Is the overly-broad, overreaching and unilateral decision-making (sometimes referred to as censorship) language of these bills really the limit of the authorship talents of the U.S. Congress or is it intentional? These are pretty much the choices:
1.There is an inability to craft a finely tuned piece of legislation to achieve arguably laudable goals or
2. The language was intended as written, but evidenced a lack of vision to foresee the enormous potential for abuse and crippling of the most entrepreneurial, equalizing, educational, productive information and communication network ever conceived to date.
Very discouraging. This, despite best efforts to educate Congress as to the extent and nature of the critical damage enabled by these bills. As usual, money talks. Loudly. "According to Congressional money watchdog Maplight.org, industries supporting SOPA have funneled more than $92 million to members of Congress since July 2009 -- or 13 times as much as those who oppose it." [source: Info World: "This Internet blackout has been brought to you by the U.S. Congress"] Since Congress appeared deaf or disbelieving and was proceeding with the legislation, major Internet sites were left with little choice but to demonstrate what could happen if this legislation passed and so, voluntarily blacked out their sites yesterday. Hardly a "stunt to punish their users or turn them into their corporate pawns", as characterized in a statement by the MPAA Chairman, Chris Dodd (winner of "the pot calling the kettle black" award for characterizing the blackout sites as "intentionally skewing the facts to incite their users" and engaging in "hyperbole and PR stunts" after their legendary leader's very public statements in the past that "the vcr is to the American film producer as the Boston Strangler is to the woman alone", [sourced Testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives (1982), Jack Valenti]), but rather a hope that a picture is indeed worth a thousand words.
Today (1/20/2012) it has been announced that the rapidly approaching January 24th Senate vote on PIPA has been delayed. It would appear, fortunately, that votes (sometimes referred to as the will of the people...) count as well. As reported by PC World in "Were SOPA/PIPA Protests a Success? The Results Are In" :
Four and a half million people,on one site on one day, signed a petition opposing the bills, 162 million people saw the protest on Wikipedia, and 8 million people used Wikipedia's search tool to look up the contact information for their representatives. Furthermore, Tumblr "censored" its users' content streams, and reported that its users averaged 3.6 calls per second to Congress through the company's Web site--nearly 90,000 total.
That's good news. Here's hoping that Congress can come up with a piece of legislation that puts out the forest fires without eliminating the entire forest.
Peggy E. Hoon, J.D.
2011-2013 CIP Intellectual Property Scholar
As we all know by now, the streaming video/copyright infringement case (as it is casually known) against UCLA was dismissed earlier this fall on a number of procedural grounds and as such, the court was unable to rule on the merits of the case; that is, whether or not streaming entire videos within an accessed controlled online course constitutes copyright infringement, among other things. As the court said in its opinion, "Jurisdiction must generally be determined prior to a federal court considering a case on its merits", citing supporting case law.
Jurisdiction includes a number of concepts, including subject matter jurisdiction and whether or not a party has "standing" to sue. It's complicated. Indeed, for those of you who found something else to do for three years besides spending 10-12 hours a day reading case law, hornbooks, treatises, law review articles, and attending law school courses embodying an unusual amount of public humiliation, there are entire courses (multiple) devoted to the study of civil procedure. Having said that, I thoroughly disclaim expertise in said area of the law and haven't litigated in twenty years. I am completely open to being corrected or otherwise educated by my more experienced and knowledgeable colleagues.
However, since this case was so closely watched by the library and higher educational community (not to mention video producers and the motion picture industry in general), I became interested in why plaintiff AIME (Association For Information Media and Equipment) was thrown out of the lawsuit rather quickly (and apparently, not unexpectedly) for failure to achieve "associational standing." In the court's opinion, it was dealt with rather in a somewhat conclusory fashion, the court simply quoting three requirements for associational standing and stating that AIME failed the third. (more later) This result was noted by other bloggers with speculation that the Authors' Guild would suffer the same fate in its suit against Hathi Trust (although there are quite a few other plaintiffs in that case that do not suffer the same potential problem that the Guild might).
As I said, I am no associational standing expert but it seemed to me - and maybe you as well - that associations are suing over copyright infringement all the time. Think about it - all those lawsuits brought by the RIAA, or the MPAA, or the AAP. And what about associations like ALA, or ARL, or the EFF? How is it that they meet the associational standing test? Anyone?
According to the UCLA court, as well as pretty much most federal courts considering the question of associational standing, the association must meet three requirements:
1. Its members would have standing to sue on their own,
2. The interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization's purpose, and
3. The case does not require the participation of individual members in the lawsuit. The seminal case setting forth these requirements is Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977).
AIME describes itself as "a non-profit membership organization offering copyright information and support to teachers, librarians, media center directors, producers and distributors of informational film, video, interactive technologies, and computer software and equipment. AIME serves as your organization's copyright resource." That's interesting - copyright information and support to teachers and librarians? Sounds familiar.
So, after spending a good amount of time looking up cases, it would appear that an association can bring suits on behalf of its members, but it depends on the nature of the lawsuit. In the case of a copyright infringement lawsuit, only the copyright holder can bring the action. Although the popular press frequently refers to copyright infringement lawsuits being brought by the AAP or the RIAA, etc. if you actually look up the case itself, the associations are not the plaintiffs. They may be funding the lawsuit, organizing the campaign, if you will, but they are not actually the named plaintiffs. Even the Google book project lawsuit,involving the mass copying of both in-copyright and out-of-copyright books by Google in university libraries, is actually brought by individual publishers that hold the copyrights at issue, rather than their trade association.
I finally found what I was looking for in the archives of Patry's excellent copyright blog , although the following quote is from the 2008 entry of Professor Peter Friedman of Case Western Reserve University who devised an assignment for his law students involving writing briefs on either side of a fictional copyright infringement lawsuit. His students' materials and more are still available on his What Is Fair Use? page.
To quote:
"Mr. Patry is correct in stating that the lawsuit does have to be brought in the copyright holders' names, but ASCAP can and often does bring it, in their names, on their behalf. Thus, though ASCAP should not nominally be a plaintiff in my fictional lawsuit, it could nevertheless be the party prosecuting the lawsuit on behalf of the copyright holders. In other words, ASCAP is often the driving force behind these lawsuits even if it is not named as a plaintiff. Thus, the fact ASCAP is actually named as a plaintiff in my fictional case is, for all practical purposes, a moot issue. Thus, the court in Ocasek v. Hegglund, 116 F.R.D. 154, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5193, *7-8; 4 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1127; Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P26,149, 157 (D. Wyo. 1987), explained:
"Yet for all of ASCAP's broad power to enforce its members' copyrights, it cannot bring an infringement suit in its own name. ASCAP's Achilles' heel, if it has one, is that it lacks standing to sue for infringement of its members' copyrights. See, e.g., Broadcast Music, Inc. v. CBS, 1983-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P 65,661 (S.D. N.Y. July 20, 1983); Eden Toys, Inc. v. Florelee Undergarment Co., Inc., 526 F. Supp. 1187, 1190 (S.D. N.Y. 1981), rev'd and remanded in part on other grounds, aff'd in part, 697 F.2d 27 (2d Cir. 1982). "ASCAP's rather odd status as ghost-plaintiff is due to the combination of copyright and antitrust laws. The Copyright Act has always specified that only the copyright owner, or the owner of exclusive rights under the copyright, as of the time the acts of infringements occur, has standing to bring an action for infringement of such rights; a non-exclusive licensee does not have standing. 17 U.S.C. § 501(b). Prior to 1950, ASCAP did operate as an exclusive licensee of the copyright owners. However, in response to antitrust suits brought by some ASCAP licensees, the government amended a prior consent decree between ASCAP and itself (also in response to antitrust litigation) such that after 1950, ASCAP was prohibited from acquiring exclusive performing rights and was thus limited solely to non-exclusive rights. United States v. ASCAP, 1950-51 Trade Cas. (CCH) P 62,595 (S.D. N.Y. 1950); see also, Buffalo Broadcasting v. American Soc. of Composers, 744 F.2d 917 (2d Cir. 1984). The cumulative effect of these various laws and rights is that while ASCAP bears the primary responsibility for enforcing its members' copyrights and has authority to bring enforcing lawsuits on behalf of its members, it must remain a non-exclusive licensee and, therefore, cannot bring the suit in its own name. This dichotomy between ownership and enforcement of copyrights creates this rather unique situation wherein the plaintiff has little or no information about a lawsuit to enforce his or her rights while a non-party, ASCAP, is fully informed, available and responsible for the legal action."
While in many ways, it seemed obvious that AIME, not being a copyright holder, should not be able to bring a copyright infringement lawsuit, I had never had occasion to go behind many of the reports and articles discussing copyright infringement lawsuits brought by other associations, most prominently RIAA. Thus, my interest in why some associations apparently could sue, yet AIME was tossed out. I'm still not entirely sure I have the whole picture because I have the utmost respect for the plaintiffs' attorney, Arnold Lutzker, who has provided many an opinion on behalf of library associations as well as speaking and teaching us frequently on copyright topics. If he included AIME, there had to have been a reasonable argument.
As said before, I welcome comments, corrections, and enlightenment of all nature.
Peggy Hoon
IP Scholar
P.S. If you are having difficulty posting a response, you need to contact the Center for Intellectual Property. If you know me at all, you know the technical side of this site is not under my control.
Additionally, and significantly, the AVP dvds were acquired by UCLA pursuant to a license agreement, a portion of which is reproduced below.
The watching world, extrapolated from this lawsuit fact scenario the following burning copyright questions(s):
1. Can a non-profit educational institution stream entire movies within an online, password protected course management system without violating copyright laws?
2. If so, which educational exceptions in the copyright act allow this? §107, known as Fair Use; §110(1) the face-to-face classroom performance exception and/or §110(2), the transmission of performance and display, a.k.a., the TEACH Act?
Legal scholars, library and educational associations, and copyright holders and their associations naturally differ in their answers to those questions. Blogs, opinion briefs, and talks came to life, all focusing on those two questions. And those are the questions we hoped for an answer from this case.
On October 3, 2011, the trial judge dismissed the case in a brief (13 page) order. At last, academia thought, an answer, or at least some copyright guidance. Instead of being a copyright case, however, this case became a civil procedure and contract case with copyright mentioned primarily for its characteristic of being a federal law.
The bottom line is that the copyright questions were not reached in the actual holdings. In her order granting defendant's motion to dismiss, the course never reached the copyright questions on their own merit. Any passing reference to copyright is at best hopeful dictum, which cannot be pulled out of context and mischaracterized as a "copyright win". It certainly does not stand for the proposition that streaming entire copyrighted films within password protected course management systems is lawful.
WHY NOT? WHAT HAPPENED?
That's the question we care most about. By definition, a Judge's decisions are not going to make everyone happy. That's not her job. It is also not her job to go beyond the facts of the case before her and decide questions prematurely simply because we want her to do so. There are procedural issues and requirements that must be met before a judge can get to the merits of any particular case. The case must present in the proper posture with qualifying parties pleading the requisite elements of any particular claim. Any failure in these early rounds and the case stops there. No view of the merits of the case can be inferred.
WHO SAID WHAT?
In the order dismissing the lawsuit, the court recites the facts of the case in a disturbingly brief manner and with a puzzling omission of key facts. For example, it is interesting that AVP is not identified as the copyright holder of some of the works at issue nor as a member of AIME. Perhaps the complaint was not specific enough, referring to AVP as a creator, rather than a copyright holder per se. It is also very interesting that the license between AVP and UCLA is barely mentioned; or perhaps, more accurately, that one section is heavily relied upon, ignoring other terms in the license. The complaints of the plaintiff are listed and importantly, since the court granted UCLA's motion to dismiss, the relevant defenses are listed:
1. UCLA et al is immune from suit;
2. AIME lacks standing, and
3. Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
FIRST THINGS FIRST
Our legal system has a LOT of rules governing lawsuits - who can bring them, when, where and what elements of any particular wrongdoing must be stated somewhere in the paperwork, with facts to back it up. Only after all these rules are satisfied will a court begin to look at the merits of the case.
This court decided the initial rules were not satisfied, which allowed her to dismiss the case without having to directly address our copyright streaming questions.
WHAT DID THE COURT HOLD?
1. You cannot sue a state agency for money damages for violating copyright law (including the DMCA, a part of copyright law), even if they fail to comply with copyright restrictions set forth in a license agreement. Signing these licenses purporting to abrogate or limit rights under the copyright act is not an implied waiver of state sovereign protection from suit. Therefore, one cannot sue a state agency (university) for violating the federal copyright statute by engaging in infringing conduct, even if that state university signed a contract specifically promising they would not infringe.
2. Can the state agency (university) be sued for breach of contract and other state law claims if the signed contract in question sets limits on what the university is allowed to do under the federal copyright act?
The AIME court stated, in Discussion III Failure To State A Claim d. State Law Claim that "The Copyright Act preempts claims that "are equivalent" to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright." 17 U.S.C. § 301(a); Altera Corp. v. Clear Logic, Inc., 424 F.3d 1079, 1089 (9th Circ. 2005). A state law claim is preempted if : (1) the work involved falls within the general subject matter of the Copyright Act, and (2) the rights asserted under the State law are equivalent to those protected by the Act. Zito v. Steeplechase Films, Inc., 267 F. Supp. 2d 1022m 1027 (N.D. Cal. 2003)
As made clear by the court, a state law breach of contract claim based on the exercise of rights set forth in the copyright act, even if prohibited by the contract, would fail because of Copyright Act preemption. For example, if a contract tried to prohibit ILL, an activity authorized by the Copyright Act, that part of the contract would be pre-empted. If the signatory institution, public or private, exercised their ILL rights, a state law breach of contract claim should fail. The private institution might still be sued for infringement of the federal copyright statute itself, but not because it may or may not have complied with a license.
For me, that is an amazing take-away. I've been engaged in licensing efforts by academic libraries for e-resources for decades. Over and over and over again, I've heard that contract law prevails over copyright law and one needs to be careful not to sign away fair use rights. Reading this order, you can't.
Sit for a minute and think about the implications for the thousands and thousands of e-resource licenses signed by U.S. academic libraries. Does this not change everything?
Comments are welcome
Peggy E. Hoon, J.D.
CIP IP Scholar
Next Up: Associational Standing and Overuse of the Sovereign Immunity Defense
Excerpt from Ambrose License
QUOTE FROM EXHIBIT 3 FROM PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
Educational Television
For information and pricing regarding Education Television go to www.ambrosevideo.com/etv.cfm
Terms and Conditions
AMBROSE VIDEO PUBLISHING
Listed below are the basic terms and conditions that govern your use and purchase of precuts/programs from our website. Your use of the content purchased from Ambrose Video Publishing (AVP) constitutes your acknowledgment and agreement
AMBROSE VIDEO PULISHING
Listed below are the basic terms and conditions that govern your use and purchase of precuts/programs from our website. Your use of the content purchased from Ambrose Video Publishing (AVP) constitutes your acknowledgement and agreement to all of the terms and conditions contained below ("Terms of Use")
AVP is the licensor and you, the user, are the Licensee.
You hereby agree to the following Terms of Use:
1. Grant of License
AVP grants to the Licensee a limited, non-exclusive, recovable license to use the Content (as defined below) is an educational OR home video setting.
CUSTOMER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE PROGRAMS MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, BROADCAST, TRANSMITTED BY CABLE OR OTHERWISE, ON ANY MULTI-RECEIVER OPEN OR INTERNET SYSTEM, OR DISPLAYED BEFORE THE PUBLIC, WHETHER OR NOT ADMISSION IS CHARGED. CUSTOMER SHALL EXHIBIT THE PROGRAMS ONLY AS HEREIN SPECIFIED AND USE THE PROGRAMS FOR NO OTHER PURPOSE.
Customer shall not sublicense, sublease or part with possession of any Program received by customer hereunder. Performing rights to music contained in any Program are not granted herein. Nothing herein shall derogate from any rights of Ambrose or any other copyright proprietor of any Program under the United State Copyright Law or any applicable foreign copyright laws.
]]>