Upload
gerald-thompson
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Class 16Copyright, Winter, 2010
Third-Party Liability
Randal C. PickerLeffmann Professor of Commercial Law
The Law School
The University of Chicago
773.702.0864/[email protected] © 2005-10 Randal C. Picker. All Rights Reserved.
April 20, 2023 Copyright © 2005-10 Randal C. Picker 2
Third Party Liability Relevant Law
Two Step Process Establish primary liability Establish secondary liability of third party
Copyright Act does not explicitly render anyone liable for infringements committed by another Contrast to Patent Act, which does Common Law in the Copyright Context
April 20, 2023 Copyright © 2005-10 Randal C. Picker 3
Evaluating Different Uses
Time Shifting Private home copying: watch and re-record
Librarying Private home copying for repeated viewing
Copying Business Copy off the air and rent/sell tapes for home
consumption
April 20, 2023 Copyright © 2005-10 Randal C. Picker 4
Consent to Use
How should we evaluate consent to use in this case? Mr. Rogers: “You are an important person
just the way you are. You can make healthy decisions.”
April 20, 2023 Copyright © 2005-10 Randal C. Picker 5
Evaluating Fair Use
Doing the four factors: 1. The purpose and character, including
whether the use is commercial 2. Nature of the copyrighted work 3. Amount of the work used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole 4. The effect on the potential market for or
value of the copyrighted work
April 20, 2023 Copyright © 2005-10 Randal C. Picker 6
Evaluating Fair Use
Across the Three Cases Factors 2 and 3 will be unchanging 1 and 4 may change from case to case
Understanding Commercial Use An effort to make money vs. a transaction
that substitutes for a commercial transaction
April 20, 2023 Copyright © 2005-10 Randal C. Picker 7
Evaluating Fair Use
The Potential Market Value of the Copyrighted Work The Broadcast TV Market
Fast-forwarding over commercials? Repeats and syndication after first broadcast
The Video Rental and Sales Market Doesn’t copying substitute directly for this
market?
April 20, 2023 Copyright © 2005-10 Randal C. Picker 8
Allocating Liability
The Role of Third-Party Liability When should we add third-party liability to
first-party liability? Does that depend on how we enforce first-
party liability?
April 20, 2023 Copyright © 2005-10 Randal C. Picker 9
Two Theories
Vicarious Liability When one party has control over another
and also enjoys a direct financial benefit from infringement
No knowledge required. Flea market (control: kick them out; benefit:
patronage)
April 20, 2023 Copyright © 2005-10 Randal C. Picker 10
Contributory Copyright Infringement
Statement of Gershwin Publishing Corp. v. Columbia Artists Management, Inc., 443 F.2d 1159, 1162 (2d Cir. 1971): “[O]ne who, with knowledge of the infringing
activity, induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another, may be held liable as a ‘contributory’ infringer.”
April 20, 2023 Copyright © 2005-10 Randal C. Picker 11
35 USC 271
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title,
whoever without authority makes, uses or sells any patented invention, within the United States during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.
April 20, 2023 Copyright © 2005-10 Randal C. Picker 12
35 USC 271
(b) Whoever actively induces infringement of a
patent shall be liable as an infringer.
April 20, 2023 Copyright © 2005-10 Randal C. Picker 13
35 USC 271 (c)
Whoever sells a component of a patented machine, manufacture, combination or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, shall be liable as a contributory infringer.
The Sony Test
Says the Court “Accordingly, the sale of copying
equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce, does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes. Indeed, it need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing uses.”
April 20, 2023 Copyright © 2005-10 Randal C. Picker 14
April 20, 2023 Copyright © 2005-10 Randal C. Picker 15
In Sony: Two Key Issues
Third party liability, either vicarious or contributory Premised on underlying violation by
consumers No underlying violation, as consumers
engaged in fair use
April 20, 2023 Copyright © 2005-10 Randal C. Picker 16
Design Incentives
Hypo Suppose Sony could have spent $10 to
eliminate all infringing uses of the VCR Under Sony, would it have an incentive to
do so?
April 20, 2023 Copyright © 2005-10 Randal C. Picker 17
The Design of the VCR
Consider the design choices for the VCR: Recorder rather than just pre-recorded tape
player Fast forward button No capability for recognizing “jamming”
signals to prevent recording Should Sony have been liable for these
design choices?
April 20, 2023 Copyright © 2005-10 Randal C. Picker 18
Design Incentives
Hypo Suppose product generates $10 million in
beneficial noninfringing uses and $1000 in infringing uses
Suppose producer could spend $5 to eliminate $1000 in infringing uses
How would we revise Sony to address this?
April 20, 2023 Copyright © 2005-10 Randal C. Picker 19
Use and Design
Weak Relationship between Use-Based Tests and Design Incentives Sony: Substantial noninfringing uses
So long as you have those, extent of infringing uses irrelevant
No incentive to redesign to eliminate infringing uses
April 20, 2023 Copyright © 2005-10 Randal C. Picker 20
Use and Design
Primary Use Test Suppose no third-party copyright liability so
long as primary use of product is noninfringing
What incentives for design to eliminate infringing uses?
• Only at margin
April 20, 2023 Copyright © 2005-10 Randal C. Picker 21
Use and Design
Bottom Line? Address design duties separately from use
April 20, 2023 Copyright © 2005-10 Randal C. Picker 22
Limits of the Decision
Justice Blackmun’s Second Footnote “This case involves on the home recording
for home use of televisions broadcast free over the airwaves. No issue is raised concerning cable or pay television, or the sharing or trading of tapes.”
What turns on the fact the broadcasts are free?
April 20, 2023 Copyright © 2005-10 Randal C. Picker 23
Implementing Consent
Should we implement a consent regime for copying? for redistribution?
Blackmun Again “Sony may be able, for example, to build a
VTR that enables broadcasters to scramble the signal of individual programs and ‘jam’ the unauthorized recording of them”
April 20, 2023 Copyright © 2005-10 Randal C. Picker 24
Grokster in the Sup Ct
Two Cuts Grokster loses 9-0 on an inducement theory We get a 3-3-3 decision on Sony
Souter, Thomas & Scalia: 9th Cir wrong on Sony and no more
Ginsberg, The Chief Justice & Kennedy: Liable under Sony
Breyer, Stevens & O’Connor: Not liable under Sony
April 20, 2023 Copyright © 2005-10 Randal C. Picker 25
Consumer Electronics Ass’n
“The Betamax standard is the foundation of America’s explosive technological growth over the past twenty years. Betamax has made possible an unprecedented transformation in the way that Americans express themselves, communicate, create and experience the world.
For two decades, Betamax has brought about enormous new revenues for innovators and the content community, contributed billions of dollars to the U.S. economy, and generated enormous benefits to society.”
Grokster
Key Questions How does Grokster relate to Sony? What does it take to avoid liability under Grokster?
April 20, 2023 Copyright © 2005-10 Randal C. Picker 26
April 20, 2023 Copyright © 2005-10 Randal C. Picker 27
Three Pieces of Evidence
1. Satisfying known demand for copyright infringement Trying to get Napster users
2. Business model driven by advertising Turns on infringing high-volume use
April 20, 2023 Copyright © 2005-10 Randal C. Picker 28
Three Pieces of Evidence 3. Didn’t try to filter out infringing uses
“Underscores … intentional facilitation of their users’ infringement”
But See Footnote 12 “Of course, in the absence of other evidence of
intent, a court would be unable to find contributory infringement liability merely based on a failure to take affirmative steps to prevent infringement, if the device otherwise was capable of substantial noninfringing uses. Such a holding would tread too close to the Sony safe harbor.”