Vogel Internet, Information Technology and e-Discovery Blog : Texas Internet, Information Technology, eCommerce & E-Discovery Lawyer & Attorney Peter S. Vogel : Gardere Wynne Sewell Law Firm : Dallas TX

When Amazon remotely deleted George Orwell’s 1984 from the Kindle reading devices last week I’m sure that George Orwell rolled over in his grave. Orwell’s novel written in 1949 predicted that Big Brother’s censors would erase anything that the government found objectionable by sending down a “memory hole.” I’m happy to report that my paperback copy that I read in junior high school is still on my library shelf!

What Happened? 

When Amazon discovered that its source of the Orwell’s 1984 and Animal Farm did not have the rights to the books, Amazon remotely deleted copies from the Kindles. This got some headlines and irritated many, but since Amazon did not have the right to distribute the books it did the next best thing, it deleted copies. 

 Where Are We Going With This? 

The Free Software Foundation is soliciting support from many sources (including librarians, publishers and major authors and public intellectuals) to present a petition to Amazon asking that Amazon reconsider its use of software called digital rights management (DRM). DRM is software that restricts the use of copies and devices so for instance the version of 1984 that Amazon distributed could only be viewed on a Kindle and Amazon could delete copies. This runs against the grain of the Copyright Act’s "first sale doctrine" that permits a purchaser of a copyrighted book to sell that copy, but not make other copies. Many individuals are concerned about users of copyrighted materials are losing their rights guaranteed under the Copyright Act. It also seems that George Orwell’s predictions may have come true, not necessarily in 1984, but in 2009.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A Minneapolis jury awarded a number of recording companies damages for willful infringement of 24 songs in the only trial for file-sharing by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) of the estimated 30,000 lawsuits they filed before ceasing litigation last year. The RIAA settled most lawsuits for about $3,500 and now the RIAA stopped filing suits and is working with ISPs to stop file-sharing.

Second Trial

The first jury trial in 2007 resulted in a verdict of $222,000 but the federal judge vacated the verdict as result of improper jury instructions. Apparently the second jury was also convinced that Jammie Thomas-Rasset willfully infringed 24 songs by file-sharing and awarded damages of $80,000 per song. Ms. Thomas-Rasset, a single mother of four, asserts that she cannot pay these damages.

Willful Infringement

Under the 1976 Copyright Act damages for willful infringement damages could be as high as $150,000. So in both of Ms. Thomas-Rasset’s trials the juries concluded that she was a willful infringer. The fact that the RIAA stopped filing lawsuits was based on the large number of alleged infringers bespeaks volumes about the fact that file-sharing is a very large problem on the Internet, and litigation may not be the best way to solve the problem.

Apple to the Rescue

In 2001 when the 9th Circuit upheld infringement claims for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement against Napster under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA) there were many requests for the US Congress to reform the Copyright Act and the DMCA since that the Internet had changed the way people listen to music, however neither the Copyright Act nor DMCA were changed. Actually Apple solved the problem by introducing the iPod and allowing people to inexpensively downloading music, tv shows, and movies. Not only did the iPod solve this copyright problem it also improved Apple’s financial circumstances and market share.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link