Fair and Square - DMCA Takedown Notification Senders Must Consider Fair Use

The DMCA takedown notice has become near universal on the Internet, allowing for those whose rights have been infringed online to have the service provider take down that material or face the music for their ignorance. What this has given rights holders is, arguably, a weapon, which allows them to take down material on a whim with very little or no regard to its actual use or purpose. Often one can accidentally include infringing material, or even use them for a legitimate purpose, yet rights holders have never had to consider these facts, but could assert their rights when ever they wanted to. This changed towards the end of 2015, when the US Court of Appeals addressed the question on what amounts to 'authorization under 17 USC § 512. This writer wanted to discuss this case sooner, and laments his lateness.

The case of Lenz v Universal Music Corporation dealt with Stephanie Lenz, who uploaded a video on YouTube of her young kids dancing to the song Let's Go Crazy by Prince, lasting a lengthy 29 seconds. The video comprises of her two kids, specifically her youngest, bopping to the song, which is audible in the background. Upon finding Ms. Lenz's video, Universal Music lodged a removal request with YouTube, who promptly removed the video. Ms. Lenz sent a counter-notification to YouTube, which was defended by Universal as a legitimate request (and in their correspondence, did not discuss or mention fair use, but asserted plain infringement). Ms. Lenz subsequently sought counsel, and the video was reinstated some time after a second counter-notification was sent, and she pursued further action in the matter, asserting a misrepresentation claim under section 512(f).

The heart of the case lies in section 512, and more specifically, the obligations in places on both the notified and the notified party. Under subsection c, the service provider has to 'expeditiously' remove any infringing material brought to its attention so as to benefit from the safe harbor provisions in the same section, and they have to notify the party who placed the infringing material on their service (the same affords them an appeal process to these notifications as well). Finally, should a rights holder abuse this process, subsection f provides that the person whose material has been removed due to this abuse can subsequently claim for damages due to the misrepresentation made by the notifying party.

A big point of contention in the case was whether a rights holder has to consider fair use under 17 USC § 107 before using the notification process. Although the section does not mandate this, it does, however, stipulate that "...the complaining party has a good faith belief that the use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law". This would potentially encompass fair use, as that would amount to an authorization for the work's use under law, even if the party who controls those rights objects to the use in some way.

Fair use, who would've thought!?

The Court discussed, although fairly briefly, whether fair use would be an affirmative defense that merely excuses infringement (i.e. does not authorize the use, but merely dismisses a later assertion of infringement should one be put forth), or whether it would be a true authorization and not an affirmative defense. The Court dismissed Universal's argument, and asserted that "...for the purposes of the DMCA — fair use is uniquely situated in copyright law so as to be treated differently than traditional affirmative defenses. We conclude that because 17 U.S.C. § 107 created a type of non-infringing use, fair use is "authorized by the law" and a copyright holder must consider the existence of fair use before sending a takedown notification under § 512(c)". This means that when a rights holder intends to send a notice under the section, they have to make a bona fide assessment on the legitimacy of the use of the work under fair use. Failure to do so would be a misrepresentation under section 512(f).

What followed was the Court's determination on whether Universal should have known that the video was fair use. This is an objective assessment, seeking actual knowledge of fair use on part of the notifier, rather than a simple mistake (using the notifier's subjective good faith knowledge at that time, rather than a standard of reasonable belief or knowledge, for example). The Court saw that Universal had not been 'willfully blind' to the existence of fair use or its application to Ms. Lenz's video. Ultimately, no misrepresentation was found, and Ms. Lenz could not recover damages. One has to still note the closing remarks by Judge Tallman, who handed down the majority's judgment: "Copyright holders cannot shirk their duty to consider — in good faith and prior to sending a takedown notification — whether allegedly infringing material constitutes fair use, a use which the DMCA plainly contemplates as authorized by the law".

This writer was truly surprised this point had never been argued at court, but found Judge Tallman's judgment to be correct. Arguably, fair use (and fair dealing here in the UK) is not merely an affirmative defense, but presents an authorization for the use of copyright protected works for those intended purposes, or within the remit of a given similar provision. Leaving it as merely a shield would encumber those using the works with a heavy responsibility for defending their use at court; one that most of them would not necessarily be able to afford. A stricter authorization allows for this use, and puts the burden on those who wish to assert their rights, and rightfully so, since they benefit the most from their works.

Source: JDSupra

Domain Registrar Faces Infringement Liability in Germany

Internet Service Providers have, for a long time, been the favorite target of copyright holders simply because they are often the conduit between the infringer and the material which is being illegally copied, although their liability as secondary infringers has been rejected since. The Internet provides a web of connectivity between a multitude of actors, such as ISPs, computer manufacturers and others, who in some ways, do enable the infringement of copyright, albeit not as their primary function. As with the former Betamax recorders, the simple function of potentially enabling infringement does not incur liability, arguably at least in most instances, however a new challenge was set against web domain registrars in Germany.

In a recent decision (which can be found here, unfortunately only in German), the German Regional Court of Saarbrücken had to decide on the liability of domain registrars, and whether they could be held liable as secondary infringers should the domain owners facilitate the aforementioned infringement. The case concerned the website h33t.com, which acts as a torrent tracker site, much like the more notorious Pirate Bay. The copyright holders of Robin Thicke's song "Blurred Lines", Universal Music, took on the domain registrar Key-Systems, who registered h33t's domain.

Ed was confused about domains

In their decision the Court saw that domain registrars could face liability if the domains they have registered facilitate the infringement of copyright. If they are notified of the potential infringement of copyright, and choose to do nothing about the infringements, they could face liability. The Court imposed a duty to investigate onto domain registrars; a duty which can be argued to be quite onerous, especially for bigger registrars which manage vast numbers of domains. Key-System's general council, Volker Greimann, commented on the decision: "The courts’ definition of what is obviously violating is however extremely broad and the duty to act is expanded to deactivation of the entire domain even if only one file or link is infringing... If left unchallenged, this decision would constitute an undue expansion of the legal obligations of each registrar based in Germany, endangering the entire business model of registering domain names or performing DNS addressing for third parties". One can agree with Mr. Greimann as to the onerous nature of the new duty imposed on registrars, especially when considering the vagueness of the duty and the potential numbers of websites which might infringe copyright in one way or another.

The Court did mention that the infringements in relation to h33t were "...obvious and easy to identify", potentially presenting registrars with protection in cases where infringements are not obvious or are a result of negligence or ignorance. The Court in this instance ordered Key-Systems to prevent the infringement; however what those measures are remains unclear to this writer. Even though the domain is shut down by Key-Systems, its transition to another service outside of Germany can be said to be quick and painless - making the duty to investigate and take action both onerous, and arguably frivolous, as infringers will merely change service providers if their activities can be said to be illegal. Through this Mr. Greimann's argument of it hurting German domain registrars could be said to carry some merit.

Secondary liability has been a hot question since peer-to-peer services have made infringement much easier, and websites which provide users with, for example, torrent links, have become abundant. Whether liability should be extended to all middle actors can be argued to be potentially damaging to the Internet and its function. This writer does not have much insight into German law specifically, and people who might want to hear Universal Music's general council, Mirko Brüß's, arguments can refer to his opinion post here (again in German only).

Source: Bloomberg

Retrospective - Betamax and Copyright Infringement

When copyright is concerned there has always been a struggle between two competing interests; copyright owners who wish to benefit from the fruits of their labor, and the consumers who want to utilize copyrighted material, sometimes to the potential detriment of the former party. As new methods have emerged in the consumption of copyrighted works, so have the wishes of the owners to protect their material gotten louder. At the end of that path to equilibrium lies a simple albeit still complex question: do people have the right to use copyrighted material in manners which the owner's object to?

One of the most influential cases of the past few decades, Sony Corporation of America v Universal City Studios, endeavored to tackle that issue in relation to a wholly new piece of technology; Betamax tapes. For those born after the 70s (this writer included), Betamax tapes were akin to VHS cassettes which were used to both view and record movies and TV shows, much like DVDs today. This technology enable the recording and re-watching of content on TV at a later date outside of the broadcast times or releases of commercial copies of those programs. Universal Studios and Disney objected to this new technology as it clashed with their interest in re-releasing content to be sold to consumers, which they clearly would not buy should they have recorded the programs once they were broadcast on TV. Subsequently Universal Studios took Sony to court, eventually ending up in the US Supreme Court.

"What is this 'video cassette' you speak of..?"

What the court had to assess was whether the users of Betamax, who recorded content broadcast on TV, were infringing copyright and whether Sony could be held responsible for that infringement. In essence what was being decided was whether Sony was making the infringement of copyright possible by providing the users with this capability through their Betamax recorders, thus being liable for their infringement. What makes this argument is that at the time no such express provision existed in copyright, however Universal argued that Sony was liable for contributory infringement, a principle relating to patents and not copyright. The court put forth that this would come down to assessing whether "...the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes". What this means is just looking at whether the recorder would be used for recording TV programs for a legitimate, unobjectionable purpose, such as for later viewing for the sake of convenience, and not for example used for commercial copying of content. Clearly one could argue that domestic copying of content in that fashion is a non-objectionable use and wholly legitimate, and at the time was one of the primary uses for the device. There always has to be a balance between the legitimate interests of users and the protection afforded to copyright owners.

For Sony to be deemed to be liable under contributory infringement, the court had to decide whether Betamax recorders are capable of commercially significant non-infringing uses. This could be seen as whether the non-infringing uses would impact Universal Studios, or others, commercially through those uses. The court stated that it would be a matter of exploring all possible uses for the machines and determining whether those uses would be infringing or not, and what amount of uses would be commercially significant. The court did decide that Betamax recorders could be capable of commercially significant non-infringing uses, but for Sony to be liable there still remained the factor of whether those uses would be infringing ones.

How teenagers view older generations and themselves

The court drew its attention to the US fair use provision in deciding whether domestic time-shifting would be an infringing act. The court accepted the District Court's findings and saw that domestic time-shifting of content would fall under fair use. This was due to Sony's evidence as to the licensing of content for broadcasting on free TV, and content providers not objecting to its recording for viewing at a later time, and Universal could not show any actual damage caused due to time-shifting.

The decision swayed 5-4 in favor of Sony, but the dissenting opinion given by Justice Blackmun could've shaped copyright in a wholly different manner should it have been the majority opinion. The dissenting view was one which emphasized the exclusive rights given to copyright owners, noting that in their opinion expanding fair use would take away control for the copyright owners and deprive them of their incentive to create. Justice Blackmun also noted that fair use should apply mainly to 'productive' uses of works, such as for criticism and review, and prohibit their uses for 'unproductive' purposes such as time-shifting. Arguably Justice Blackmun's views come from a wrong approach, one which protects the copyright holder's rights but completely ignores the evolving needs and uses by ordinary consumers, thus creating an imbalance. Justice Blackmun also criticized the majority's approach in deciding contributory infringement through the capability of commercially significant non-infringing uses in stating that "[s]uch a definition essentially eviscerates the concept of contributory infringement. Only the most unimaginative manufacturer would be unable to demonstrate that a image-duplicating product is "capable" of substantial noninfringing uses. Surely Congress desired to prevent the sale of products that are used almost exclusively to infringe copyrights; the fact that noninfringing uses exist presumably would have little bearing on that desire".

All-in-all Sony v Universal Studios made an important mark on copyright and fair use, and has helped in formulating current principles in both. Should Sony have been found liable for contributory infringement, how we record or enjoy media today could be totally different. Manufacturers would have to either pay hefty licensing fees for any recording devices, the cost of which would have been undoubtedly transferred onto the end-consumer, or the manufacturers would have refrained from producing such devices completely. As someone who grew up using VHS recorders to watch content, I can't imagine a World without such a capability.

Retrospective - Linking to Trouble

In the days prior to BitTorrent technology, the primary source for any endeavoring online 'pirate' seeking to get their mitts on copyrighted content, was through direct links on websites leading to copies of any specific materials. Before the discussions over the possible liability of Internet Service Providers here in Australia, the issue of whether a website owner sharing links to infringing material (such as songs) would be authorizing the acts of copying that content by posting those links ended up in the Full Federal Court in late 2006.

An imagining of a potential MP3s4Free user

The case of Cooper v Universal Music Australia dealt with the website owned and operated by Mr. Cooper, aptly named "MP3s4Free.com". The site itself didn't host or contain any infringing materials, such as sound recordings, but did however have direct links (hyperlinks) to other sites providing those copies. The file was automatically downloaded to the user's computer once they had clicked the link on Mr. Cooper's site, transferring it from a different server. Although some of the content linked to on the site was legitimate, however overwhelmingly the content was illegal one way or another. Subsequently a number of record companies, including Universal Music, sued Mr. Cooper under the Copyright Act 1968 for the authorization of copyright infringement. 

The provision for the authorization of infringement hinges on whether the operator (Mr. Cooper in this case) has any power in preventing the infringement; the nature of the relationship between the two parties (Mr. Cooper and the user); and whether the operator (Mr. Cooper) took reasonable steps to prevent or avoid the infringement through his service. 

In deciding whether Mr. Cooper had the power to prevent any infringing acts through his website, the Court saw that he indeed did have the power to do so. The Court reached this conclusion in deciding that a person could be deemed to have had the power to prevent the act should they have had the ability to merely not do what was in their power or abilities to do (the posting or allowing the posting of links for example), yet instead did so through some calculated technical measures. What this means is that Mr. Cooper, in actively linking to infringing content, chose to do so and had the power to simply not to post those links on his site. The Court's reasoning is sound, even in its simplicity. If you have a choice between the knowing facilitation of potentially infringing acts, should you choose to do so, you clearly possess a power to prevent any acts occurring from your actions, yet ignore that ability. The intent and capabilities of the operator are imperative.

Should the relationship be one which does not seek to benefit the operator one way or another, it is more likely that there's no authorization on the face of things. The nature of the relationship between the operator and the users is one which is hard to specifically identify, however the Court did establish a relationship in its findings. At first instance (initial court proceedings in lower courts) the primary judge found that as Mr. Cooper's website was very "friendly" and allowed for easy access to the music files being downloaded, overall being very attractive to potential or current users. The more important aspect of this was the financial gain incurred by Mr. Cooper through advertisements on his website, giving the site a commercial aspect. The Court concluded that the nature was one where Mr. Cooper endeavored to benefit from the links to infringing material.

Don't click! 

Finally, did Mr. Cooper take any reasonable steps to prevent the infringing acts through his website? At the bottom of each page there was a link to a Disclaimer, stating that "when you download a song, you take full responsibility for doing so. None of the files on this site are stored on our servers. We are just providing links to remote files". Aside from the mentioned disclaimer, Mr. Cooper took no active part in preventing any acts; merely attempted to exonerate himself by passing the responsibility onto the users themselves. Rightfully so, the Court found that this was not adequate and the Disclaimer was merely a cosmetic touch and was not intended to have any real legal effect. Mr. Cooper was therefore held liable through the authorization of the copying of infringing material through his website.

Thinking ahead, how could one avoid liability through hyperlinks? Clearly it boils down to content filtration or other means of active or automatic prevention, and the reason for your linking. Should you not take active steps, such as through moderation, and complacently sit back and wait for your monthly AdSense check to fall through the letter box, you might be liable. Links in themselves are not bad and often websites welcome outside links to their content, but this can change according to the various Terms and Conditions set by each site. In the United States websites can potentially be protected under the Safe Harbor provisions (a nice example of which was discussed on this very blog), albeit for unknowing facilitation and potential activeness in the stopping of such acts when notified.