Intellectual Property Rights Holders Association Blog

Earlier this month, the Recording Association of America (RIAA) won a copyright infringement suit against Usenet.com  The lawsuit, which was filed on October 12, 2007, had the RIAA claiming  that Usernet newsgroups contain “millions of copyrighted sound recordings.”   Although Usenet is currently named as the sole defendent, RIAA could in turn possibly sue hundreds of universities, Internet service providers, and other newsgroup archives.  Usenet is a site that lets newsgropus users share documents, music, and other files.  The site works differently than that of many file-sharing sites.  It stores content on servers and makes it available on-demand,  rather than the typical peer-to-peer architecture usually utilized.  According to the RIAA, the decision for the Association exemplifiesthe “courts recognizing the value of copyrighted music and taking action against companies and individuals who are engaging in wide-scale infringement.”  The ruling comes as the RIAA is shifting away from its longtime strategy of targeting individuals suspected of sharing music files online. Instead, the organization is going after companies that make such copyright violations possible.  The RIAA is initiating a new strategy which asks internet service providers to join a voluntary anti-piracy direction which would include the internet service providers passing along RIAA copyright infringement notices to subscribers.  If the notices are repeatedly ignored by the user, the user would therefore face having their service reduced or suspended before a possible lawsuit.

According to a BBC report in 2008, the digital file sharing company, Torrentspy was ordered to pay over $110 million dollars to the Motion Pictures Association of America only weeks after the site had been officially shut down. This ruling is one of the largest fines executed for copyright theft, and was handed down by U.S. District Judge Florence-Marie Cooper. The ruling also stated that TorrentSpy had to pay $30,000 for “each of the 3,699 infringements shown”. The MPAA first began its proceedings against torrent spy in early 2006. BBC News reported that Torrentspy was responsible for the facilitation of sharing copyright files illegally by hosting a compilation of links to films and music. Torrentspy used a legal file-sharing technology referred to as Bit-Torrent, a way of exchanging large files electronically without utilizing central servers. After the ruling took place, Dan Glickman, the chairman of MPAA explained, “This substantial money judgment sends a strong message about the illegality of these sites.” The MPAA’s actions although legitmate due to a study by the organization, billions of dollars are lost annually due to sites such as TorrentSpy. Nevertheless, TorrentSpy has appealed the current judgment according to Cnet News. Although the site was used for pirated films and television shows, Torrentspy claims the site was also used for legitimate purposes. According to Ira Rothken, TorrentSpy’s attorney, “We’re arguing the court was wrong in procedures and wrong in judgment. In a one-hour hearing regarding discovery issues, the court terminated the case and didn’t give TorrentSpy a trial. We believe the court was wrong and abused its discretion. We believe the court ordered TorrentSpy to do things that (were) in violation of the site’s privacy policy, and we believe that the tension between the court’s discovery orders and user privacy rights is an important issue on appeal.” However, the MPAA firmly still believes that TorrentSpy is responsible for mass copyright infringement. Further judgment on this case is believed to be settled in the coming months.

It appears to be somewhat unclear what rights users have over derivative content made from original works. In this article, CNet: YouTube users caught in Warner Music spat,  Warner Music extended the rights to use their music to YouTube’s community of users, then revoked those same rights later. Warner even went as far as to request removal of any derivative works that were created by users, with some questioning the authority and spirit of such requests concerning derivative creative works.

The article also aserts that some affected users have attempted to respond to the complaints, recieving little help (CNet):

But he has so many questions about whether his video truly violates copyright law and if so, what part of the video infringes? That’s the other problem raised by the quarrel between Warner Music and YouTube. When users are dragged into it, there’s few places to get answers. Vidal said he called Warner Music and talked to about half a dozen people in the eight days since his video was removed. He has yet to hear back why exactly the video was pulled down or whether he and the record company can strike a separate deal.

To its credit, Viacom set up a support hot line to help answer questions and address disputes when it began pulling content from YouTube.

Although unlikely, it is possible for a person to seek damages for false copyright claims, especially if organizations are unresponsive to attempts to resolve such issues. Could Warner Music be exposing itself to some degree of liability by so liberally removing YouTube content?