The "piratebay" Situation, A Summary (3 of 3)

This is the third post in my series of situations, provided to give a brief overview of the story so far.

What is the Piratebay?

thepiratebay.org is a Swedish website that provides a catalogue of links to BitTorrent files.

What is the issue?

The BitTorrent files are alleged to enable file sharing of copright protected material. The issue is then can a website that does not host any infringing material be liable for providing links to where such material can be found?

The Case.

On February 16, 2009 the trial commenced of four people involved in thepiratebay.org. The charge against the four was that of "promoting other people's infringements of copyright laws"(1). In what has been labelled a "spectrial" (half spectacle, half trial)(2) it is perhaps useful to list two striking features:

a) King Kong Defense used as a means of illustrating that thepiratebay.org had no control over their users. The defense pointed to a user named King Kong who might be located in Cambodia.
b) Prison Break Season 1 was one of the copyrighted materials referred to in the trial, which shows that file sharing is not just for songs or movies but also for television shows.

Outcome?

Closing arguments were held on March 3, 2009 with a verdict expected on April 17, 2009. With half the charges being dropped mid-trial and further ammendments to the charges throughout it seems that the prosecutions case is less than air-tight. Perhaps the key thing to think about is the cause of the whole problem in the first place, as summed up neatly by Andrew Brown of the Guardian Online stating "One of the reasons we got into this mess was the absence of any kind of government that could stand above the immediate economic interests of the players involved"(3).

Footnotes

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay_trial
(2) trial.thepiratebay.org
(3) http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/feb/26/read-me-first-pirate-bay

Sources

1. "The Pirate Bay trial is the collision of 'can I?' and 'should I?' cultures"
Andrew Brown, The Guardian, 26/2/2009
(LINK)
2. "Pirate Bay Day 8 - Moving Target"
Kevin Anderson, Guardian Online, 25/2/2009
(LINK)
3. "Pirate Bay Trial Day 7: Screenshots for Evidence"
TorrentFreak, 24/2/2009
(LINK)
4. "Prosecution Alters Pirate Bay Charges in Bid to Win Conviction"
Oscar Swartz, Wired, 24/2/2009
(LINK)
5. "Eircom to block Pirate Bay"
Austin Modine, The Register, 23/2/2009
(LINK)
6. "Pirate Bay supporters ram Swedish IFPI website"
Kelly Fiveash, The Register, 19/2/2009
(LINK)
7. "Pirate Bay triumphant as prosecution drops half of charges"
Jemima Kiss, Guardian Online, 17/2/2009
(LINK)

The "Viacom v. youtube" Situation, A History (2 of 3)

This is the second of three posts involving relevant situations. This involves a site which hosts allegedly infringing content.

Parties

In March of 2007 Viacom filed suit against Google and its subsidiary Youtube alleging that they were “deliberately building a business on a library of copyrighted video clips without permission”(1).

Issue

On the one hand, from a copyright holder’s perspective, the harm caused by this is that their right of exclusive distribution has been usurped, resulting in the loss of advertising revenue and direct sales. On the other hand, the websites that host such infringing material argue that, by such videos being available on their website, the copyright holders are getting free advertising for their products.

The most important aspect of this problem is that, in many instances the websites will be able to avoid liability for any infringing content by fitting into the “safe harbour” provisions of legislation such as the DMCA, or Article 14 of the E-Commerce Directive in Europe. Essentially these provisions absolve such a website from liability if they remove infringing content as soon as they are informed of its presence by a copyright holder. The rationale behind such an exception to the copyright rules is that these websites are not in a position to monitor every single video that is uploaded. Not all copyright holders are satisfied with this, because it means that the responsibility for monitoring such activity is left to them. However, the resources of conglomerate corporations that hold copyrights, such as Disney, are so vast that this may actually be the fairest apportionment of responsibility. Despite this, companies such as Google are responding to the problem of copyright infringement using technology, such as the new “Claim Your Content” tools promised by Google.

Outcome

Presently the case is at a standstill, with the most recent ruling compelling Google to disclose information about its users’ viewing habits to Viacom(2).

Conclusion

Youtube has the unique quality of being both good for society at large and for copyright holders, which may lead to future court decisions being decided in Youtube’s favour.

Footnotes

(1) http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/technology/01google.html?_r=1&ex=1182398400&en=c43f48cc80b60663&ei=5070&oref=slogin
(2) http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/07/court-ruling-will-expose-viewing-habits-youtube-us

Sources

1. "Viacom vs. YouTube: Beyond Privacy"
Catherine Holohan, BusinessWeek, 3/7/2008
(LINK)
2. "Google, Viacom and YouTube: What's Holding Up a Settlement"
Victoria Pynchon, Settle It Now Negotiation Blog, 07/05/2008
(LINK)
3. "Viacom v. YouTube: the Future of Online Video Sharing and Copyrights"
Martha L. Arias, IBLS, 4/6/2007
(LINK)
4. "Google cites Safe Harbor, fair use in Viacom v. YouTube defense"
Eric Bangeman, Ars Technica, 1/5/2007
(LINK)
5. "Viacom v. YouTube The real issue is a consumer rebellion, not intellectual property"
Paul Kedrosky, Wall Street Journal, 15/3/2007
(LINK)
6. "Viacom v. YouTube"
Lessig Blog, 13/3/2007
(LINK)
7. "Viacom Files Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Against YouTube and
Google Over Unauthorized Use Of The Company's Shows"
FindLaw, 13/3/2007
(LINK)
8. Viacom International, Inc. et al v. Youtube, Inc. et al
Justia, Relevant Documents
(LINK)

The "tv-links" Situation, A Recap (1 of 3)

This post is the first of three in a series that will examine some of the most important recent situations involving internet television. The goal is not to provide a deep analysis but to briefly cover the main talking points. The first situation involves tv-links.

Who was involved?

In October of 2007, David Rock, the owner of the TV-Links website was arrested under suspicion of facilitating copyright infringement(1). TV-Links acts provides links to online content such as television shows and movies, but importantly it does not host the content. It is similar to thepiratepay.org in that regard. The copyright holders' group FACT was the impetus behind the arrest.

Issue

The key issue is, similarly to thepiratebay.org, can a website that merely provides links to where allegedly infringing content exists be deemed liable for copyright infringement? Copyright holders would like that answer to be a resounding yes, however it may be more reasonable to allow websites that provide such links to avail of a safe harbour defense with a notice and take-down policy in effect.

Outcome?

At present there has been no activity following Rock’s release from custody and nothing has come before a court. Following the closure of tv-links.co.uk, a new website tv-links.cc sprung up. The change of server location from the Netherlands has shown the weakness of any attempts at policing the internet with certain foreign jurisdictions providing an easy escape route for all manner of questionable activity(1).

Footnotes

(1) Interestingly, the case has an Irish connection with one of the senior moderators of tv-links being arrested in Ireland - http://www.thenewfreedom.net/wp/2007/10/19/tv-linkscouk-raided-owner-arrested/
(2) A recent WHOIS search shows that tv-links.cc is registered in Panama

Sources

1. "Web Site TV Links Present Unique Legal Dilemma"
Associated Content, 8/1/2008
(LINK)
2. "The Good Ship TV-Links Sinks"
Digital-TV Blog, 30/10/2007
(LINK)
3. "Mr. Rock of Tv Links.co.uk Less Guilty Than Google"
Associated Content, 30/10/2007
(LINK)
4. "British Man, David Rock, Arrested for Piracy"
Kelly Herdich, Associated Content, 29/10/2007
(LINK)
5. "TV-Links man: 'I'm no master criminal'"
Lucy Sherriff, The Register, 29/10/2007
(LINK)