Copyright in Cyberspace

The real-time online discussion of the class will again take place on etherpad.

The Internet has enabled individuals to become involved in the production of media and to distribute their contributions widely at a very low cost. The former bastion of the entertainment industry is opening up to what many are calling a democratization of culture. The copyright doctrine of fair use seemingly bolsters the right to "recut, reframe, and recycle" previous works, but the protection fair use gives to those re-purposing copyrighted material is notoriously uncertain.

Digital and file-sharing technologies also spawned the proliferation of sharing of media and music, which has led to a number of controversial legal and technological strategies. The "notice-and-takedown" provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") allow Internet service providers to limit their liability for the copyright infringements of their users if the ISPs expeditiously remove material in response to complaints from copyright owners. The DMCA provides for counter-notice and "put-back" of removed material, but some argue that the statutory mechanism can chill innovative, constitutionally-protected speech.

This class provides an overview of some major copyright law concepts, with an emphasis on issues relating to music, and takes up some of the issues swirling around copyright in cyberspace.

Required Readings

• U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright Basics
• Newton v. Diamond, 204 F.Supp.2d 1244 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (Secs. I - IV(a), pp. 1246 - 1259) (9th Circuit Decision Optional)
• 17 U.S.C. § 107 ("Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use")
• Lawrence Lessig, Free Culture (pp. 1-20)
• 17 U.S.C. § 512(c) ("Information Residing on Systems or Networks at Direction of Users")
• "Viacom Says YouTube Ignored Copyrights" (M. Helft, NY Times, 3/18/2010)

Additional Readings (Optional)

• Jamie Boyle, Beyond Broadcast Conference (video)
• Center for the Study of the Public Domain, Tales from the Public Domain: Bound By Law? (comic)
• Creative Commons: A Spectrum of Rights (comic)
• Amen Break Video
• Bridgeport v. Dimension, 410 F.3d 792 (6th Cir. 2005) (Secs. I - II, pp. 795 - 805)
• Center for Social Media, Recut, Reframe, Recyle (full report optional)
• MGM v. Grokster, 545 U.S. 913 (2005) (Sec. II, pp. 928 - 937)
• "J.K. Rowling Should Lose Her Copyright Lawsuit Against the Harry Potter Lexicon" (T. Wu, Slate, 1/10/2008)
• "Rowling Wins Lawsuit Against Potter Lexicon" (J. Eligon, NY Times, 9/8/08)
• New York Times Bits Blog: Mixing It Up Over Remixes and Fair Use
• CNET, Did Slate Violate Copyright Law (watch linked-to video, too)
• Fairey v. AP (SDNY Civ. Action No. 09-01123), Fairey Complaint (Pars. 9 - 40, pp. 2 - 10)
• Fairey v. AP (SDNY Civ. Action No. 09-01123), AP Answer and Counterclaims (Pars. 73 - 162, pp. 16 - 49)
• Chilling Effects Clearinghouse
• Wendy Seltzer, Sacked By Copyright
• Wendy Seltzer's Blog, NFL Saga
• EFF, Unsafe Harbors: Abusive DMCA Subpoenas and Takedown Demands
• "The Case Against YouTube" (D. Lichtman, LA Times, 3/20/07)

Class Discussion

I thought the reading on the settlement case with YouTube/Google was really interesting in light of both the Free Culture book as well as the brief on the 'NvD' case. The idea of groups with power manipulating the legal system runs counter in many ways to the more common theme of the internet being a democratizing force. In particular, if Viacom was trying to build their case by creating the appearance of illegal content distribution, I'm assuming this case is only at the beginning of a series of suits which will increase the ambiguity of consent of distribution. Thoughts? - Matthew