Copyright Infringement - Wikipedia

1/15/2017
CopyrightinfringementWikipedia
Copyrightinfringement
FromWikipedia,thefreeencyclopedia
Copyrightinfringementistheuseofworksprotectedbycopyrightlaw
withoutpermission,infringingcertainexclusiverightsgrantedtothe
copyrightholder,suchastherighttoreproduce,distribute,displayor
performtheprotectedwork,ortomakederivativeworks.Thecopyright
holderistypicallythework'screator,orapublisherorotherbusinessto
whomcopyrighthasbeenassigned.Copyrightholdersroutinelyinvoke
legalandtechnologicalmeasurestopreventandpenalizecopyright
infringement.
Copyrightinfringementdisputesareusuallyresolvedthroughdirect
negotiation,anoticeandtakedownprocess,orlitigationincivilcourt.
Egregiousorlargescalecommercialinfringement,especiallywhenit
involvescounterfeiting,issometimesprosecutedviathecriminaljustice
system.Shiftingpublicexpectations,advancesindigitaltechnology,and
theincreasingreachoftheInternethaveledtosuchwidespread,
anonymousinfringementthatcopyrightdependentindustriesnowfocus
lessonpursuingindividualswhoseekandsharecopyrightprotected
contentonline,andmoreonexpandingcopyrightlawtorecognizeand
penalizeas"indirect"infringerstheserviceprovidersandsoftware
distributorswhicharesaidtofacilitateandencourageindividualactsof
infringementbyothers.
Anadvertisementforcopyrightand
patentpreparationservicesfrom
1906,whencopyrightregistration
formalitieswerestillrequiredinthe
US
Estimatesoftheactualeconomicimpactofcopyrightinfringementvarywidelyanddependonmanyfactors.
Nevertheless,copyrightholders,industryrepresentatives,andlegislatorshavelongcharacterizedcopyright
infringementaspiracyortheftlanguagewhichsomeU.S.courtsnowregardaspejorativeorotherwise
contentious.[1][2][3]
Contents
1 Terminology
1.1 "Piracy"
1.2 "Theft"
1.3 "Freebooting"
2 Motivation
2.1 Developingworld
2.2 Motivationsduetocensorship
3 Existingandproposedlaws
3.1 Civillaw
3.2 Criminallaw
3.3 Noncommercialfilesharing
3.3.1 Legalityofdownloading
3.3.2 Legalityofuploading
3.3.3 Relaxedpenalties
3.4 DMCAandanticircumventionlaws
3.5 Onlineintermediaryliability
3.5.1 Definitionofintermediary
3.5.2 Litigationandlegislationconcerningintermediaries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement
1/19
1/15/2017
3.5.2 Litigationandlegislationconcerningintermediaries
3.5.3 Peertopeerissues
4 Limitations
4.1 Noninfringinguses
4.2 Noninfringingtypesofworks
5 Preventativemeasures
5.1 Legal
5.2 Protecteddistribution
6 Economicimpactofcopyrightinfringement
6.1 Motionpictureindustryestimates
6.2 Softwareindustryestimates
6.3 Musicindustryestimates
6.4 Criticismofindustryestimates
6.5 Economicimpactofinfringementinemergingmarkets
7 Proopencultureorganizations
8 Anticopyrightinfringementorganizations
9 Seealso
10 References
11 Furtherreading
12 Externallinks
Terminology
Thetermspiracyandtheftareoftenassociatedwithcopyrightinfringement.[4][5]Theoriginalmeaningofpiracyis
"robberyorillegalviolenceatsea",[6]butthetermhasbeeninuseforcenturiesasasynonymforactsofcopyright
infringement.[7][8]Theft,meanwhile,emphasizesthepotentialcommercialharmofinfringementtocopyright
holders.However,copyrightisatypeofintellectualproperty,anareaoflawdistinctfromthatwhichcovers
robberyortheft,offensesrelatedonlytotangibleproperty.Notallcopyrightinfringementresultsincommercial
loss,andtheU.S.SupremeCourtruledin1985thatinfringementdoesnoteasilyequatewiththeft.[1]
"Piracy"
Thepracticeoflabellingtheinfringementofexclusiverightsincreativeworksas"piracy"predatesstatutory
copyrightlaw.PriortotheStatuteofAnnein1710,theStationers'CompanyofLondonin1557,receivedaRoyal
Chartergivingthecompanyamonopolyonpublicationandtaskingitwithenforcingthecharter.Thosewho
violatedthecharterwerelabelledpiratesasearlyas1603.[7]Theterm"piracy"hasbeenusedtorefertothe
unauthorizedcopying,distributionandsellingofworksincopyright.[8]Article12ofthe1886BerneConvention
fortheProtectionofLiteraryandArtisticWorksusestheterm"piracy"inrelationtocopyrightinfringement,
stating"PiratedworksmaybeseizedonimportationintothosecountriesoftheUnionwheretheoriginalwork
enjoyslegalprotection."[8]Article61ofthe1994AgreementonTradeRelatedAspectsofIntellectualProperty
Rights(TRIPs)requirescriminalproceduresandpenaltiesincasesof"willfultrademarkcounterfeitingor
copyrightpiracyonacommercialscale."[9]Piracytraditionallyreferstoactsofcopyrightinfringement
intentionallycommittedforfinancialgain,thoughmorerecently,copyrightholdershavedescribedonline
copyrightinfringement,particularlyinrelationtopeertopeerfilesharingnetworks,as"piracy."[8]
RichardStallmanandtheGNUProjecthavecriticizedtheuseoftheword"piracy"inthesesituations,sayingthat
publishersusethewordtoreferto"copyingtheydon'tapproveof"andthat"they[publishers]implythatitis
ethicallyequivalenttoattackingshipsonthehighseas,kidnappingandmurderingthepeopleonthem."[10]
2/19
1/15/2017
"Theft"
Copyrightholdersfrequentlyrefertocopyrightinfringementastheft.In
copyrightlaw,infringementdoesnotrefertotheftofphysicalobjectsthat
takeawaytheowner'spossession,butaninstancewhereapersonexercises
oneoftheexclusiverightsofthecopyrightholderwithoutauthorization.[11]
Courtshavedistinguishedbetweencopyrightinfringementandtheft.For
instance,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtheldinDowlingv.UnitedStates
(1985)thatbootlegphonorecordsdidnotconstitutestolenproperty.Instead,
"interferencewithcopyrightdoesnoteasilyequatewiththeft,conversion,
orfraud.TheCopyrightActevenemploysaseparatetermofarttodefine
onewhomisappropriatesacopyright:'[...]aninfringerofthecopyright.'"
Thecourtsaidthatinthecaseofcopyrightinfringement,theprovince
guaranteedtothecopyrightholderbycopyrightlawcertainexclusive
rightsisinvaded,butnocontrol,physicalorotherwise,istakenoverthe
copyright,noristhecopyrightholderwhollydeprivedofusingthe
copyrightedworkorexercisingtheexclusiverightsheld.[1]copyrightisa
typeofintellectualproperty,anareaoflawdistinctfromthatwhichcovers
robberyortheft,offensesrelatedonlytotangibleproperty.Notall
copyrightinfringementresultsincommercialloss,andtheU.S.Supreme
Courtruledin1985thatinfringementdoesnoteasilyequatewiththeft.
PiratededitionofGerman
philosopherAlfredSchmidt
(Amsterdam,ca.1970)
"Freebooting"
Morerecently,theterm"freebooting"hasbeenusedtodescribetheunauthorizedrehostingofonlinemedia,
particularlyvideos.ThistermwascoinedbyBradyHaran,anindependentvideojournalist,intheaudiopodcast
HelloInternet,andhasbeenusedbyseveralintheYouTubecommunity.[12][13]
Motivation
Someofthemotivesforengagingincopyrightinfringementarethefollowing:[14]
Pricingunwillingnessorinabilitytopaythepricerequestedbythelegitimatesellers
Unavailabilitynolegitimatesellersprovidingtheproductinthecountryoftheenduser:notyetlaunched
there,alreadywithdrawnfromsales,nevertobesoldthere,geographicalrestrictionsononlinedistribution
andinternationalshipping
Usefulnessthelegitimateproductcomeswithvariousmeans(DRM,regionlock,DVDregioncode,Blu
rayregioncode)ofrestrictinglegitimateuse(backups,usageondevicesofdifferentvendors,offlineusage)
orcomeswithannoyingnonskippableadvertisementsandantipiracydisclaimers,whichareremovedinthe
unauthorizedproductmakingitmoredesirablefortheenduser
Shoppingexperiencenolegitimatesellersprovidingtheproductwiththerequiredqualitythroughonline
distributionandthroughashoppingsystemwiththerequiredlevelofuserfriendliness
Anonymitydownloadingworksdoesnotrequireidentificationwhereasdownloadsdirectlyfromthe
websiteofthecopyrightowneroftenrequireavalidemailaddressand/orothercredentials
Sometimesonlypartialcompliancewithlicenseagreementsisthecause.Forexample,in2013,theUSArmy
settledalawsuitwithTexasbasedcompanyApptricity,whichmakessoftwarethatallowsthearmytotracktheir
soldiersinrealtime.In2004,theUSArmypaidUS$4.5millionforalicenseof500users,whileallegedly
installingthesoftwareformorethan9000usersthecasewassettledforUS$50million.[15][16]Majorantipiracy
organizations,liketheBSA,conductsoftwarelicensingauditsregularlytoensurefullcompliance.[17]
3/19
1/15/2017
CaraCusumano,directoroftheTribecaFilmFestival,statedinApril2014:"Piracyislessaboutpeoplenot
wantingtopayandmoreaboutjustwantingtheimmediacypeoplesaying,'IwanttowatchSpidermanrightnow'
anddownloadingit".ThestatementoccurredduringthethirdyearthatthefestivalusedtheInternettopresentits
content,whileitwasthefirstyearthatitfeaturedashowcaseofcontentproducerswhoworkexclusivelyonline.
Cusumanofurtherexplainedthatdownloadingbehaviorisnotmerelyconductedbypeoplewhomerelywantto
obtaincontentforfree:
Ithinkthatifcompanieswerewillingtoputthatmaterialoutthere,movingforward,consumerswill
follow.It'sjustthatthey[consumers]wanttoconsumefilmsonlineandthey'rereadytoconsumefilms
thatwayandwe'renotnecessarilyofferingtheminthatway.Soit'sthedistributionmodelsthatneed
tocatchup.Peoplewillpayforthecontent.[4]
InresponsetoCusumano'sperspective,ScreenProducersAustraliaexecutivedirectorMattDeanerclarifiedthe
motivationofthefilmindustry:"Distributorsareusuallywantingtoencouragecinemagoingaspartofthisprocess
[monetizingthroughreturns]andrestricttheimmediateaccesstoonlinesoastoencouragethemaximumnumber
ofpeopletogotothecinema."DeanerfurtherexplainedthematterintermsoftheAustralianfilmindustry,stating:
"therearecurrentlyrestrictionsonquantitiesoftaxsupportthatafilmcanreceiveunlessthefilmhasatraditional
cinemarelease."[4]
InastudypublishedintheJournalofBehaviouralandExperimentalEconomics,andreportedoninearlyMay
2014,researchersfromtheUniversityofPortsmouthintheUKdiscussedfindingsfromexaminingtheillegal
downloadingbehaviorof6,000Finnishpeople,agedsevento84.Thelistofreasonsfordownloadinggivenbythe
studyrespondentsincludedmoneysavingtheabilitytoaccessmaterialnotongeneralrelease,orbeforeitwas
releasedandassistingartiststoavoidinvolvementwithrecordcompaniesandmoviestudios.[18]
InapublictalkbetweenBillGates,WarrenBuffett,andBrentSchlenderattheUniversityofWashingtonin1998,
BillGatescommentedonpiracyasameanstoanend,wherebypeoplewhouseMicrosoftsoftwareillegallywill
eventuallypayforit,outoffamiliarity,asacountry'seconomydevelopsandlegitimateproductsbecomemore
affordabletobusinessesandconsumers:
AlthoughaboutthreemillioncomputersgetsoldeveryyearinChina,peopledon'tpayforthe
software.Somedaytheywill,though.Andaslongasthey'regoingtostealit,wewantthemtosteal
ours.They'llgetsortofaddicted,andthenwe'llsomehowfigureouthowtocollectsometimeinthe
nextdecade.[19]
Developingworld
InMediaPiracyinEmergingEconomies,thefirstindependentinternationalcomparativestudyofmediapiracy
withcenteronBrazil,India,Russia,SouthAfrica,Mexico,TurkeyandBolivia,"highpricesformediagoods,low
incomes,andcheapdigitaltechnologies"arethechieffactorsthatleadtotheglobalspreadofmediapiracy,
especiallyinemergingmarkets.[20]
Accordingtothesamestudy,eventhoughdigitalpiracyinflictsadditionalcostsontheproductionsideofmedia,it
alsooffersthemainaccesstomediagoodsindevelopingcountries.Thestrongtradeoffsthatfavorusingdigital
piracyindevelopingeconomiesdictatethecurrentneglectedlawenforcementstowarddigitalpiracy.[21]InChina,
theissueofdigitalinfringementisnotmerelylegal,butsocialoriginatingfromthehighdemandforcheapand
affordablegoodsaswellasthegovernmentalconnectionsofthebusinesseswhichproducesuchgoods.[22]
4/19
1/15/2017
Motivationsduetocensorship
Therehavebeeninstanceswhereacountry'sgovernmentbansamovie,resultinginthespreadofcopiedvideos
andDVDs.RomanianborndocumentarymakerIlincaCalugareanuwroteaNewYorkTimesarticletellingthe
storyofIrinaMargaretaNistor,anarratorforstateTVunderNicolaeCeauescu'sregime.Avisitorfromthewest
gaveherbootleggedcopiesofAmericanmovies,whichshedubbedforsecretviewingsthroughRomania.
Accordingtothearticle,shedubbedmorethan3,000moviesandbecamethecountry'ssecondmostfamousvoice
afterCeauescu,eventhoughnooneknewhernameuntilmanyyearslater.[23]
Existingandproposedlaws
Mostcountriesextendcopyrightprotectionstoauthorsofworks.In
countrieswithcopyrightlegislation,enforcementofcopyrightisgenerally
theresponsibilityofthecopyrightholder.[24]However,inseveral
jurisdictionstherearealsocriminalpenaltiesforcopyrightinfringement.[25]
Civillaw
Copyrightinfringementincivillawisanyviolationoftheexclusiverights
oftheowner.InU.S.law,thoserightsincludereproduction,thepreparation
ofderivativeworks,distributingcopiesbysaleorrental,andpublic
performanceordisplay.[26]
DemonstrationinSwedeninsupport
offilesharing,2006
IntheU.S.,copyrightinfringementissometimesconfrontedvialawsuitsin
civilcourt,againstallegedinfringersdirectly,oragainstprovidersof
servicesandsoftwarethatsupportunauthorizedcopying.Forexample,
majormotionpicturecorporationMGMStudiosfiledsuitagainstP2Pfile
sharingservicesGroksterandStreamcastfortheircontributoryrolein
copyrightinfringement.[27]In2005,theSupremeCourtruledinfavorof
MGM,holdingthatsuchservicescouldbeheldliableforcopyright
infringementsincetheyfunctionedand,indeed,willfullymarketed
themselvesasvenuesforacquiringcopyrightedmovies.TheMGMv.
GrokstercasedidnotoverturntheearlierSonydecision,butratherclouded
thelegalwatersfuturedesignersofsoftwarecapableofbeingusedfor
copyrightinfringementwerewarned.[28]
ThePirateBaylogo,aretaliationto
IntheUnitedStates,copyrighttermhasbeenextendedmanytimesover[29]
thestereotypicalimageofpiracy
fromtheoriginaltermof14yearswithasinglerenewalallowanceof14
years,tothecurrenttermofthelifeoftheauthorplus70years.Ifthework
wasproducedundercorporateauthorshipitmaylast120yearsaftercreationor95yearsafterpublication,
whicheverissooner.
Article50oftheAgreementonTradeRelatedAspectsofIntellectualPropertyRights(TRIPs)requiresthat
signatorycountriesenablecourtstoremedycopyrightinfringementwithinjunctionsandthedestructionof
infringingproducts,andawarddamages.[9]Somejurisdictionsonlyallowactual,provabledamages,andsome,like
theU.S.,allowforlargestatutorydamageawardsintendedtodeterwouldbeinfringersandallowfor
compensationinsituationswhereactualdamagesaredifficulttoprove.
5/19
1/15/2017
Insomejurisdictions,copyrightortherighttoenforceitcanbecontractuallyassignedtoathirdpartywhichdid
nothavearoleinproducingthework.Whenthisoutsourcedlitigatorappearstohavenointentionoftakingany
copyrightinfringementcasestotrial,butratheronlytakesthemjustfarenoughthroughthelegalsystemtoidentify
andexactsettlementsfromsuspectedinfringers,criticscommonlyrefertothepartyasa"copyrighttroll."Such
practiceshavehadmixedresultsintheU.S.[30]
Criminallaw
Punishmentofcopyrightinfringementvariescasebycaseacrosscountries.Convictionsmayincludejailtime
and/orseverefinesforeachinstanceofcopyrightinfringement.IntheUnitedStates,willfulcopyright
infringementcarriesamaximumpenaltyof$150,000perinstance.[31]
Article61oftheAgreementonTradeRelatedAspectsofIntellectualPropertyRights(TRIPs)requiresthat
signatorycountriesestablishcriminalproceduresandpenaltiesincasesof"willfultrademarkcounterfeitingor
copyrightpiracyonacommercialscale".[9]Copyrightholdershavedemandedthatstatesprovidecriminal
sanctionsforalltypesofcopyrightinfringement.[24]
ThefirstcriminalprovisioninU.S.copyrightlawwasaddedin1897,whichestablishedamisdemeanorpenaltyfor
"unlawfulperformancesandrepresentationsofcopyrighteddramaticandmusicalcompositions"iftheviolation
hadbeen"willfulandforprofit."[32]Criminalcopyrightinfringementrequiresthattheinfringeracted"forthe
purposeofcommercialadvantageorprivatefinancialgain."17U.S.C.506(https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/t
ext/17/506).Toestablishcriminalliability,theprosecutormustfirstshowthebasicelementsofcopyright
infringement:ownershipofavalidcopyright,andtheviolationofoneormoreofthecopyrightholder'sexclusive
rights.Thegovernmentmustthenestablishthatdefendantwillfullyinfringedor,inotherwords,possessedthe
necessarymensrea.Misdemeanorinfringementhasaverylowthresholdintermsofnumberofcopiesandthe
valueoftheinfringedworks.
TheACTAtradeagreement,signedinMay2011bytheUnitedStates,Japan,andtheEU,requiresthatitsparties
addcriminalpenalties,includingincarcerationandfines,forcopyrightandtrademarkinfringement,andobligated
thepartiestoactivelypoliceforinfringement.[24][33][34]
UnitedStatesv.LaMacchia871F.Supp.535(1994)wasacasedecidedbytheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtforthe
DistrictofMassachusettswhichruledthat,underthecopyrightandcybercrimelawseffectiveatthetime,
committingcopyrightinfringementfornoncommercialmotivescouldnotbeprosecutedundercriminalcopyright
law.Therulinggaverisetowhatbecameknownasthe"LaMacchiaLoophole,"whereincriminalchargesoffraud
orcopyrightinfringementwouldbedismissedundercurrentlegalstandards,solongastherewasnoprofitmotive
involved.[35]
TheUnitedStatesNoElectronicTheftAct(NETAct),afederallawpassedin1997,inresponsetoLaMacchia,
providesforcriminalprosecutionofindividualswhoengageincopyrightinfringementundercertain
circumstances,evenwhenthereisnomonetaryprofitorcommercialbenefitfromtheinfringement.Maximum
penaltiescanbefiveyearsinprisonandupto$250,000infines.TheNETActalsoraisedstatutorydamagesby
50%.Thecourt'srulingexplicitlydrewattentiontotheshortcomingsofcurrentlawthatallowedpeopleto
facilitatemasscopyrightinfringementwhilebeingimmunetoprosecutionundertheCopyrightAct.
ProposedlawssuchastheStopOnlinePiracyActbroadenthedefinitionof"willfulinfringement",andintroduce
felonychargesforunauthorizedmediastreaming.Thesebillsareaimedtowardsdefeatingwebsitesthatcarryor
containlinkstoinfringingcontent,buthaveraisedconcernsaboutdomesticabuseandinternetcensorship.
Noncommercialfilesharing
6/19
1/15/2017
Legalityofdownloading
Toanextent,copyrightlawinsomecountriespermitsdownloadingcopyrightprotectedcontentforpersonal,
noncommercialuse.ExamplesincludeCanada[36]andEuropeanUnion(EU)memberstateslikePoland,[37]and
TheNetherlands.[38]
ThepersonalcopyingexemptioninthecopyrightlawofEUmemberstatesstemsfromtheEUCopyrightDirective
of2001,whichisgenerallydevisedtoallowEUmemberstoenactlawssanctioningmakingcopieswithout
authorization,aslongastheyareforpersonal,noncommericaluse.TheCopyrightDirectivewasnotintendedto
legitimizefilesharing,butratherthecommonpracticeofspaceshiftingcopyrightprotectedcontentfromalegally
purchasedCD(forexample)tocertainkindsofdevicesandmedia,providedrightsholdersarecompensatedand
nocopyprotectionmeasuresarecircumvented.Rightsholdercompensationtakesvariousforms,dependingonthe
country,butisgenerallyeitheralevyon"recording"devicesandmedia,orataxonthecontentitself.Insome
countries,suchasCanada,theapplicabilityofsuchlawstocopyingontogeneralpurposestoragedeviceslike
computerharddrives,portablemediaplayers,andphones,forwhichnoleviesarecollected,hasbeenthesubject
ofdebateandfurthereffortstoreformcopyrightlaw.
Insomecountries,thepersonalcopyingexemptionexplicitlyrequiresthatthecontentbeingcopiedwasobtained
legitimatelyi.e.,fromauthorizedsources,notfilesharingnetworks.Othercountries,suchastheNetherlands,
makenosuchdistinctiontheexemptiontherehadbeenassumed,evenbythegovernment,toapplytoanysuch
copying,evenfromfilesharingnetworks.However,inApril2014,theCourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanUnion
ruledthat"nationallegislationwhichmakesnodistinctionbetweenprivatecopiesmadefromlawfulsourcesand
thosemadefromcounterfeitedorpiratedsourcescannotbetolerated."[39]Thus,intheNetherlands,forexample,
downloadingfromfilesharingnetworksisnolongerlegal.
Legalityofuploading
Althoughdownloadingorotherprivatecopyingissometimespermitted,publicdistributionbyuploadingor
otherwiseofferingtosharecopyrightprotectedcontentremainsillegalinmost,ifnotallcountries.Forexample,
inCanada,eventhoughitwasoncelegaltodownloadanycopyrightedfileaslongasitwasfornoncommercial
use,itwasstillillegaltodistributethecopyrightedfiles(e.g.byuploadingthemtoaP2Pnetwork).[40]
Relaxedpenalties
Somecountries,likeCanadaandGermany,havelimitedthepenaltiesfornoncommercialcopyrightinfringement.
Forexample,Germanyhaspassedabilltolimitthefineforindividualsaccusedofsharingmusicandmoviesto
$200.[41]Canada'sCopyrightModernizationActclaimsthatstatutorydamagesfornoncommercialcopyright
infringementarecappedatC$5,000butthisonlyappliestocopiesthathavebeenmadewithoutthebreakingof
any"digitallock".However,thisonlyappliesto"bootlegdistribution"andnotnoncommercialuse.[42]
DMCAandanticircumventionlaws
TitleIoftheU.S.DMCA,theWIPOCopyrightandPerformancesandPhonogramsTreatiesImplementationAct
hasprovisionsthatpreventpersonsfrom"circumvent[ing]atechnologicalmeasurethateffectivelycontrolsaccess
toawork".Thusifadistributorofcopyrightedworkshassomekindofsoftware,dongleorpasswordaccess
deviceinstalledininstancesofthework,anyattempttobypasssuchacopyprotectionschememaybeactionable
thoughtheUSCopyrightOfficeiscurrentlyreviewinganticircumventionrulemakingunderDMCAanti
circumventionexemptionsthathavebeeninplaceundertheDMCAincludethoseinsoftwaredesignedtofilter
websitesthataregenerallyseentobeinefficient(childsafetyandpubliclibrarywebsitefilteringsoftware)andthe
7/19
1/15/2017
circumventionofcopyprotectionmechanismsthathavemalfunctioned,havecausedtheinstanceoftheworkto
becomeinoperableorwhicharenolongersupportedbytheirmanufacturers.[43]accordingtoAbbyHouseMedia
Incv.AppleIncitislegaltopointuserstoDRMStrippingsoftwareandhowtouseitbecauseoflackofevidence
thatDRMStrippingLeadstoCopyrightInfringement[44][45][46]
Onlineintermediaryliability
WhetherInternetintermediariesareliableforcopyrightinfringementbytheirusersisasubjectofdebateandcourt
casesinanumberofcountries.[47]
Definitionofintermediary
Internetintermediarieswereformerlyunderstoodtobeinternetserviceproviders(ISPs).However,questionsof
liabilityhavealsoemergedinrelationtootherInternetinfrastructureintermediaries,includingInternetbackbone
providers,cablecompaniesandmobilecommunicationsproviders.[48]
Inaddition,intermediariesarenowalsogenerallyunderstoodtoincludeInternetportals,softwareandgames
providers,thoseprovidingvirtualinformationsuchasinteractiveforumsandcommentfacilitieswithorwithouta
moderationsystem,aggregatorsofvariouskinds,suchasnewsaggregators,universities,librariesandarchives,
websearchengines,chatrooms,webblogs,mailinglists,andanywebsitewhichprovidesaccesstothirdparty
contentthrough,forexample,hyperlinks,acrucialelementoftheWorldWideWeb.
Litigationandlegislationconcerningintermediaries
EarlycourtcasesfocusedontheliabilityofInternetserviceproviders(ISPs)forhosting,transmittingorpublishing
usersuppliedcontentthatcouldbeactionedundercivilorcriminallaw,suchaslibel,defamation,or
pornography.[49]Asdifferentcontentwasconsideredindifferentlegalsystems,andintheabsenceofcommon
definitionsfor"ISPs,""bulletinboards"or"onlinepublishers,"earlylawononlineintermediaries'liabilityvaried
widelyfromcountrytocountry.Thefirstlawsononlineintermediaries'liabilitywerepassedfromthemid1990s
onwards.
Thedebatehasshiftedawayfromquestionsaboutliabilityforspecificcontent,includingthatwhichmayinfringe
copyright,towardswhetheronlineintermediariesshouldbegenerallyresponsibleforcontentaccessiblethrough
theirservicesorinfrastructure.[50]
TheU.S.DigitalMillenniumCopyrightAct(1998)andtheEuropeanECommerceDirective(2000)provide
onlineintermediarieswithlimitedstatutoryimmunityfromliabilityforcopyrightinfringement.Online
intermediarieshostingcontentthatinfringescopyrightarenotliable,solongastheydonotknowaboutitandtake
actionsoncetheinfringingcontentisbroughttotheirattention.InU.S.lawthisischaracterizedas"safeharbor"
provisions.UnderEuropeanlaw,thegoverningprinciplesforInternetServiceProvidersare"mereconduit",
meaningthattheyareneutral'pipes'withnoknowledgeofwhattheyarecarryingand'noobligationtomonitor'
meaningthattheycannotbegivenageneralmandatebygovernmentstomonitorcontent.Thesetwoprinciplesare
abarrierforcertainformsofonlinecopyrightenforcementandtheywerethereasonbehindanattempttoamend
theEuropeanTelecomsPackagein2009tosupportnewmeasuresagainstcopyrightinfringement.[51]
Peertopeerissues
8/19
1/15/2017
Peertopeerfilesharingintermediarieshavebeendeniedaccesstosafeharborprovisionsinrelationtocopyright
infringement.Legalactionagainstsuchintermediaries,suchasNapster,aregenerallybroughtinrelationto
principlesofsecondaryliabilityforcopyrightinfringement,suchascontributoryliabilityandvicariousliability.[52]
Thesetypesofintermediariesdonothostortransmitinfringing
content,themselves,butmayberegardedinsomecourtsas
encouraging,enablingorfacilitatinginfringementbyusers.
Theseintermediariesmayincludetheauthor,publishersand
marketersofpeertopeernetworkingsoftware,andthe
websitesthatallowuserstodownloadsuchsoftware.Inthe
caseoftheBitTorrentprotocol,intermediariesmayincludethe
torrenttrackerandanywebsitesorsearchengineswhich
facilitateaccesstotorrentfiles.Torrentfilesdon'tcontain
copyrightedcontent,buttheymaymakereferencetofilesthat
do,andtheymaypointtotrackerswhichcoordinatethe
sharingofthosefiles.Sometorrentindexingandsearchsites,
suchasThePirateBay,nowencouragetheuseofmagnet
links,insteadofdirectlinkstotorrentfiles,creatinganother
layerofindirectionusingsuchlinks,torrentfilesareobtained
fromotherpeers,ratherthanfromaparticularwebsite.
Sincethelate1990s,copyrightholdershavetakenlegalactions
againstanumberofpeertopeerintermediaries,suchaspir,
Grokster,eMule,SoulSeek,BitTorrentandLimewire,andcase
lawontheliabilityofInternetserviceproviders(ISPs)in
relationtocopyrightinfringementhasemergedprimarilyin
relationtothesecases.[53]
TheBitTorrentprotocol:Inthisanimation,the
coloredbarsbeneathallofthesevenclientsinthe
upperregionaboverepresentthefile,witheach
colorrepresentinganindividualpieceofthefile.
Aftertheinitialpiecestransferfromtheseed(large
systematthebottom),thepiecesareindividually
transferredfromclienttoclient.Theoriginalseeder
onlyneedstosendoutonecopyofthefileforall
theclientstoreceiveacopy.
Nevertheless,whetherandtowhatdegreeanyofthesetypesof
intermediarieshavesecondaryliabilityisthesubjectof
ongoinglitigation.Thedecentralisedstructureofpeertopeernetworks,inparticular,doesnotsiteasilywith
existinglawsononlineintermediaries'liability.TheBitTorrentprotocolestablishedanentirelydecentralised
networkarchitectureinordertodistributelargefileseffectively.Recentdevelopmentsinpeertopeertechnology
towardsmorecomplexnetworkconfigurationsaresaidtohavebeendrivenbyadesiretoavoidliabilityas
intermediariesunderexistinglaws.[54]
Limitations
Copyrightlawdoesnotgrantauthorsandpublishersabsolutecontrolovertheuseoftheirwork.Onlycertaintypes
ofworksandcertainkindsofusesareprotected[55]onlyunauthorizedusesofprotectedworkscanbesaidtobe
infringing.
Noninfringinguses
Article10oftheBerneConventionmandatesthatnationallawsprovideforlimitationstocopyright,sothat
copyrightprotectiondoesnotextendtocertainkindsofusesthatfallunderwhatthetreatycalls"fairpractice,"
includingbutnotlimitedtominimalquotationsusedinjournalismandeducation.[56]Thelawsimplementingthese
limitationsandexceptionsforusesthatwouldotherwisebeinfringingbroadlyfallintothecategoriesofeitherfair
useorfairdealing.Incommonlawsystems,thesefairpracticestatutestypicallyenshrineprinciplesunderlying
manyearlierjudicialprecedents,andareconsideredessentialtofreedomofspeech.[57]
9/19
1/15/2017
Anotherexampleisthepracticeofcompulsorylicensing,whichiswherethelawforbidscopyrightownersfrom
denyingalicenseforcertainusesofcertainkindsofworks,suchascompilationsandliveperformancesofmusic.
Compulsorylicensinglawsgenerallysaythatforcertainusesofcertainworks,noinfringementoccursaslongasa
royalty,ataratedeterminedbylawratherthanprivatenegotiation,ispaidtothecopyrightownerorrepresentative
copyrightcollective.Somefairdealinglaws,suchasCanada's,includesimilarroyaltyrequirements.[58]
InEurope,thecopyrightinfringementcasePublicRelationsConsultantsAssociationLtdvNewspaperLicensing
AgencyLtdhadtwoprongsoneconcernedwhetheranewsaggregatorserviceinfringedthecopyrightofthenews
generatorstheotherconcernedwhetherthetemporarywebcachecreatedbythewebbrowserofaconsumerofthe
aggregator'sservice,alsoinfringedthecopyrightofthenewsgenerators.[59]Thefirstprongwasdecidedinfavor
ofthenewsgeneratorsinJune2014thesecondprongwasdecidedbytheCourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanUnion
(CJEU),whichruledthatthetemporarywebcacheofconsumersoftheaggregatordidnotinfringethecopyrightof
thenewsgenerators.[59][60][61]
Noninfringingtypesofworks
Inordertoqualifyforprotection,aworkmustbeanexpressionwithadegreeoforiginality,anditmustbeina
fixedmedium,suchaswrittendownonpaperorrecordeddigitally.[62][63]Theideaitselfisnotprotected.Thatis,a
copyofsomeoneelse'soriginalideaisnotinfringingunlessitcopiesthatperson'sunique,tangibleexpressionof
theidea.Someoftheselimitations,especiallyregardingwhatqualifiesasoriginal,areembodiedonlyincaselaw
(judicialprecedent),ratherthaninstatutes.
IntheU.S.,forexample,copyrightcaselawcontainsasubstantialsimilarityrequirementtodeterminewhetherthe
workwascopied.Likewise,courtsmayrequirecomputersoftwaretopassanAbstractionFiltrationComparison
test(AFCTest)[64][65]todetermineifitistooabstracttoqualifyforprotection,ortoodissimilartoanoriginal
worktobeconsideredinfringing.SoftwarerelatedcaselawhasalsoclarifiedthattheamountofR&D,effortand
expenseputintoawork'screationdoesn'taffectcopyrightprotection.[66]
Evaluationofallegedcopyrightinfringementinacourtoflawmaybesubstantialthetimeandcostsrequiredto
applythesetestsvarybasedonthesizeandcomplexityofthecopyrightedmaterial.Furthermore,thereisno
standardoruniversallyacceptedtestsomecourtshaverejectedtheAFCTest,forexample,infavorofnarrower
criteria.
ThePOSARtest,[67]arecentlydevisedforensicprocedureforestablishingsoftwarecopyrightinfringementcases,
isanextensionoranenhancementoftheAFCtest.POSAR,withitsaddedfeaturesandadditionalfacilities,offers
somethingmoretothelegalandthejudicialdomainthanwhattheAFCtestoffers.Theseadditionalfeaturesand
facilitiesmakethetestmoresensitivetothetechnicalandlegalrequirementsofsoftwarecopyrightinfringement.
Preventativemeasures
TheBSAoutlinedfourstrategiesthatgovernmentscanadopttoreducesoftwarepiracyratesinits2011piracy
studyresults:
"IncreasepubliceducationandraiseawarenessaboutsoftwarepiracyandIPrightsincooperationwith
industryandlawenforcement."
"Modernizeprotectionsforsoftwareandothercopyrightedmaterialstokeeppacewithnewinnovationssuch
ascloudcomputingandtheproliferationofnetworkedmobiledevices."
"StrengthenenforcementofIPlawswithdedicatedresources,includingspecializedenforcementunits,
trainingforlawenforcementandjudiciaryofficials,improvedcrossbordercooperationamonglaw
10/19
1/15/2017
enforcementagencies,andfulfillmentofobligationsundertheWorldTradeOrganization'sAgreementon
TradeRelatedAspectsofIntellectualPropertyRights(TRIPS)."
"Leadbyexamplebyusingonlyfullylicensedsoftware,implementingsoftwareassetmanagement(SAM)
programs,andpromotingtheuseoflegalsoftwareinstateownedenterprises,andamongallcontractorsand
suppliers."[68]
Legal
Corporationsandlegislaturestakedifferenttypesofpreventativemeasurestodetercopyrightinfringement,with
muchofthefocussincetheearly1990sbeingonpreventingorreducingdigitalmethodsofinfringement.
Strategiesincludeeducation,civil&criminallegislation,andinternationalagreements,[69]aswellaspublicizing
antipiracylitigationsuccessesandimposingformsofdigitalmediacopyprotection,suchascontroversialDRM
technologyandanticircumventionlaws,whichlimittheamountofcontrolconsumershaveovertheuseof
productsandcontenttheyhavepurchased.
Legislatureshavereducedinfringementbynarrowingthescopeofwhatisconsideredinfringing.Asidefrom
upholdinginternationalcopyrighttreatyobligationstoprovidegenerallimitationsandexceptions,[56]nationshave
enactedcompulsorylicensinglawsapplyingspecificallytodigitalworksanduses.Forexample,intheU.S.,the
DMCA,animplementationofthe1996WIPOCopyrightTreaty,considersdigitaltransmissionsofaudio
recordingstobelicensedaslongasadesignatedcopyrightcollective'sroyaltyandreportingrequirementsare
met.[70]TheDMCAalsoprovidessafeharborfordigitalserviceproviderswhoseusersaresuspectedofcopyright
infringement,thusreducingthelikelihoodthattheprovidersthemselveswillbeconsidereddirectlyinfringing.[71]
Somecopyrightownersvoluntarilyreducethescopeofwhatisconsideredinfringementbyemployingrelatively
permissive,"open"licensingstrategies:ratherthanprivatelynegotiatinglicensetermswithindividualuserswho
mustfirstseekoutthecopyrightownerandaskforpermission,thecopyrightownerpublishesanddistributesthe
workwithapreparedlicensethatanyonecanuse,aslongastheyadheretocertainconditions.Thishastheeffect
ofreducinginfringementandtheburdenoncourtsbysimplypermittingcertaintypesofusesundertermsthat
thecopyrightownerconsidersreasonable.Examplesincludefreesoftwarelicenses,liketheGNUGeneralPublic
License(GPL),andtheCreativeCommonslicenses,whicharepredominantlyappliedtovisualandliterary
works.[72]
Protecteddistribution
Topreventpiracyoffilms,thestandarddrilloffilmdistributionistohaveamoviefirstreleasedthroughmovie
theaters(theatricalwindow),onaverageapproximately16andahalfweeks,[73]beforehavingitreleasedtoBlu
RayandDVD(enteringitsvideowindow).Duringthetheatricalwindow,digitalversionsoffilmsareoften
transportedindatastoragedevicesbycouriersratherthanbydatatransmission.[74]Thedatacanbeencrypted,with
thekeybeingmadetoworkonlyatspecifictimesinordertopreventleakagebetweenscreens.[74]CodedAnti
Piracymarkscanbeaddedtofilmstoidentifythesourceofillegalcopiesandshutthemdown.
Economicimpactofcopyrightinfringement
Organizationsdisagreeonthescopeandmagnitudeofcopyrightinfringement'sfreeridereconomiceffectsand
publicsupportforthecopyrightregime.
Inrelationtocomputersoftware,theBusinessSoftwareAlliance(BSA)claimedinits2011piracystudy:"Public
opinioncontinuestosupportintellectualproperty(IP)rights:SevenPCusersin10supportpayinginnovatorsto
promotemoretechnologicaladvances."[68]
11/19
1/15/2017
Followingconsultationwithexpertsoncopyrightinfringement,theUnitedStatesGovernmentAccountability
Office(GAO)clarifiedin2010that"estimatingtheeconomicimpactofIP[intellectualproperty]infringementsis
extremelydifficult,andassumptionsmustbeusedduetotheabsenceofdata,"while"itisdifficult,ifnot
impossible,toquantifytheneteffectofcounterfeitingandpiracyontheeconomyasawhole."[75]
TheU.S.GAO's2010findingsregardingthegreatdifficultyofaccuratelygaugingtheeconomicimpactof
copyrightinfringementwasreinforcedwithinthesamereportbythebody'sresearchintothreecommonlycited
estimatesthathadpreviouslybeenprovidedtoU.S.agencies.TheGAOreportexplainedthatthesourcesa
FederalBureauofInvestigation(FBI)estimate,aCustomsandBorderProtection(CBP)pressreleaseandaMotor
andEquipmentManufacturersAssociationestimate"cannotbesubstantiatedortracedbacktoanunderlyingdata
sourceormethodology."[75]
Deanerexplainedtheimportanceofrewardingthe"investmentrisk"takenbymotionpicturestudiosin2014:
Usuallymoviesarehotbecauseadistributorhasspenthundredsofthousandsofdollarspromotingthe
productinprintandTVandotherformsofadvertising.ThemajorHollywoodstudiosspendmillions
onthisprocesswithmarketingcostsrivallingthecostsofproduction.Theyareattemptingthento
monetisethroughreturnsthatcanjustifytheinvestmentinboththecostsofpromotionand
production.[4]
Motionpictureindustryestimates
In2008,theMotionPictureAssociationofAmerica(MPAA)reportedthatitssixmajormembercompanieslost
US$6.1billiontopiracy.[76]A2009LosAngelesDailyNewsarticlethencitedalossfigureof"roughly$20billion
ayear"forHollywoodstudios.[77]Accordingtoa2013WallStreetJournalarticle,industryestimatesintheUnited
Statesrangebetween$6.1Bto$18.5Bperyear.[78]
InanearlyMay2014Guardianarticle,anannuallossfigureofUS$20.5billionwascitedforthemovieindustry.
Thearticle'sbasisistheresultsofaUniversityofPortsmouthstudythatonlyinvolvedFinnishparticipants,aged
betweensevenand84.Theresearchers,whoworkedwith6,000participants,stated:"Moviepiratesarealsomore
likelytocutdowntheirpiracyiftheyfeeltheyareharmingtheindustrycomparedwithpeoplewhoillegally
downloadmusic".[18]
Softwareindustryestimates
Accordingtoa2007BSAandInternationalDataCorporation(IDC)study,thefivecountrieswiththehighestrates
ofsoftwarepiracywere:1.Armenia(93%)2.Bangladesh(92%)3.Azerbaijan(92%)4.Moldova(92%)and5.
Zimbabwe(91%).Accordingtothestudy'sresults,thefivecountrieswiththelowestpiracyrateswere:1.U.S.
(20%)2.Luxembourg(21%)3.NewZealand(22%)4.Japan(23%)and5.Austria(25%).The2007report
showedthattheAsiaPacificregionwasassociatedwiththehighestamountofloss,intermsofU.S.dollars,with
$14,090,000,followedbytheEuropeanUnion,withalossof$12,383,000thelowestamountofU.S.dollarswas
lostintheMiddleEast/Africaregion,where$2,446,000wasdocumented.[79]
Inits2011report,conductedinpartnershipwithIDCandIpsosPublicAffairs,theBSAstated:"Overhalfofthe
world'spersonalcomputerusers57percentadmittopiratingsoftware."Theninthannual"BSAGlobal
SoftwarePiracyStudy"claimsthatthe"commercialvalueofthisshadowmarketofpiratedsoftware"wasworth
12/19
1/15/2017
US$63.4billionin2011,withthehighestcommercialvalueofpiratedPCsoftwareexistentintheU.S.duringthat
timeperiod(US$9,773,000).Accordingtothe2011study,Zimbabwewasthenationwiththehighestpiracyrate,
at92%,whilethelowestpiracyratewaspresentintheU.S.,at19%.[68]
TheGAOnotedin2010thattheBSA'sresearchupuntilthatyeardefined"piracyasthedifferencebetweentotal
installedsoftwareandlegitimatesoftwaresold,anditsscopeinvolvedonlypackagedphysicalsoftware."[75]
Musicindustryestimates
In2007,theInstituteforPolicyInnovation(IPI)reportedthatmusicpiracytook$12.5billionfromtheU.S.
economy.Accordingtothestudy,musiciansandthoseinvolvedintherecordingindustryarenottheonlyoneswho
experiencelossesattributedtomusicpiracy.Retailershavelostoverabilliondollars,whilepiracyhasresultedin
46,000fewerproductionleveljobsandalmost25,000retailjobs.TheU.S.governmentwasalsoreportedtosuffer
frommusicpiracy,losing$422millionintaxrevenue.[80]
Areportfrom2013,releasedbytheEuropeanCommissionJointResearchCentresuggeststhatillegalmusic
downloadshavealmostnoeffectonthenumberoflegalmusicdownloads.Thestudyanalyzedthebehaviorof
16,000Europeanmusicconsumersandfoundthatalthoughmusicpiracynegativelyaffectsofflinemusicsales,
illegalmusicdownloadshadapositiveeffectonlegalmusicpurchases.Withoutillegaldownloading,legal
purchaseswereabouttwopercentlower.[81]
Thestudyhasreceivedcriticism,particularlyfromTheInternationalFederationofthePhonographicIndustry,
whichbelievesthestudyisflawedandmisleading.Oneargumentagainsttheresearchisthatmanymusic
consumersonlydownloadmusicillegally.TheIFPIalsopointsoutthatmusicpiracyaffectsnotonlyonlinemusic
salesbutalsomultiplefacetsofthemusicindustry,whichisnotaddressedinthestudy.[82]
Criticismofindustryestimates
Themethodologyofstudiesutilizedbyindustryspokespeoplehasbeenheavilycriticized.Inflatedclaimsfor
damagesandallegationsofeconomicharmarecommonincopyrightdisputes.[83][84]Somestudiesandfigures,
includingthosecitedbytheMPAAandRIAAwithregardstotheeconomiceffectsoffilmandmusicdownloads,
havebeenwidelydisputedasbasedonquestionableassumptionswhichresultedinstatisticallyunsound
numbers.[85][86]
Inoneextremeexample,theRIAAclaimeddamagesagainstLimeWiretotaling$75trillionmorethantheglobal
GDPand"respectfully"disagreedwiththejudge'srulingthatsuchclaimswere"absurd".[87]
However,this$75trillionfigureisobtainedthroughonespecificinterpretationofcopyrightlawthatwouldcount
eachsongdownloadedasaninfringementofcopyright.Aftertheconclusionofthecase,LimeWireagreedtopay
$105milliontoRIAA.[88]
Thejudicialsystemhasalsofoundflawsinindustryestimatesandcalculations.Inonedecision,USDistrictCourt
JudgeJamesP.Jonesfoundthatthe"RIAA'srequestproblematicallyassumesthateveryillegaldownloadresulted
inalostsale,"[89]indicatingprofitlossestimateswerelikelyextremelyoff.
Othercriticsofindustryestimatesarguethatthosewhousepeertopeersharingservices,orpractice"piracy"are
actuallymorelikelytopayformusic.AJupiterResearchstudyin2000foundthat"Napsteruserswere45percent
morelikelytohaveincreasedtheirmusicpurchasinghabitsthanonlinemusicfanswhodon'tusethesoftware
were."[90]Thisindicatedthatusersofpeertopeersharingdidn'thurttheprofitsofthemusicindustry,butinfact
mayhaveincreasedit.
13/19
1/15/2017
ProfessorAramSinnreich,inhisbookThePiracyCrusade,statesthattheconnectionbetweendecliningmusic
salesandthecreationofpeertopeerfilesharingsitessuchasNapsteristenuous,basedoncorrelationratherthan
causation.Hearguesthattheindustryatthetimewasundergoingartificialexpansion,whathedescribesasa
"'perfectbubble'aconfluenceofeconomic,political,andtechnologicalforcesthatdrovetheaggregatevalueof
musicsalestounprecedentedheightsattheendofthetwentiethcentury".
Sinnreichcitesmultiplecausesfortheeconomicbubble,includingtheCDformatreplacementcycletheshiftfrom
musicspecialtystorestowholesalesuppliersofmusicand'minimumadvertisedpricing'andtheeconomic
expansionof19912001.Hebelievesthatwiththeintroductionofnewdigitaltechnologies,thebubbleburst,and
theindustrysufferedasaresult.[91]
Economicimpactofinfringementinemergingmarkets
The2011BusinessSoftwareAlliancePiracyStudyStandard,estimatesthetotalcommercialvalueofillegally
copiedsoftwaretobeat$59billionin2010,withemergingmarketsaccountingfor$31.9billion,overhalfofthe
total.Furthermore,maturemarketsforthefirsttimereceivedlessPCshipmentsthanemergingeconomiesin2010,
makingemergingmarketsnowresponsibleformorethanhalfofallcomputersinuseworldwide.Inadditionwith
softwareinfringementratesof68percentcomparingto24percentofmaturemarkets,emergingmarketsthus
possessthemajorityoftheglobalincreaseinthecommercialvalueofcounterfeitsoftware.Chinacontinuesto
havethehighestcommercialvalueofsuchsoftwareat$8.9billionamongdevelopingcountriesandsecondinthe
worldbehindtheUSat$9.7billionin2011.[92][93]In2011,theBusinessSoftwareAllianceannouncedthat83
percentofsoftwaredeployedonPCsinAfricahasbeenpirated(excludingSouthAfrica).[94]
Somecountriesdistinguishcorporatepiracyfromprivateuse,whichistoleratedasawelfareservice.Thisisthe
leadingreasondevelopingcountriesrefusetoacceptorrespectcopyrightlaws.TraianBsescu,thepresidentof
Romania,statedthat"piracyhelpedtheyounggenerationdiscovercomputers.ItsetoffthedevelopmentoftheIT
industryinRomania."[95]
Proopencultureorganizations
FreeSoftwareFoundation(FSF)
ElectronicFrontierFoundation(EFF)
CreativeCommons(CC)
DemandProgress
FightfortheFuture
PirateParty
Anticopyrightinfringementorganizations
BusinessSoftwareAlliance(BSA)
CanadianAllianceAgainstSoftwareTheft(CAAST)
EntertainmentSoftwareAssociation(ESA)
FederationAgainstSoftwareTheft(FAST)
InternationalIntellectualPropertyAlliance(IIPA)
AssociationFortheProtectionOfInternetCopyright(APIC)
CopyrightAlliance
FairUseProtectionAssociation(FUPA)
Seealso
14/19
1/15/2017
Abandonware
InreAimsterCopyright
Litigation
Antipiracy
Australiancopyrightlaw
Bootlegrecording
CenterforCopyright
Information
Comparisonofanti
plagiarismsoftware
ComputerAssociatesInt.Inc.
v.AltaiInc.
Copyfraud
Copyleft
Copyrightaspectsof
downloadingandstreaming
Copyright,Designsand
PatentsAct1988
Copyrightedcontentonfile
sharingnetworks
FairUse
FBI
FederationAgainstCopyright
Theft(FACT)
ImmigrationandCustoms
Enforcement(ICE)
IFPI(InternationalFederation
ofthePhonographicIndustry)
Intellectualproperty
infringementinthePeople's
RepublicofChina
InternetPrivacyAct
Jacobsenv.Katzer
Legalaspectsofcopyright
infringement
MissionaryChurchof
Kopimism
Musicpiracy
OnlineCopyright
InfringementLiability
LimitationActintheUnited
States
OpenLettertoHobbyists
Piratedmoviereleasetypes
Plagiarism
Productactivation
Publicdomain
Radiomusicripping
Softwarecopyright
Tradegroupeffortsagainst
filesharing
TransPacificPartnership
TransPacificPartnership
IntellectualProperty
Provisions
Warez
WindowsGenuineAdvantage
WorldAntiPiracy
Observatory(WAPO)
References
1.Dowlingv.UnitedStates(1985),473U.S.207,pp.217218.
2."MPAABannedFromUsingPiracyandTheftTermsinHotfileTrial".Archivedfromtheoriginalon30November
2013.RetrievedNovember30,2013.
3."MPAABannedFromUsingPiracyandTheftTermsinHotfileTrial".Archivedfromtheoriginalon3December2013.
RetrievedNovember30,2013.
4.MattEaton(17April2014)."TribecaFilmFestivalprogrammerurgesfilmindustrytoforgetpiracyandembrace
internet".ABCNews.Retrieved21April2014.
5.NickRoss(8April2014)."GameofThrones:Anothercaseforpiracy".ABCtechnology+games.ABC.Retrieved
21April2014.
6."piracy".Dictionary.com.Dictionary.com,LLC.2014.Retrieved21April2014.
7.T.Dekker.WonderfullYeare(http://www.luminarium.org/renascenceeditions/yeare.html),1603,reprintedbyUniversity
ofOregon
8.Panethiere,Darrell(JulySeptember2005)."ThePersistenceofPiracy:TheConsequencesforCreativity,forCulture,
andforSustainableDevelopment"(PDF).UNESCOeCopyrightBulletin.p.2.
9.Correa,CarlosMariaLi,Xuan(2009).andsource=gbs_navlinks_sIntellectualpropertyenforcement:international
perspectivesCheck|url=value(help).EdwardElgarPublishing.p.208.ISBN9781848446632.
10.Stallman,Richard."ConfusingWordsandPhrasesThatAreWorthAvoiding".FreeSoftware,FreeSociety:TheSelected
EssaysofRichardM.Stallman.GNUPress.Archivedfromtheoriginalon31May2010.RetrievedJune1,2010.
11.Clough,Jonathan(2010).PrinciplesofCybercrime.CambridgeUniversityPress.p.221.ISBN9780521728126.
12.Oremus,Will(July2015)."Facebook'sPiracyProblem".Slate.TheSlateGroupLLC.RetrievedAugust2016.Check
datevaluesin:|accessdate=(help)
13.Foxx,Chris."Facebookannouncesnewtoolstotacklevideotheft".BBCNews.RetrievedAugust2016.Checkdate
valuesin:|accessdate=(help)
14."Interview:GabeNewell".Tcs.cam.ac.uk.20111124.Retrieved20120127.
15."USagreestopay$50mafter'piracy'ofsoftware".BBCNews.28November2013.Retrieved21April2014.
16."USArmysettlesin$180millionsoftwarepiracycase".FoxNews.2December2013.Retrieved21April2014.
17.IDGNetworkWorldInc(17November1997).Survivinganaudit.NetworkWorld.p.81.ISSN08877661.
18.SamuelGibbs(6May2014)."Piracystudyshowsillegaldownloadersmorelikelytopayforfilmsthanmusic".The
Guardian.Retrieved12May2014.
19.Gates,Bill(July20,1998)."TheBill&WarrenShow"(Digitalnewspaperarchive).http://archive.fortune.com.Fortune.
Retrieved16January2015.Externallinkin|website=(help)
15/19
1/15/2017
20."MediaPiracyinEmergingEconomies"(PDF).SocialScienceResearchCouncil.2011.pp.i.RetrievedApril2013.
Checkdatevaluesin:|accessdate=(help)
21."MediaPiracyinEmergingEconomies"(PDF).SocialScienceResearchCouncil.2011.pp.i.RetrievedApril2013.
Checkdatevaluesin:|accessdate=(help)
22.Hua,Yu(20130313)."StealingBooksforthePoor".TheNewYorkTimes.Retrieved20130428.
23.Calugareanu,Ilinca(20140217)."VHSvs.Communism".TheNewYorkTimes.Retrieved20140218.
24.Correa,CarlosMariaLi,Xuan(2009).Intellectualpropertyenforcement:internationalperspectives.EdwardElgar
Publishing.p.211.ISBN9781848446632.
25.IrinaD.MantaSpring2011ThePuzzleofCriminalSanctionsforIntellectualPropertyInfringement(http://jolt.law.harva
rd.edu/articles/pdf/v24/24HarvJLTech469.pdf)HarvardJournalofLaw&Technology24(2):469518
26."17U.S.Code106".
27.McDonald,Paul,andJanetWasko.TheContemporaryHollywoodFilmIndustry.Malden,MA:BlackwellPub.,2008.
Print.p.202
28.McDonald,Paul,andJanetWasko.TheContemporaryHollywoodFilmIndustry.Malden,MA:BlackwellPub.,2008.
Print.p.203
29."U.S.CopyrightOfficeInformationCircular".Copyright.gov.Retrieved20120127.
30."PiracyandCopyrightinAustralia".HowardSmithofGeelong.19February2015.Retrieved19February2015.
31."U.S.CopyrightOfficeCopyrightLaw:Chapter5".Copyright.gov.Retrieved20120127.
32.ActofJan.6,1897,ch.4,29Stat.48182.
33.MiriamBitton(2012)RethinkingtheAntiCounterfeitingTradeAgreement'sCriminalCopyrightEnforcementMeasures
(http://www.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/backissues/v102/n1/1021_67.Bitton.pdf)TheJournalOfCriminalLaw&
Criminology102(1):67117
34."TheAntiCounterfeitingTradeAgreementSummaryofKeyElementsUnderDiscussion"(PDF).transparencypaper.
SwissfederationofIntellectualProperty.November2009.Retrieved8June2010.
35."UnitedStatesofAmericav.DavidLaMacchia,MemorandumofDecisionandOrderonDefendant'sMotionto
Dismiss".28December1994.
36."YourInterview:MichaelGeist".CanadianBroadcastingCorporation.20080407.Archivedfromtheoriginalon2008
0412."Downloadingmusicforpersonal,noncommercialpurposesisarguablylegalinCanadaduetotheprivate
copyinglevywhichplacesalevyonblankmediasuchasblankCDs.Theprivatecopyinglevydoesnotextendtovideo
asitonlycoverssoundrecordings.MakingapersonalcopyofamusicCDsisalsocoveredbytheprivatecopyinglevy."
37."Dozwolonyuytekprywatny".FundacjaNowoczesnaPolska.RetrievedJanuary2014.Checkdatevaluesin:|access
date=(help)
38.VanDerSar,Ernesto."DutchParliament:DownloadingMoviesandMusicWillStayLegal".TorrentFreak.Retrieved
16August2012.
39."Theamountofthelevypayableformakingprivatecopiesofaprotectedworkmaynottakeunlawfulreproductionsinto
account"(PDF).CourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanUnion.April10,2014.
40."CanadadeemsP2Pdownloadinglegal".CNETNews.20031212.Retrieved20121227.
41.GermanyCapsPiracyFines(http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/germanycapspiracyfines577989).The
HollywoodReporter(20130107).Retrievedon20130731.
42.Foradiscussion,seeCopyrightInfringementAdvisor(http://copyright.infringementadvisor.com/2012/11/5000caponn
oncommercialcopyright.html):CaponNonCommercialCopyrightDamages
43."U.S.CopyrightOfficeCopyrightLaw:Chapter12".copyright.gov.
44."AbbeyHouseMediav.AppleInc".ElectronicFrontierFoundation.20141210.Retrieved20161130.
45.EFF,ParkerHiggins."It'sPerfectlyLegaltoTellPeopleHowtoRemoveDRM".Gizmodo.Retrieved20161130.
46."TellingpeoplehowtoremoveDRMisn'tillegal".Engadget.Retrieved20161130.
47.Edwards,LilianWaelde,Charlotte(2005)."OnlineIntermediariesandLiabilityforCopyrightInfringement"(PDF).
KeynotepaperatWIPOWorkshoponOnlineIntermediariesandLiabilityforCopyright,Geneva.WorldIntellectual
PropertyOrganisation(WIPO).p.2.RetrievedSeptember2010.Checkdatevaluesin:|accessdate=(help)
PropertyOrganisation(WIPO).pp.56.RetrievedSeptember2010.Checkdatevaluesin:|accessdate=(help)
16/19
1/15/2017
51.Horten,Monica(2012).TheCopyrightEnforcementEnigmaInternetPoliticsandtheTelecomsPackage.Palgrave
Macmillan.pp.104106.ISBN9780230321717.
55.Smith,Chris."PiratingcopyrightedcontentislegalinEurope,ifdonecorrectly".www.bgr.com.BoyGeniusReport.
Retrieved20December2014.
56.BerneConventionArticle10(http://zvon.org/law/r/bern.html#p~13),article10bis(http://zvon.org/law/r/bern.html#p~1
4).
57.Eldredv.Ashcroft,537U.S.186(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=537&p
age=186),219,221(U.S.2003).inwhichthecourtdescribesfairuseasa"freespeechsafeguard"anda"First
Amendmentaccommodation"
58."CanadaU.S.CopyrightComparison"(PDF).AssociationofUniversitiesandCollegesofCanada.Retrieved
20140214.
59.Meyer,David."Youcan'tbreakcopyrightbylookingatsomethingonline,Europe'stopcourtrules".
https://gigaom.com/.Gigaom.Retrieved20December2014.Externallinkin|website=(help)
60."CaseC360/13".CourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanUnion.CourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanUnion.Retrieved
21December2014.
61."CJEUJudgment:NoCopyrightInfringementinMereWebViewing".www.scl.org.SCLTheITLawCommunity
(UK).Retrieved21December2014.
62."BerneConvention,article2,section2".
63.17U.S.C.102(b)(https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102(b)),forexample.
64."CopyrightinOpenSourceSoftwareUnderstandingtheBoundaries".Ifosslr.org.Retrieved20120920.
65.[1](http://www.linux.com/archive/feature/113252)Archived(https://web.archive.org/web/20100213110414/http://www.
linux.com/archive/feature/113252)February13,2010,attheWaybackMachine.
66."3.3The"Abstraction,Filtration,Comparison"Test".Ladas.com.Retrieved20120127.
67."Judiciaryfriendlyforensicsofsoftwarecopyrightinfringement".IGIGlobal.Retrieved20140414.
68."ShadowMarketInBrief"(PDF).2011BSAGlobalSoftwarePiracyStudy.BusinessSoftwareAlliance(BSA).2011.
Retrieved21April2014.
69.RamD.GopalandG.LawrenceSanders."InternationalSoftwarePiracy:AnalysisofKeyIssuesandImpacts."
InformationSystemsResearch9,no.4(December1998):380397.
70.17U.S.C.514(f)(g)(https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/514(f)(g))seeSoundExchange.
71.17U.S.C.512(a)(d)(https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512(a)(d))seeOnlineCopyrightInfringement
LiabilityLimitationAct.
72."CreativeCommonsAboutTheLicenses".creativecommons.org.
73.EthanSmithLaurenA.E.Schuker(12February2010)."MovieStudiosPushtoUnlockDVDReleaseDatesWSJ".
WSJ.
74.VirginiaCrisp,GabrielMenottiGonring(2015).BesidestheScreen:MovingImagesthroughDistribution,Promotion
andCuration.PalgraveMacmillan.ISBN9781137471031.
75.UnitedStatesGovernmentAccountabilityOffice(April2010)."INTELLECTUALPROPERTYObservationsonEfforts
toQuantifytheEconomicEffectsofCounterfeitandPiratedGoods"(PDF).ReporttoCongressionalCommittees.United
StatesGovernmentAccountabilityOffice.Retrieved21April2014.
76.SheaSerrano(19March2008)."MoviePirates".HoustonPress.Retrieved21April2014.
77.BobStrauss(6April2009)."Filmpiracyheadsnorthofborder".LosAngelesDailyNews.Retrieved21April2014.
78.Bialik,Carl."PuttingaPriceTagonFilmPiracy".blogs.wsj.com.WallStreetJournal.Retrieved14March2016.
79."FifthAnnualBSAandIDCGlobalSoftwarePiracyStudy"(PDF).FifthAnnualBSAandIDCGlobalSoftwarePiracy
Study.BusinessSoftwareAlliance(BSA).2007.Retrieved21April2014.
80."MusicPiracy:InformationWeek,MusicPiracyCostsU.S.Economy$12.5Billion,ReportReveals".
81."DigitalMusic:JointResearchCentre,DigitalMusicConsumptionontheInternet:EvidencefromClickstreamData".
82."IllegalMusicDownloadsNotHurtingIndustry,StudyClaims".
17/19
1/15/2017
83."IfIt'sMayIt'sTimeForThePressToParrotBogusStatsAnnouncementFromTheBSA".Techdirt.20100512.
Retrieved20120127.
84."BSA'sCanadianPiracyNumbersBasedOnHunches,NotActualSurveys".Techdirt.20090527.Retrieved
20120127.
85.Reid,Robert(March20,2012)."ThenumbersbehindtheCopyrightMath".
86.Salmon,FelixE.(October4,2007)."BewareCopyrightStatistics".
87.Vijayan,Jaikumar(28March2011)."JudgerulespunitivedamagesagainstLimeWire'absurd' ".
88.Korte,Travis(20110517)."LimeWireSettlement:RIAA,RecordLabelsWin$105M,ButArtistsMayNotBenefit".
HuffingtonPost.
89.UnitedStatesofAmericav.DanielDovethedecision,enteredNovember7,2008,canbeviewedat
http://www.vawd.uscourts.gov/OPINIONS/JONES/207CR15REST.PDF
90.AramSinnreich,"DigitalMusicSubscriptions:PostNapsterProductFormats,"JupiterResearch(2000).
91.Sinnreich,Aram(2013).ThePiracyCrusade:HowtheMusicIndustry'sWaronSharingDestroysMarketsandErodes
CivilLiberties.UniversityofMassachusettsPress.pp.94118.ISBN9781625340528.
92."ShadowMarket:2011BSAGlobalSoftwarePiracyStudy"(PDF).BusinessSoftwareAlliance.2012.p.4.Retrieved
April2013.Checkdatevaluesin:|accessdate=(help)
93."Softwarepiracyratestatisticscountriescompared".NationMaster.Retrieved20120127.
94."SoftwarePiracy(Infographic)".August22,2011.
95.NathanDavis.Thanksforlettinguspirate(http://apcmag.com/thanks_for_letting_us_pirate.htm).February5,2007.
Furtherreading
Hamerman,Sarah(September11,2015)."PIRATELIBRARIESandthefightforopeninformation".The
Media.
Horten,Monica(2012).TheCopyrightEnforcementEnigmaInternetPoliticsandtheTelecomsPackage.
PalgraveMacmillan.ISBN9780230321717.
Johns,Adrian(2009).Piracy.TheIntellectualPropertyWarsfromGutenbergtoGates.TheUniversityof
ChicagoPress.ISBN9780226401188.
Karaganis,Joe,ed.(2011).MediaPiracyinEmergingEconomies.SocialScienceResearchCouncil.
ISBN9780984125746.
Rosen,Ronald(2008).MusicandCopyright.OxfordOxfordshire:OxfordUniversityPress.ISBN019
5338367.
Externallinks
CopyrightAlliance(https://www.copyrightalliance.org/),Nonprofit
BewareofPirates!HowtoAvoidBootlegBluraysandDVDs(http://www.brentonfilm.com/articles/beware
ofpirateshowtoavoidbootlegbluraysanddvds)articleatBrentonFilm(http://www.brentonfilm.com/)
VideographersuesNCoverrightstoBlackbeardshipwreckfootage(http://www.newsobserver.com/news/loc
al/article47647130.html),News&Observer
PhotographersuingstateoverBlackbeardshipwreckfootage(http://www.wral.com/photographersuingstate
overblackbeardshipwreckfootage/15150138/),WRALTV
Blackbeard'sLawwouldclarifycontrolofmediarightstoshipwrecks(http://www.greensboro.com/news/bla
ckbeardslawwouldclarifycontrolofmediarightsto/article_cdb0e03d0306588d8278c87d8df12cf7.ht
ml),News&Record
LawmakersenterlegalbattleoverBlackbeard'sship(http://www.newsobserver.com/news/state/northcarolin
a/article29437363.html),News&Observer
ControversyOverBlackbeard'sQueenAnne'sRevengeContinues(http://publicradioeast.org/post/controvers
yoverblackbeardsqueenannesrevengecontinues),PublicRadioEast
BattleOverShipwreckPhotosBrewsinN.C.(http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/08/12/battleovership
wreckphotosbrewsinnc.htm),CourthouseNews
PlunderdisputesplaguethewreckofBlackbeard'sship(http://www.soundingsonline.com/features/indepth/
294588plunderdisputesplaguethewreckofblackbeardsship),Soundings
18/19
1/15/2017
PhotographersuesGettyImagesfor$1billionaftershe'sbilledforherownphoto(http://www.latimes.com/b
usiness/hiltzik/lafihiltzikgettycopyright20160729snapstory.html),L.A.Times
Retrievedfrom"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copyright_infringement&oldid=760277683"
Categories: Copyrightlaw Organizedcrime Organizedcrimeactivity Tortlaw Copyrightinfringement
Copyrightinfringementofsoftware Filesharing
Thispagewaslastmodifiedon16January2017,at00:53.
TextisavailableundertheCreativeCommonsAttributionShareAlikeLicenseadditionaltermsmayapply.
Byusingthissite,youagreetotheTermsofUseandPrivacyPolicy.Wikipediaisaregisteredtrademark
oftheWikimediaFoundation,Inc.,anonprofitorganization.
19/19

Copyright Infringement - Wikipedia

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Copyright Infringement - Wikipedia

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

1/15/2017

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen