In Search of Copyright’s Lost Ark: Interpreting the Right to Distribute in the Internet Age

Peter S. Menell
{"title":"In Search of Copyright’s Lost Ark: Interpreting the Right to Distribute in the Internet Age","authors":"Peter S. Menell","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1679514","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Prior to the emergence of peer-to-peer technology, the Copyright Act’s distribution right was largely dormant. Most enforcement actions were premised upon violations of the reproduction right. The relatively few cases invoking the distribution right involved arcane scenarios. During the past several years, direct enforcement of the Copyright Act against file sharers has brought the scope of the distribution right to center stage. Whereas the 1909 Act expressly protected the rights to “publish” and “vend,” the 1976 Act speaks of a right to “distribute.” Interpreting “distribute” narrowly, some courts have held that copyright owners must prove that a sound recording placed in a peer-to-peer share folder was actually downloaded to establish violation of the distribution right. Other courts hold that merely making a sound recording available violates the distribution right. The ramifications for copyright enforcement in the Internet age are substantial. Under the narrow interpretation, the relative anonymity of peer-to-peer transmissions in combination with privacy concerns make enforcement costly and difficult. A broad interpretation exposes millions of peer-to-peer users to potentially crushing statutory damages. Drawing upon the historical development of copyright law and the legislative history of the Copyright Act of 1976, this article explains why Congress selected the term “distribute” in its last omnibus revision of copyright law, shows unequivocally that Congress intended to encompass broadly the 1909 Act rights to “publish” and “vend” within the right to distribute, and rejects the position that Congress required proof of “actual distribution” to prove violation of the distribution right. This critical legislative history has been notably absent from treatise accounts and briefing on the liability standard in the file sharing cases, leaving courts without a compass to navigate this statutory terrain. This article traces the origins of the key legislative terms to elucidate the scope of the distribution right in the Internet age.","PeriodicalId":83406,"journal":{"name":"University of California, Davis law review","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of California, Davis law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1679514","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Prior to the emergence of peer-to-peer technology, the Copyright Act’s distribution right was largely dormant. Most enforcement actions were premised upon violations of the reproduction right. The relatively few cases invoking the distribution right involved arcane scenarios. During the past several years, direct enforcement of the Copyright Act against file sharers has brought the scope of the distribution right to center stage. Whereas the 1909 Act expressly protected the rights to “publish” and “vend,” the 1976 Act speaks of a right to “distribute.” Interpreting “distribute” narrowly, some courts have held that copyright owners must prove that a sound recording placed in a peer-to-peer share folder was actually downloaded to establish violation of the distribution right. Other courts hold that merely making a sound recording available violates the distribution right. The ramifications for copyright enforcement in the Internet age are substantial. Under the narrow interpretation, the relative anonymity of peer-to-peer transmissions in combination with privacy concerns make enforcement costly and difficult. A broad interpretation exposes millions of peer-to-peer users to potentially crushing statutory damages. Drawing upon the historical development of copyright law and the legislative history of the Copyright Act of 1976, this article explains why Congress selected the term “distribute” in its last omnibus revision of copyright law, shows unequivocally that Congress intended to encompass broadly the 1909 Act rights to “publish” and “vend” within the right to distribute, and rejects the position that Congress required proof of “actual distribution” to prove violation of the distribution right. This critical legislative history has been notably absent from treatise accounts and briefing on the liability standard in the file sharing cases, leaving courts without a compass to navigate this statutory terrain. This article traces the origins of the key legislative terms to elucidate the scope of the distribution right in the Internet age.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
寻找版权的失落方舟:互联网时代的发行权解读
在对等技术出现之前,《版权法》的发行权基本上处于休眠状态。大多数执法行动是以侵犯复制权为前提的。调用发行权的相对较少的案例涉及神秘的场景。在过去的几年中,针对文件共享者的《版权法》的直接执行使发行权的范围成为人们关注的焦点。1909年的法案明确保护了“出版”和“出售”的权利,而1976年的法案则提到了“发行”的权利。对“分发”一词的狭义解释是,一些法院认为,版权所有人必须证明放置在点对点共享文件夹中的录音确实被下载,才能构成对发行权的侵犯。其他法院认为,仅仅提供录音就侵犯了发行权。在互联网时代,版权执法的后果是巨大的。在狭义解释下,点对点传输的相对匿名性加上对隐私的担忧,使得执法成本高昂且困难重重。宽泛的解释会使数百万的p2p用户面临潜在的毁灭性法定损害赔偿。本文根据版权法的历史发展和1976年版权法的立法历史,解释了国会在其最后一次版权法综合修订中选择“发行”一词的原因,明确表明国会打算将1909年法案中“出版”和“销售”的权利广泛包含在发行权中,并反对国会要求证明“实际发行”的立场证明侵犯了发行权。这一重要的立法历史在文件共享案件中的责任标准的论述和简报中明显缺失,使法院没有指南针来导航这一法定领域。本文追溯了网络时代分销权范围界定的关键立法术语的起源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Highways and Side Roads of Statistical Capacity Building How COVID-19 Changed Our Saving Habits? O EFÊMERO PASSEIO DOS PATINETES ELÉTRICOS NO BRASIL (The Ephemeral Ride of Electric Scooters in Brazil) No Panic in Pandemic: The Impact of Individual Choice on Public Health Policy and Vaccine Priority Merger Breakups
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1