Three Days in January that Made Copyright History

Three days in January 2012 witnessed some of the most important events in recent history in the world of copyright.

On January 18, the Supreme Court issued Golan v. Holder, which held that Congress is empowered remove works like the symphony classic Peter and the Wolf from the public domain in the United States, preventing orchestras, musicians and others from using these works unless they get permission and pay a license fee to the copyright holders.

On the same day, the technology community mobilized millions of people to voice their disagreement with SOPA and PIPA, two bills supported by the entertainment industry that were designed to fight online piracy. After blackouts by Wikipedia and protests encouraged by tech giants like Google, by January 19 most members of Congress had withdrawn their support for both bills.

On January 20, the United States arrested Kim Dotcom. He was arrested in Auckland, New Zealand for a file-sharing site called Megaupload.com that was based in Hong Kong. The site allegedly generated over $175 million by illegally copying and distributing music, movies and other copyrighted material without authorization.

What does all of this tell us? Three important things.

First, protection of our country’s intellectual property relies on international cooperation. For us to arrest Mr. Dotcom, who is alleged to have stolen millions from American content creators, we needed the help of authorities in Hong Kong and New Zealand. Which is where Golan v. Holder comes in: no one likes hearing that Peter and the Wolf and other classics have fallen out of the public domain and back into exclusive ownership, but for our country to benefit from international copyright treaties, we also must abide by them. International treaties are what prompted Congress to pull certain works out of the public domain, and what prompted the Supreme Court to reach the conclusion it reached in that lawsuit.

Second, if we didn’t recognize it before the rise and fall of SOPA and PIPA, there’s no denying the tension between content creators and content providers; between the entertainment industry and the technology industry. Our technology is intertwined with our entertainment and our content, so we need these camps to work together. Unfortunately for now, the tension is insurmountable: technology camps want free flow of information while content creators want protection for their original works. Ultimately, these two teams will have to reach a compromise, and Congress cannot ignore the need to protect American intellectual property from online international piracy, like the theft allegedly coordinated by Mr. Dotcom.

Finally, the online protests of SOPA and PIPA mobilized a new segment of concerned citizens. Google claims it gathered over seven million signatures in 24 hours in opposition to the bills. The implications of that statistic are at the same time impressive, intimidating and infinite.

Entertainment Industry's New Copyright Alert System May Create New Form of Evidence in Copyright Infringement Lawsuits & Lead to Higher Damages

It was big news earlier this month when many of the big entertainment companies entered into an agreement with Internet service providers (ISPs) regarding efforts they will take to self-regulate and self-police copyright infringement. The name of this plan is the "Copyright Alert System."

According to the Wall St. Journal and the Center for Copyright Information, the plan has six steps, from the mildest (in issuing warnings), to the intermediate (in requiring users to acknowledge that they received notice), to the most severe (in slowing down the speed at which alleged infringers may access the Internet).

As a copyright lawyer who goes to court to resolve disputes, I am most interested in the intermediate step. It strikes me that if users are forced to acknowledge that they have received a warning that their conduct may constitute infringement and yet they proceed forward anyway, the fact that they acknowledged such warning may be used against them in a copyright infringement action. The ISPs will not be releasing the identity of these users voluntarily. But a court can always grant permission to subpoena material showing that they took this intermediate step. This new policy may be opening up a whole new world of evidence of willfulness that can be used against people who knowingly infringe on others' copyrights. And willful infringement entitles copyright plaintiffs to increased money damages.

Privacy? Anyone Remember What That Is?

Does privacy really exist any more?  Sure it does, but sometimes it's easy to forget. 

Take the story's in today's Tennessean: "Nashville Residents Take on Google Wi-Spy, Join Privacy Lawsuit."  Google is accused of tapping into wireless networks while it drove by individuals' houses to capture a copy of their homes for placement on Google Earth.  According to the article, the wire tapping had nothing to do with capturing images of the homes; rather, it was done to improve Google's LBS -- location based services.

What's LBS? It's new technology that allows us consumers to get more accurate information at our fingertips when we log into a new app.  For example, when you go to TripAdvisor's App, if you allow it to track your location, it can send you a map showing you restaurants, parks, hotels, and music venues -- all tailored to your location.  When I go on vacation this fall, I can open up my iPad, tap on the app, and it will move with me, knowing I'm in another location, and providing me with the same instant information -- I don't have to key in the location, because the app does it for me. 

Are there privacy concerns in this?  Of course there are.  And that's ignoring Google's alleged wire tapping.  The concerns are that we give up some privacy when our smart phones know our location.  Who else knows our location?  Surely someone's finding a way to sell that information and make money -- this is called "monetization."

As I explained while recently speaking on a panel at Lipscomb University, our free Internet, and our incredibly tech savvy tools, are not truly free, even though they appear to be.  They come at a price and, as a society, we're just beginning to see what that price is: our privacy.

The lawyers at Covington & Burling have compiled a great summary of privacy bills pending before Congress.  As Congess wades through these bills, it is faced with the same tensions we all face: how much privacy are we willing to give up in exchange for the luxuries of information technology?  To protect our privacy, we may decide it's time to pay to protect ourselves, and we may begin to realize that things that seem too good to be true (an Internet without a price tag) really might be.

The Next Tidal Wave in Social Media: Video, Apps, QR Codes and Location-based Software

Video, apps, QR Codes and LBS (for location based software, not pounds) are about to be the next tidal wave in social media. It's not that Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn are losing any prominence (yet), but more and more businesses are waking up to see new ways to connect with their audiences. When law firms and banks (conservative by nature) start adding video to their home pages, you know something's catching on.

As these forms of social media become more popular, they raise new issues for the law to grapple with. Who owns the content? Did you get permission to include an image of that person or that song in your video? Have you informed your users that you plan to sell information about their visiting patterns whenever they view your site? Thoughts for businesses, legislatures and the courts to consider...