Copyright Law vs. Peer-to-Peer File Sharing: Key Cases

Introduction to Copyright Law

When the technological explosion of the last few decades created new challenges in the area of copyright law, many people thought it would be a straightforward matter. They were wrong. For years, courts around the world have been charged with determining whether companies like Napster and online movie download services are breaking the law — and if so, how they can be stopped. Copyright was a relatively simple issue before the Internet was invented. Works were fixed in tangible form and could not easily be stolen. Bootlegged tapes and videos sold for profit were no different from plagiarism in the eyes of the law, and it was a straightforward procedure to prosecute and sentence offenders.

The advent of the Internet, however, created an entirely new frontier of questionable practices for which no clear guidelines had yet been established. Whether copyright laws are violated when users download songs and movies online has, so far, been decided on a case-by-case basis. There are also international considerations, because Internet users in other countries can access services similar to Napster, and the copyright laws of those nations may differ significantly from those of the United States, further complicating the situation. As the world continues to expand its online capabilities, it will become increasingly important to establish consistent guidelines for protecting copyrighted material in the digital environment.

Before one can fully comprehend the importance of — and the confusion surrounding — copyright law, one must first understand what copyright protects and why. According to the dictionary, a copyright is the exclusive right to reproduce, publish, and sell the matter and form of a literary, musical, or artistic work. While copyright attorneys and courtrooms argue the logistics around the globe, the concept is straightforward in most cases: if a person writes a book, composes a song, or paints a picture, they own all rights to that work and how it is used. They have the right to reproduce it, publish it, or sell it, and no one else may do so without their express permission. A person who purchases the work cannot resell it or reproduce it without authorization from the originator.

The purpose of copyright is to protect creative work from being exploited without the creator's permission. Beyond the moral rationale, there are significant financial considerations. When a person creates a work, they have the right to benefit from it financially, just as the owner of a mechanic shop benefits financially from the labor performed each day.

Copyright protection under Title 17 of the U.S. Code applies to "original works of authorship," including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works, whether published or unpublished. Section 106 of the Copyright Act gives the copyright owner the exclusive right to do — and to authorize others to do — the following:

• Reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
• Prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
• Distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale, transfer of ownership, rental, lease, or lending;
• Perform the copyrighted work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
• Display the copyrighted work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work; and
• Perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission, in the case of sound recordings.

It is illegal for anyone to violate any of these rights. However, sections 107 through 121 of the Copyright Act establish limitations on them. In some cases, these limitations take the form of specified exemptions from copyright liability. A major limitation is the doctrine of "fair use," given a statutory basis by section 107 of the Act. In other instances, the limitation takes the form of a "compulsory license," under which certain limited uses of copyrighted works are permitted upon payment of specified royalties and compliance with statutory conditions. Copyright protection begins from the moment the work is created in fixed form; it immediately becomes the property of the author, and only the author — or those deriving rights from the author — can rightfully claim it.

Throughout the years, copyright laws have been frequently challenged and upheld. In more recent decades, many of the most significant cases have involved the film and music industries because of the increased ability to duplicate and distribute their products. One of the most famous early cases was Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, commonly known as the Sony v. Betamax case. This case predated the Internet and, for its time, represented a state-of-the-art battle over ownership rights.

The ruling came in January 1984, though the underlying problems had begun several years earlier. When VCRs were first introduced, consumers were excited about the ability to buy or rent movies and watch them at home. Many families who otherwise could not attend movie theaters were now afforded the opportunity to enjoy films. It was not long before the public realized that the VCR included a recording function that could use a blank VHS tape to record television shows and broadcast movies. The entertainment industry was not pleased, and many actors spoke out against the practice, claiming it constituted copyright infringement.

In January 1984, the Supreme Court ruled that home recording of television programs on a VCR violated no law. As the Court stated: "One may search the Copyright Act in vain for any sign that the elected representatives of the millions of people who watch television every day have made it unlawful to copy a program for later viewing at home, or have enacted a flat prohibition against the sale of machines that make such copying possible" (Sony v. Betamax).

A critical element of the case was the recognition that television broadcasts had essentially been offered to the public as a shared resource. Recording a program for later private viewing was not for profit and involved content that had already been delivered to the public without charge — making it far less of a copyright infringement than if individuals had been selling those recordings commercially.