next Congress to mandate these technologies. The MPAA, with figures no better than the ones they retracted, will complain about universities’ alleged failure to be MPAA’s cops, and will lobby for mandated use of technologies, along with forfeiture of federal funding for not doing so. Why not throw in a 10 year federal prison term (no parole in the federal system, btw) for the President of a University that isn’t up to snuff. Or, how about adopting Sarbanes-Oxley for university officials who will have to swear on penalty of perjury (and imprisonment) that they have fulfilled MPAA’s requirements?
Here is the relevant statutory language:
1 SEC. 488. INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE IN
2 FORMATION FOR STUDENTS.
3 (a) INFORMATION DISSEMINATION ACTIVITIES.—
4 Section 485(a) (20 U.S.C. 1092(a)) is amended—
5 (1) in paragraph (1)—
6 (A) in subparagraph (G)—
7 (i) by striking ‘‘program, and’’ and in
8 serting ‘‘program,’’; and
9 (ii) by inserting ‘‘, and (iv) any plans
10 by the institution for improving the aca
11 demic program of the institution’’ after
12 ‘‘instructional personnel’’; and
13 (B) by striking subparagraph (M) and in
14 serting the following:
15 ‘‘(M) the terms and conditions of the loans
16 that students receive under parts B, D, and
17 E;’’;
18 (C) in subparagraph (N), by striking
19 ‘‘and’’ after the semicolon;
20 (D) in subparagraph (O), by striking the
21 period and inserting a semicolon; and
22 (E) by adding at the end the following:
23 ‘‘(P) institutional policies and sanctions re
24 lated to copyright infringement, including—
25 ‘‘(i) an annual disclosure that explic
26 itly informs students that unauthorized
P96
1 distribution of copyrighted material, in
2 cluding unauthorized peer-to-peer file shar
3 ing, may subject the students to civil and
4 criminal liabilities;
5 ‘‘(ii) a summary of the penalties for
6 violation of Federal copyright laws; and
7 ‘‘(iii) a description of the institution’s
8 policies with respect to unauthorized peer
9 to-peer file sharing, including disciplinary
10 actions that are taken against students
11 who engage in unauthorized distribution of
12 copyrighted materials using the institu
13 tion’s information technology system;
...
17 SEC. 493. PROGRAM PARTICIPATION AGREEMENTS.
...25 U.S.C. 1094(a)) is amended—
1 (i) in paragraph (23)—
2 (I) by moving subparagraph (C)
3 two ems to the left; and
4 (II) by adding at the end the fol
5 lowing:
……..
6 ‘‘(29) The institution certifies that the institu
7 tion—
8 ‘‘(A) has developed plans to effectively
9 combat the unauthorized distribution of copy
10 righted material, including through the use of a
11 variety of technology-based deterrents; and
12 ‘‘(B) will, to the extent practicable, offer
13 alternatives to illegal downloading or peer-to
14 peer distribution of intellectual property, as de
15 termined by the institution in consultation with
16 the chief technology officer or other designated
17 officer of the institution.’’.
US Government Insists on Right to Violate DMCA
I previously did a posting on the US government’s successful invocation of sovereign immunity in a claim alleging copyright infringement and an anti-circumvention claim under the DMCA. The opinion in that case came from the Court of Federal Claims, a trial-level court. The decision has now been affirmed by the Federal Circuit, Blueport Company, LLC v. United States, 2008 WL 2854127 (CAFC, July 25, 2008)(No. 2007-5140), available here.
Congress abrogated the federal government’s sovereign immunity for copyright infringement in 28 USC 1498(c), but a DMCA anti-circumvention violation is not an infringement action; instead, chapter 12 of title 17 is a sui generis right, like semiconductor chips, bootlegging, and vessel boat hull protection. There is no express abrogation of sovereign immunity for DMCA violations, and thus the US government is free to – and appears quite happy to – engage in activity, which if done by individuals or companies, would be illegal, perhaps even criminal. The hypocrisy in the US government’s conduct is breathtaking given USTR’s vigorous efforts to peddle the DMCA internationally. Where are the IIPA, BSA, and other “pro-IP” groups on this scandalous treatment of creators? Will they now press for an amendment to 1498(b) to include violations of the DMCA?
The facts in the Blueport case fully support the sense of outrage we should all have over this situation. I will simply copy them verbatim from the CAFC’s opinion so there is no slanting of them. After reading them, ask yourself whether we should ever believe again government officials who talk about the importance of intellectual property:
BACKGROUND
In this case, Blueport claims that the Government-specifically the U.S. Air Force-infringed Blueport's copyright on a software program known as “the AUMD program.” The AUMD program was written by Air Force Technical Sergeant Mark Davenport. On March 6, 2000, Davenport assigned all his rights in the AUMD program to Blueport.
When Davenport wrote the AUMD program, he was employed as a manager of the Air Force Manpower Data System (“MDS”), a database containing manpower profiles for each unit in the Air Force. In his capacity as an MDS Manager, Davenport updated the MDS with new data and provided reports from the MDS to Air Force personnel upon request. Davenport was also a member of the Air Force's Manpower User Group, a group of manpower personnel from each of the Air Force's major commands who provided guidance on the use of the MDS. Based on his experience with the MDS, Davenport concluded that the software the Air Force used to run the MDS was inefficient and began seeking ways to redesign the software program. Davenport initially requested training in computer programming from the Air Force, but his request was denied. Undeterred, Davenport learned the computer programming skills necessary to write the AUMD program on his own time and with his own resources. Davenport then wrote the source code for the AUMD program while at home on his personal computer. Although he wrote the program solely at his home and at his own initiative, Davenport's intent in writing the program was that other Air Force manpower personnel would use it.
In June 1998, Davenport shared an early version of the program with a fellow coworker, and both tested the program on the MDS at work during regular business hours. Based on the results of this testing, Davenport made changes to the source code of the AUMD program on his home computer. Davenport did not at that time, or at any time thereafter, bring the AUMD program's source code to work or copy it onto Air Force computers.
After these initial tests, Davenport began sharing copies of the AUMD program with other colleagues. At first, Davenport shared the AUMD program with colleagues by giving them a computer disk containing the program or by personally installing the program on their computers. Later, Davenport posted the AUMD program on an Air Force web page so that Air Force manpower personnel could download it directly. As the program became popular within the Air Force manpower community, Davenport's superiors asked him to train additional personnel in its use. During this time, he continued to modify the program based on feedback he received and, as a result, improved its functionality and eliminated programming errors. At some point, Davenport added an automatic expiration date to each new version of the AUMD program so that users were required to download the newest version when the older one expired.
In September 1998, Davenport gave a presentation to senior Air Force manpower officers at an annual conference and, according to one of Davenport's superiors, “absolutely sold his audience” on the AUMD program. Davenport's performance report deemed him the “go to troubleshooter for [the] entire [Air Force] manpower community ... [and] the most knowledgeable database manager in [the] career field.” The performance report concluded with a recommendation to promote Davenport immediately.
Despite Davenport's success in creating the AUMD program and his willingness to share it, the Air Force eventually decided it was becoming too dependent on Davenport for access to the program. Accordingly, Davenport's superiors asked him to turn over the source code for the program, which Davenport had always kept on his home computer. When he refused to turn over the source code, his superiors threatened him with a demotion and a pay cut, and excluded him from the Manpower User Group's advisory authority.
Davenport then assigned all his rights in the AUMD program to Blueport. Subsequently, Blueport attempted to negotiate a license agreement with the Air Force. However, the Air Force refused Blueport's offer and solicited other contractors to recreate the AUMD program. The Air Force ultimately contracted with Science Applications International Corporation (“SAIC”). At the request of the Air Force, SAIC programmers modified the AUMD program's object code to extend its expiration date. This modification allowed Air Force manpower personnel to continue to use the AUMD program despite Davenport's refusal to provide the source code.
In 2002, Blueport brought the present claims against the Government for copyright infringement and violations of the DMCA. Specifically, Blueport argues that the Air Force infringed its copyright in the AUMD program. In addition, Blueport argues that the Air Force violated the DMCA by extending the expiration date in the AUMD program's object code-thus circumventing the measures taken by Blueport to prevent unauthorized use of the program. The CFC dismissed Blueport's claims for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the Government had not waived its sovereign immunity for any of the claims. Blueport now appeals.
Congress abrogated the federal government’s sovereign immunity for copyright infringement in 28 USC 1498(c), but a DMCA anti-circumvention violation is not an infringement action; instead, chapter 12 of title 17 is a sui generis right, like semiconductor chips, bootlegging, and vessel boat hull protection. There is no express abrogation of sovereign immunity for DMCA violations, and thus the US government is free to – and appears quite happy to – engage in activity, which if done by individuals or companies, would be illegal, perhaps even criminal. The hypocrisy in the US government’s conduct is breathtaking given USTR’s vigorous efforts to peddle the DMCA internationally. Where are the IIPA, BSA, and other “pro-IP” groups on this scandalous treatment of creators? Will they now press for an amendment to 1498(b) to include violations of the DMCA?
The facts in the Blueport case fully support the sense of outrage we should all have over this situation. I will simply copy them verbatim from the CAFC’s opinion so there is no slanting of them. After reading them, ask yourself whether we should ever believe again government officials who talk about the importance of intellectual property:
BACKGROUND
In this case, Blueport claims that the Government-specifically the U.S. Air Force-infringed Blueport's copyright on a software program known as “the AUMD program.” The AUMD program was written by Air Force Technical Sergeant Mark Davenport. On March 6, 2000, Davenport assigned all his rights in the AUMD program to Blueport.
When Davenport wrote the AUMD program, he was employed as a manager of the Air Force Manpower Data System (“MDS”), a database containing manpower profiles for each unit in the Air Force. In his capacity as an MDS Manager, Davenport updated the MDS with new data and provided reports from the MDS to Air Force personnel upon request. Davenport was also a member of the Air Force's Manpower User Group, a group of manpower personnel from each of the Air Force's major commands who provided guidance on the use of the MDS. Based on his experience with the MDS, Davenport concluded that the software the Air Force used to run the MDS was inefficient and began seeking ways to redesign the software program. Davenport initially requested training in computer programming from the Air Force, but his request was denied. Undeterred, Davenport learned the computer programming skills necessary to write the AUMD program on his own time and with his own resources. Davenport then wrote the source code for the AUMD program while at home on his personal computer. Although he wrote the program solely at his home and at his own initiative, Davenport's intent in writing the program was that other Air Force manpower personnel would use it.
In June 1998, Davenport shared an early version of the program with a fellow coworker, and both tested the program on the MDS at work during regular business hours. Based on the results of this testing, Davenport made changes to the source code of the AUMD program on his home computer. Davenport did not at that time, or at any time thereafter, bring the AUMD program's source code to work or copy it onto Air Force computers.
After these initial tests, Davenport began sharing copies of the AUMD program with other colleagues. At first, Davenport shared the AUMD program with colleagues by giving them a computer disk containing the program or by personally installing the program on their computers. Later, Davenport posted the AUMD program on an Air Force web page so that Air Force manpower personnel could download it directly. As the program became popular within the Air Force manpower community, Davenport's superiors asked him to train additional personnel in its use. During this time, he continued to modify the program based on feedback he received and, as a result, improved its functionality and eliminated programming errors. At some point, Davenport added an automatic expiration date to each new version of the AUMD program so that users were required to download the newest version when the older one expired.
In September 1998, Davenport gave a presentation to senior Air Force manpower officers at an annual conference and, according to one of Davenport's superiors, “absolutely sold his audience” on the AUMD program. Davenport's performance report deemed him the “go to troubleshooter for [the] entire [Air Force] manpower community ... [and] the most knowledgeable database manager in [the] career field.” The performance report concluded with a recommendation to promote Davenport immediately.
Despite Davenport's success in creating the AUMD program and his willingness to share it, the Air Force eventually decided it was becoming too dependent on Davenport for access to the program. Accordingly, Davenport's superiors asked him to turn over the source code for the program, which Davenport had always kept on his home computer. When he refused to turn over the source code, his superiors threatened him with a demotion and a pay cut, and excluded him from the Manpower User Group's advisory authority.
Davenport then assigned all his rights in the AUMD program to Blueport. Subsequently, Blueport attempted to negotiate a license agreement with the Air Force. However, the Air Force refused Blueport's offer and solicited other contractors to recreate the AUMD program. The Air Force ultimately contracted with Science Applications International Corporation (“SAIC”). At the request of the Air Force, SAIC programmers modified the AUMD program's object code to extend its expiration date. This modification allowed Air Force manpower personnel to continue to use the AUMD program despite Davenport's refusal to provide the source code.
In 2002, Blueport brought the present claims against the Government for copyright infringement and violations of the DMCA. Specifically, Blueport argues that the Air Force infringed its copyright in the AUMD program. In addition, Blueport argues that the Air Force violated the DMCA by extending the expiration date in the AUMD program's object code-thus circumventing the measures taken by Blueport to prevent unauthorized use of the program. The CFC dismissed Blueport's claims for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the Government had not waived its sovereign immunity for any of the claims. Blueport now appeals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
