SAN FRANCISCO, April 29, 2010 – Measuring the impact of the U.S. legal doctrine of “fair use,” which enables online activities such as search, limited copying, sharing, ripping, mixing and burning might seem impossible, but not to the Computer & Communications Industry Association.
The trade group released a study this week saying it measured the “Economic Contribution of Industries Relying on Fair Use.” CCIA members include AMD, eBay, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Oracle, among others.
The D.C.-based economic consultants Capital Trade, which conducted the study on behalf of CCIA, asserted that: “In 2007, fair-use industries generated revenue of $4.7 trillion, a 35 percent increase over 2002 revenue of $3.4 trillion.”
The tally rightfully should include every company that maintains an informative web page, owns and uses a photocopier and fax machine, and whose staff uses the internet to communicate and perform basic research tasks. However, the CCIA lists specific industries in an exhaustive appendix in order to demonstrate how important the amorphous and context-specific legal doctrine is to fostering the growth of key parts of the economy. The industries it lists include everything from equipment manufacturers and software publishers to the financial services industry.
The Copyright Alliance, a consortium of associations and companies that represents composers, authors, publishers and the entertainment industry, was quick to issue a measured response the very same day that called the study “muddled.”
“It is not helpful to policymakers or the public to pronounce sweeping arguments that defy logic,” said Copyright Alliance Executive Director Patrick Ross. “In its report, CCIA identifies broad industries, suggests some entities in those industries occasionally engage in what some might call fair use, and then lumps all revenues and jobs in those industries into a newly coined ‘fair use’ industry.”
The issuance of the report is clearly an attempt by CCIA to reframe the discussion about digital copyrights beyond a binary discussion over piracy.
Historically, the debate over intellectual property in the U.S. Congress largely has been driven by numbers supplied by the entertainment and software industries, a practice that a government report recently called into doubt. Legislators have generally called for increasingly punitive measures against copyright violations, citing industry piracy statistics.
A Government Accountability Office’s report, released earlier this month, cast doubt over these statistics.
“While experts and literature we reviewed provided different examples of effects on the U.S. economy, most observed that despite significant efforts, it is difficult, if not impossible, to quantify the net effect of counterfeiting and piracy on the economy,” the authors of the GAO report wrote.
However clumsy the CCIA report is, it’s timely and raises an important concept as trade negotiators around the world haggle over the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which seeks to impose harsher penalties against “infringers” in signatory countries’ jurisdiction
Many of these countries don’t have a comparable fair-use doctrine, said Matthew Schruers, CCIA senior counsel for litigation and legislative affairs. He argues that this means that the basic mechanisms, such as search, that allow the web to function could land companies in trouble.
“Even if ACTA turns out to be consistent with U.S. law, it’s increasing penalties overseas without any concurrent increase in the limitations and exceptions that permit legal activity here in the U.S.,” he says. “Imagine if [companies that engage in] innovative activities that we see on the internet like search being subjected to statutory damages, but not being able to avail themselves of the defense that we have in the United States of fair use, it dramatically increases the prospect of liability.”
Public Knowledge Celebrates 20 Years of Helping Congress Get a Clue on Digital Rights
February 27, 2021 – The non-profit advocacy group Public Knowledge celebrated its twentieth anniversary year in a Monday event revolving around the issues that the group has made its hallmark: Copyright, open standards and other digital rights issues.
Group Founder Gigi Sohn, now a Benton Institute for Broadband and Society senior fellow and public advocate, said that through her professional relationship with Laurie Racine, now president of Racine Strategy, that she became “appointed and anointed” to help start the interest group.
Together with David Bollier, who also had worked on public interest projects in broadcast media with Sohn, and is now director of Reinventing the Commons program at the Schumacher Center for a New Economics, the two cofounded a small and scrappy Public Knowledge that has become a non-profit powerhouse.
The secret sauce? Timing, which couldn’t have been better, said Sohn. Being given free office space at DuPont Circle at the New America Foundation by Steve Clemmons and the late Ted Halstead, then head of the foundation, was instrumental in Public Knowledge’s launch.
The cofounders met with major challenges, Sohn and others said. The nationwide tragedy of September 11, 2001, occurred weeks after its official founding. The group continued their advocacy of what was then more commonly known as “open source,” a related grandparent to the new “net neutrality” of today, she said.
In the aftermath of September 11, a bill by the late Sen. Ernest “Fritz” Hollings, D-S.C., demonstrated a bid by large copyright interest to force technology companies to effectively be the copyright police. Additional copyright maximalist measures we launched almost every month, she said.
Public Knowledge grew into something larger than was probably imagined by the three co-founders. Still, they shared setbacks and losses that accompanied their successes and wins.
“We would form alliances with anybody, which meant that sometimes we sided with internet service providers [on issues like copyright] and sometimes we were against them [on issues like telecom],” said Sohn. An ingredient in the interest group’s success was its desire to work with everyone.
Congress didn’t have a clue on digital rights
What drove the trio together was a shared view that “Congress had no vision for the future of the internet,” explained Sohn.
Much of our early work was spend explaining how digitation works to Congress, she said. The 2000s were a time of great activity and massive growth in the digital industry and lawmakers at the Hill were not acquainted well with screens, computers, and the internet. They took on the role of explaining to members of Congress what the interests of their constituents were when it came to digitization.
Public Knowledge helped popularize digital issues and by “walking [digital information] across the street to [Capitol Hill] at the time created an operational reality with digitization,” said Bollier.
Racine remarked about the influence Linux software maker Red Hat had during its 2002 initial public offering. She said the founders of Red Hat pushed open source beyond a business model and into a philosophy in ways that hadn’t been done before.
During the early days of Public Knowledge, all sorts of legacy tech was being rolled out. Apple’s iTunes, Windows XP, and the first Xbox launched. Nokia and Sony were the leaders in cellphones at the time, augmenting the rise of technology in the coming digital age.
Racine said consumers needed someone in Washington who could represent their interests amid the new software and hardware and embrace the idea of open source technologies for the future.
Also speaking at the event was Public Knowledge CEO Chris Lewis, who said Public Knowledge was at the forefront of new technology issues as it was already holding 3D printing symposiums before Congress, something totally unfamiliar at the time.
U.S. and EU Privacy and Intellectual Property Landscape Complicate Data Use Requirements
February 7, 2021 – Differences in the intellectual property and privacy landscape between Europe and the United States account are among the forces complicating the regulatory landscape around commercial data, partners at Covington’s Second Annual Technology Forum said on January 27.
Further, because intellectual property laws do not provide robust protection for databases, organizations are increasingly relying on contracts that define rights and restrictions to protect their data.
When learning how to best to handle data, companies need to know what sources it is coming from, said Lee Tiedrich, a partner at Covington. Knowing the type of data is quite important, he said, since data comes in many forms. For example, open or proprietary data should be handled differently than user contributions and scraped data that comes off of public websites.
Differences between U.S. and European intellectual property laws also factor into database protection. Clients need to know how to source data properly because they want to protect their rights to their data and reduce their liability risks, Tiedrich said.
There is no sui generis database protection in the U.S., a term which means databases do not have strong legal protections. This is not unusual as intellectual property laws in the U.S. typically do not provide protection for databases, said Tiedrich.
From a EU legal perspective, there may be some form of IP protection in data but that does not eliminate privacy requirements applying to that data, said Freddie Argent, a partner at Covington.
The panelists also discussed key terms of contracts for data licensors. Data licensors need to employ best practices, have standardized terms, and apply consistency across deals, said Adrian Perry, partner at Covington. Terms of service and privacy policies require clarity with the licensee acknowledging and accepting it, Perry added.
In Google v. Oracle, Supreme Court Hears Landmark Fair Use Case on Software Copyright
October 12, 2020 – The Supreme Court on Wednesday publicly struggled with the copyrightability of software in a uniquely contested case between Google and Oracle, the outcome of which could play a significant role in the future of software development in the United States.
The oral arguments were the culmination of a battle that started 10 years ago, when tech company Oracle accused Google of illegally copying its code. Oracle owns the copyright to the Java application programming interface that Google utilized to establish a new mobile operating system.
The company has sued Google for more than $9 billion in damages.
Yet Google claimed a “fair use” defense to its copying. Google copied less than 1 percent of the Java code. Even though the law generally treats computer programs as copyrightable, Google’s attorney before the Supreme Court, Thomas Goldstein, said that by adapting Oracle’s code to serve a different purpose, Google’s use was “transformational,” and entitled to fair use protections.
Goldstein said that this form of unlicensed copying is completely standard in software, and saves developers time and lowers barriers to innovation.
He referenced a famous Supreme Court precedent about public domain works, Baker v. Selden, which in 1880 declared that once information is published to the public, the public has a right to use it.
“Google had the right to do this,” said Goldstein.
Still, Oracle attorney Joshua Rosenkranz asserted that the Java code is an expressive work eligible for copyright protections. Rosenkranz further argued that Google’s use of the code was not transformational.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor appeared to suggest that jurors in the lower court case properly found Google’s use to be transformational because it took the APIs from a desktop environment to smartphones.
“Interfaces have been reused for decades,” said Goldstein. Google had to reuse Oracle’s code to respond to interoperability demands.
“It has always been the understanding that this purely functional, non-creative code that is essentially the glue that keeps computer programs together could be reused, and it would upend that world to rule the other way,” he said.
Supreme Court observers said that the high court appeared leaning toward upholding the 2016 jury verdict vindicating Google’s fair use defense.
- TPRC Conference to Discuss Definition of Section 230, Broadband, Spectrum and China
- Repealing Section 230 Would be Harmful to the Internet As We Know It, Experts Agree
- Amy Klobuchar Reiterates Need for Funding Agencies to Handle Big Tech
- Technology Policy Institute Introduces Data Index to Help Identify Connectivity-Deprived Areas
- AT&T’s Opens Learning Center in Dallas, Parallel Wireless Expands, AT&T 5G Experiment for National Defense
- Topic 2 at Digital Infrastructure Investment 2021: Last Mile Digital Infrastructure
Signup for Broadband Breakfast
Broadband Roundup1 month ago
Senators Intro App Bill, Groups Drop TracFone Buy Complaint, States Want Shorter Robocall Deadline
Infrastructure3 months ago
AT&T CEO Says $60-$80 Billion in Federal Dollars Should Suffice to Bridge Digital Divide
Infrastructure2 months ago
Lumen Responds to Allegations it Underbuilds While Collecting Public Funds
#broadbandlive4 months ago
Broadband Breakfast Live Online Wednesday June 2, 2021 — Rural Roll-Ups: Has the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Accelerated Mergers & Acquisitions?
Antitrust3 months ago
Experts Disagree Over Need, Feasibility of Global Standards for Antitrust Rules
Broadband Roundup4 months ago
AT&T Phasing Out 3G, Iowa Expands Broadband Funding, NY Mayor Drags Kids Back To School
Artificial Intelligence4 months ago
Deepfakes Could Pose A Threat to National Security, But Experts Are Split On How To Handle It
Broadband Roundup3 weeks ago
Mapping Comment Deadline Extended, AT&T Gets Federal Contract, 5G and LTE Drive Microwave Demand