Piracy Evolvd

The legal issue that will be analyzed in this essay concerns the idea of Piracy or Copyright Infringement. Copyright infringement can occur in a variety of different ways but the way that will be analyzed in this paper will be through "file sharing" via computers. There have been several cases dealing with file sharing in the last few years and the legislation now says that file sharing is illegal. The road to today's legislation has been a bumpy one; at first the courts facilitated the production of machines that could potentially be used for copyright infringement purposes [1], then the courts tried to say that all people who take part in copyright infringement via file sharing were criminals [2], then the courts ruled all file sharing is illegal and even the people who produce the software are liable [3]. The progression has gone from facilitating piracy to shooting it down so hard that no company would even want to produce the software to be able to do it. The software producers are paying for it greatly; the last case that was decided made the file sharing company Kazaa pay out $100 million in "damages."[4]

The original landmark case dealing with copyright infringement, Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. 464 U.S. 417 (1984), basically stated that manufacturers could not be held liable for copyright infringement that consumers could use their products for [5]. In 1975 Sony produced a primitive tape recorder, the Betamax, which could be used to record programming off of a television and also off of other tapes. Universal City Studios claimed that the people using this product were committing copyright infringement and since the manufacturers produced the product, that they were liable [5]. The conflict here is obvious, but who is really involved in this case? It is not just Sony and Universal City Studios, but a large spectrum of manufacturers and studios. The studios probably saw this as a threat to their business and wanted this technology to not be released. They had the right idea; the Motion Pictures Association of America claims that they now lose $6 Billion a year because of piracy [6]. The studios did not like the idea, but the consumers loved the idea. They were now able to record their favorite shows and watch them over again or watch them at another time if they missed them.

In a 5-4 decision the US Supreme Court majority led by Justice Stevens, held that the sale of such recorders did not constitute copyright infringement [7]. One reason behind the majority decision was because the "protection to copyrights is wholly statutory"," and "any individual can reproduce a copyrighted work for a Ð''fair use'." In this case the "fair use" was for "time shifting" which is just recording something to watch it later. Another reason for the majority opinion was that producing and advertising the equipment was not enough evidence to say that they were directly responsible for the crimes that the consumers committed. The last reason was because "there is a significant likelihood that substantial numbers of copyright holders who license their works for broadcast on free television would not object to having their broadcast time-shifted by private viewers." [5] I personally agree with the majority opinion in this case because it would be ridiculous to hold the company producing the equipment liable for copyright infringement. I believe that at that time the public's main use for this product was personal and not for profit.

In the dissenting opinion by Justice Blackmun the absolute opposite was claimed. They said that "copying a copyrighted program is copyright infringement Ð'... time shifting is not Ð''fair use,' and that the manufacturers are guilty of inducing and materially contributing" to copyright infringement 7. Blackmun, starts with defining the use of the Betamax tapes. The court recognizes the "time shifting" and also "library building." Both uses involve recording the program and watching it later, library building is just compiling the recordings into a library [5]. Blackmun also says that there is no warning anywhere saying that the consumer is committing copyright infringement when they record copyrighted shows. He also mentions that the case only involved public free broadcasts, but studios also produce movies that they rent and sell. The possible damages to the motion pictures industry that could be caused by this device [7] are also mentioned. The last reason for the opinion was that if Sony produced this device with the knowledge listed above, that they are directly liable for any copyright infringement the consumer was involved in [5].

The case of Sony v. Universal City Studios is a landmark case in the piracy world because its defenses are being used today, just with modern day equivalents. Instead of Betamax recorders, there are computers. Instead of time shifting, there is space shifting, which means transferring from one medium to another. Like from your CD to your computer, or from transferring mp3's from your computer to someone else's. The concept of fair use is also being used as a defense, for example copying CD's for your own personal backup. As you can see it is very relevant still, after 22 years to today's legal battles.

Years pass and technology changes allowing the potential for Copyright Infringement to increase. At this time computers are something the general public is starting to catch on to and they start utilizing methods to try and get things for free again. The next case that shows the progression of piracy is the case of United States v. Lamacchia 871 F. Supp. 535 (1994). In this case, decided by a District Court in Massachusetts, a young 21 year old student at MIT set up an electronic bulletin board for people to post and download computer software and computer games. He nicknamed the two message boards Cynosure I and Cynosure II [8]. Eventually the amount of people accessing his boards grew and it caused the interest from federal authorities to investigate. The courts tried to prosecute LaMacchia for his spreading of these copyrighted programs but the case was dismissed because there was no legislation then saying that what he did was wrong because it was for a non-commercial use [8]. He wasn't selling these programs; he was just doing it for a hobby. The courts had failed; there was no real dissenting or concurring opinion. They had nothing to prosecute him with so they had to dismiss the case.

As for plans for the future, those were already in the works. The courts saw this as a big problem so they enacted the NET act that stands for "No Electronic Theft." This act closed the loophole that LaMacchia used to escape prosecution, doing it for a non-commercial purpose