P2P File Sharing: Direct and Indirect Copyright Infringement

The internet is like a big warehouse of free stuff, but not everything is free to use. Some things are okay to use, but others could get you in trouble. This article is about the laws around sharing files online, like music and videos. In the United States, copyright law protects original works like music, movies, and books. But it doesn’t protect ideas or concepts. So, be careful about what you share online because you could get into legal trouble. The owner of a copyright has the exclusive rights to control how their work is used, such as making copies, creating new works based on it, and distributing it to the public. Sharing copyrighted material online without permission is a direct violation of copyright law. In a case where a bulletin board service was sued for allowing users to share copyrighted pictures, the court ruled that the service was still responsible for the infringement, even if they didn’t know about it. The defense of fair use was also rejected. In order to prove direct copyright infringement, the person suing needs to show that they own the copyright and that the other person copied their work. They don’t need to prove that the person knew they were infringing on the copyright. However, there are some defenses to copyright infringement, such as fair use (using a small part of a copyrighted work for things like education) and the safe harbor provided by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which protects online service providers from being sued for copyright infringement by their users. The safe harbor provisions in copyright law give protection to internet service providers like BBS, as long as they follow certain rules. These rules include having a policy to deal with people who repeatedly break copyright laws, not interfering with industry standards for stopping copyright infringement, and quickly taking down any copyrighted material when they get a notice about it. The case against BBS might have been different if these rules had been in place at the time. It’s also important to know that people who are indirectly involved in copyright infringement can still be held responsible under the law. In Cable/Home Communication Corp. v. Network Prods. , Inc., the defendants were found guilty of contributory copyright infringement for making and selling devices that allowed people to watch copyrighted TV shows without paying for them. Contributory infringement means helping someone else commit copyright infringement. Vicarious infringement happens when someone has the ability to control infringing activity and makes money from it. This concept was developed in a case where a store was selling fake music recordings, even though the store didn’t directly employ the person selling them. The Shapiro court looked at two types of cases to figure out if a store owner could be held responsible for copyright infringement by a concessionaire. They found that the store owner could be responsible if they had the power to stop the infringement and made money from it. In another case, the Supreme Court said that a company can’t be held responsible for copyright infringement if their product can also be used for legal things. Napster was found guilty of helping people steal music. The court said that Napster knew about the illegal activity and even helped it happen. They had the power to stop it but didn’t. The court is telling them to change how they do things so that people can’t steal music anymore. Napster and Aimster were music sharing services that got into trouble for letting people share music without permission. They tried to use filters to stop it, but they weren’t good enough. The courts said they had to do more to stop people from sharing music illegally. Napster went bankrupt before they could go to trial, and Aimster was shut down and never went to trial. Two different court cases involved file-sharing software companies and their liability for copyright infringement. In the first case, the court found that Aimster encouraged users to download copyrighted music, and their efforts to avoid knowing what was being shared supported the accusation of “willful blindness”. Aimster also couldn’t use the Betamax defense because they couldn’t prove their software had any non-infringing uses.

In the second case, two software companies, Grokster and Morpheus, were found not liable for copyright infringement because their software could be used for non-infringing purposes, like sharing public domain books and authorized materials. The court ruled in their favor using the Betamax defense. However, the case is still being appealed. The court ruled that Grokster and Morpheus couldn’t be held responsible for the illegal activities of their users. This is because their software was designed in a way that they couldn’t control what users were doing. Even if they wanted to stop the illegal activities, they didn’t have the ability to do so. The court also said that the companies didn’t have to change their software just to make the entertainment industry happy. When it comes to downloading music using file-sharing software, the law is clear – it’s illegal unless you have permission. But for companies that make the software, the law is still uncertain. Court cases will likely shape the future of digital music and technology. Elliot M. Zimmerman is a lawyer who specializes in entertainment law and cyberlaw. He is the founder and chair emeritus of The Florida Bar Entertainment, Arts and Sports Law Committee.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/p2p-file-sharing-direct-and-indirect-copyright-infringement/