Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
How Courts Are Defining 'Distribution' In Peer-to-Peer File-Sharing Lawsuits
In the entertainment industry's efforts to stem the infringement of sound recordings and motion pictures on the Internet, more than 20,000 infringement actions have been commenced against individuals, mostly in connection with their use of peer-to-peer (P2P) services to share recordings with other P2P users. The legal basis for these actions is often misunderstood, however, by commentators ' and sometimes even by the courts. This article discusses several recent P2P cases that deal directly with a central element of most P2P cases, namely the allegation that users violate the plaintiffs' distribution rights under 17 U.S.C. Sec. 106 whenever they place a digital recording or video in a 'share' folder that other P2P users can access.
What Is 'Distribution'?
Under the Copyright Act, a copyright owner has various exclusive rights, including the right 'to distribute copies ' of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease or lending.' The act does not define the word 'distribute.' 'Copies' of works are defined as 'material objects ' in which a work is fixed and from which the work can be perceived,' thus distribution is clearly limited to some sort of activity involving tangible copies, but the act is largely silent as to what that activity would be. All the statute says is that it must constitute sale or other transfer of ownership of the tangible copies, or 'rental, lease or lending' of them. Contrary to arguments often made in defense of P2P file sharing, the statute does not require that distribution must involve or result in a physical copy literally moving from one place to another.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?