Kevin Fitzgerald
Legal Issues of the 21st Century
School of Law, Santa Clara University
Introduction
As we prepare to enter the 21st
Century, creators and owners of intellectual property are obtaining
ever increasing means by which to protect their proprietary
interests. Technological and legal protections are evolving rapidly
to meet the increasing demands of intellectual property owners. As
the scope of these protections increase, so to does the potential for
abuse.
This paper highlights a novel copyright protection
scheme proposed by Dow Chemical Company. While Dow’s plan may
indeed provide some protection to copyright owners, Dow can use the
very laws designed to “promote the progress of science and the
useful arts”[1]
for their own benefit. Specifically, Dow may be able to use the
developing body of intellectual property law to raise barriers to
entry for their competitors.
The Plan
The plastics division of Dow Chemical Company has
devised a new approach to combat commercial piracy of copyrighted
material that, as of this writing, is still being developed. Dow has
submitted a business method patent application for its anti-piracy
program they have named MediaShield[2].
MediaShield is designed to protect software and video
applications that are physically stored on a transferable medium such
as CDs or DVDs. The central component of MediaShield’s
promised anti-piracy protection is Dow’s development of a new
polymer, Polycyclohexylethylene (PCHE). PCHE is the material with
which Dow plans to create the next-generation optical disc.
Dow asserts that the PCHE disc represents a
substantial technological improvement over current discs. PCHE is 25%
lighter, has significantly increased optical purity, and has the low
specific gravity and high dimensional stability required for high
volume data transfers. The lower weight allows the disc to be spun
faster, while the increased optical grade allows the use of shorter
wavelength lasers. The combination of these features provide a
lighter, purer medium that is capable of storing and transferring
significantly more data than current polycarbonate discs. This
increased capacity is crucial given that Dow estimates that the newer
high definition digital television will require at least 30 GBs of
information in order to play a standard, two-hour long movie. Current
discs are simply too heavy and too opaque for the requirements of the
next-generation DVD/video playback machines.
Dow recognizes that merely developing the first ‘next-generation’
disc will not ensure their future preeminence in the optical discs
market. To better ensure their market position, Dow plans to utilize
the increased functional capabilities of PCHE as the basis of a
business plan designed to enable content-providers yet another
technological means by which they can prevent the commercial piracy
of their work. The MediaShield business plan is premised on
the belief that all future high definition digital playback devices
will demand sufficient megabytes of data that PCHE quality discs will
be required for the machines to function. As the only provider of the
essential compound required to make PCHE grade discs, Dow intends to
jealously guard access to PCHE. Dow plans to sell/license PCHE only
for the production of optical discs. Further, Dow will only
sell/license PCHE to ‘legitimate’
replicators[3],
thereby preventing the widespread unmonitored production of optical
discs that is common today. Dow also plans to create an independent
legally entity that will compare the amount of PCHE sold to a
replicator to the number of discs the replicator produces. “Discrepancies
will be reported to enforcement agencies currently employed to manage
piracy losses.”[4]
Dow also plans to require the licensed replicators to actively
participate in the reporting, monitoring, and auditing of PCHE
use.
To ensure the future demand for PCHE discs, Dow
plans to focus on the ground floor of hardware and format
development. Working with manufacturers, Dow hopes to encourage
systems designed to require PCHE grade discs in order to
function.
The principles underlying MediaShield are
simple. Modern commercial pirates have relatively low overhead.
Computers have made widespread copying simple, fast, and inexpensive.
The discs upon which the content is transferred are inexpensive and
easily obtained. Although little can be done about the costs of
copying once the content is obtained, Dow plans to eliminate
widespread commercial piracy by eliminating the ability to create a
physical copy. If Dow is successful in not only controlling the
access to PCHE, but also the production of all PCHE quality discs,
commercial pirates will be forced to develop their own discs. Given
sufficient time and opportunity, the ‘hacker’ community
will usually be able to pick just about any digital lock created. It
is far less certain, however, whether commercial pirates have the
manufacturing and scientific expertise to develop, test, and produce
a competing disc.
Notwithstanding Dow’s grand plan, it is
important to note that the anti-piracy protection Dow promises
applies only to copyrighted material contained on a separate physical
copy. The protection is ineffectual for media displayed or
transferred electronically. At least in the near future, the sale of
physical copies will continue to have certain advantages over
electronic transfers that justify the continued sale of content on
physical copies.[5]
Dow predicts that copyright owners will be reluctant to release their
content where commercial piracy is permitted to proliferate. Thus the
effectiveness of MediaShield will be an important factor for
copyright owners to consider before they allow the sale of physical
copies of their work on optical discs. Dow contends that in the
future copyright owners will refuse to authorize release of their
work on anything but PCHE discs.
The success of MediaShield then depends in
large part on the ability of Dow to prevent the widespread
distribution of PCHE quality discs. To help achieve this goal, Dow
will seek to prevent the introduction of competing discs in the
market. If successful, the ability to curb the commercial pirating of
their customers’ copyrighted works will be enhanced. More
importantly for Dow, however, is that by delaying or preventing their
competitors from entering the optical disc market they will earn
significant returns on their investment.
Protecting PCHE - Trade Secret or
Patent?
It is important to note that Dow plans to patent
not only PCHE itself, but also to patent MediaShield as an
anti-piracy business method. For Dow’s anti-piracy plan be
effective, they must be able to prevent or limit the introduction
into the market of similar quality optical discs. Preventing the
introduction of other PCHE quality discs not only bolsters the
anti-piracy campaign, it also ensures Dow’s control of the
next-generation optical disc market. If Dow is able to earn
significant returns on its sales of PCHE, competing plastic
manufacturers all over the world will have ample incentive to design
and market their own next-generation optical discs. Once the market
is flooded with competing discs, the anti-piracy protections promised
by MediaShield become illusory at best. The introduction of
competing discs will also adversely effect Dow’s profits. Thus,
Dow has ample incentive to attempt to prevent the widespread creation
and dissemination of competing discs.
The Patent Claims:
A) Composition of Matter -
One means to achieve this goal is to patent PCHE.
The resin is a ‘composition of matter’ and thus is a
patentable subject matter per 35 U.S.C. §101. Further, PCHE
meets the three threshold requirements of 35 U.S.C.
§§101-103. PCHE is ‘novel’ in that it is not
now known or available anywhere. PCHE is ‘useful’ in that
it has practical utility as described by Dow. Finally, PCHE is ‘non-obvious’
in that the materials and processes used to create it would not be
obvious to one skilled in the art of plastics design and manufacture.
Thus there is little doubt that Dow will be able to patent PCHE as a
composition of matter.
B) Business Method -
In addition to the composition of matter patent,
Dow will also likely seek a patent for MediaShield as a means
for preventing commercial piracy of copyrighted works. This ‘business
method’ patent offers more extensive protection than a patent
on PCHE alone. The business method patent seeks to preclude not only
the use of PCHE and its derivatives, but the use of PCHE in
conjunction with all of the other steps claimed in the anti-piracy
process. The validity and enforcability of business method patents is
far less clear, and will be discussed in greater detail later.
Patent protection has several important
limitations. Each of the ‘patents’ is comprised of a
number of claims. The claims represent the ‘metes and bounds’
of the patent. A finding of infringement “requires a one-to-one
correspondence between the elements of a claim and an infringing
structure or method. If any element of a claim is missing from the
accused structure, then there is no literal infringement”[6]
Thus, if IMATION develops its own protection scheme patterned after
Dow’s, but omits one element (i.e. the independent legal
entity), then there is no infringement.
Another problem is that the protection will lapse
after 20 years after Dow’s application is filed. After the term
of the patent has lapsed, any firm with the capability to manufacture
the resin can begin production of PCHE. Thus if one creates a
copyrightable work in 2019 and places it on a PCHE disk, the
protection will lapse the following year. These limits have
consequences for the copyright owners Dow intends to protect.
Although the copyright owner is protected for a term of up to 90
years plus the life of the author, MediaShield’s
anti-piracy protection becomesineffective just 20 years after the
submission of Dow’s patent application.
Trade Secret:
Alternatively, Dow can opt to maintain the formula
for PCHE as a trade secret. In so doing, Dow need not disclose the ‘best
method’ for making PCHE. Competitors will be forced to continue
to invest capital in research and development of a competing resin.
While competitors are scrambling to design their own resin, Dow can
contractually bind all of the major content providers to release
their work only on PCHE discs. Thus, competitors would not only be
facing additional capital investments to develop a competing resin,
but their expected rate of return once a competing product is
developed will be diminished given Dow’s contracts with the
content providers. Although attempts by a patent holder to prevent
the introduction of competing products often run afoul of the ‘patent
misuse doctrine’[7],
products treated as trade secrets are not so limited.
Despite some of the advantages offered by trade
secret protection, Dow has elected to patent both PCHE and
MediaShield. In addition to the protections offered via
patent and contract law, Dow will likely attempt to limit the
introduction of competing discs through the developing body of
copyright protection law. Specifically, both the concept of
contributory copyright infringement and the anti-circumvention device
provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act provide additional
means to challenge potential competitors. The widespread availability
of copyright protections can be used by Dow to raise the costs of
producing competing discs and thus present additional barriers to
entry for prospective competitors.
Legal Issues
The Competitor - IMATION:
IMATION is a hypothetical plastics manufacturer
based in the Netherlands. IMATION competes worldwide with Dow
Plastics. Sometime after Dow has released their PCHE discs, IMATION
announces their intention to release a competing disc that will match
the performance characteristic of the PCHE disc, but at a
substantially lower price. Dow has successfully obtained a
composition of matter patent for PCHE as well as a business method
patent for MediaShield. IMATION’s discs are made of an
independently created resin. IMATION does not indicate whether they
plan to follow the same strict licensing guidelines used by Dow.
This paper addresses some of the legal challenges
that IMATION will face from Dow and individual copyright owners. The
first section will consider whether IMATION’s new discs violate
either of Dow’s patents. The second section addresses whether
the new discs violate the anti-device provisions of the DMCA. Section
three concerns whether current rulings concerning contributory and
vicarious copyright infringement restrict the introduction of the new
discs. The final section considers whether current law should be
changed in order to address this and other similar situations.
Patent Infringement
Composition of Matter Claim -
PCHE:
Assuming that IMATION independently creates a
resin that has separate and distinct qualities from PCHE, they would
be able to obtain their own patent for their resin. Even absent an
application for a patent, IMATION can only be held liable for
infringement if they create a PCHE based resin using the same or
equivalent means provided by Dow. Merely creating a resin which
performs the same function as PCHE is not infringement. This is
especially true if IMATION’s resin has different qualities and
characteristics than PCHE. At present then, no claim of patent
infringement against IMATION is sustainable.
Business Method Claim -
MediaShield:
Until the recent decision in State Street v.
Signature Financial, 149 F.3d. 1368 (Fed. Cir., 1998), methods of
doing business were generally considered unpatentable subject matter.
Along with discoveries of nature, mere ideas, and mathematical
algorithms, so-called business methods were categorically excluded
from consideration for patent protection. State Street held
that the mere categorization of a claim as a business method was not
determinative. Rather, the fundamental question is whether the method
or process in question results in a transformation or conversion of
the subject matter upon which it operates. State Street
involved a computer program which took reams of financial data and
manipulated it so that the resulting information was of use to the
user. Even though the transformation was accomplished by applying
algorithms to the data, the court held that the transformation that
resulted was patentable. Prior to this decision, a process using only
algorithms would not qualify as patentable subject matter.
The State Street decision has opened the
door to a wide range of claims concerning business methods. There is
little doubt that Dow will seek to exploit this apparent broadening
of the statutory subject matter in order to patent
MediaShield. Although a patent may ultimately issue, the
enforcability of the patent is highly suspect. MediaShield
fails the State Street requirement
that the process transform or convert the subject
matter. Here the subject matter of the process is PCHE, and Dow’s
plans to closely monitor its use in no way transforms or converts
PCHE. Unlike the data in State Street, PCHE is in no way made
more useful or effective after MediaShield is applied.
Dow may argue that it meets the State
Street requirement because the subject matter has been
transformed from an unprotected to a protected format. However, the
decision in State Street focused on the physical
transformation or conversion of the data. There the data itself
actually changed physical form in that it was rearranged into a more
useful format. Dow’s method does not interact with, much less
change the physical characteristics of the subject matter placed on
its discs.
More fundamentally, there is nothing about
MediaShield that is novel or non-obvious. MediaShield’s
anti-piracy business method claim is similar to an early
20th Century case involving an anti-embezzlement business
method designed to prevent waiters from stealing from restaurant
owners. In Hotel Security Checking v. Lorraine, 160 F. 467
(2d. Cir., 1908), a restaurant owner patented a method designed to
prevent waiters from pocketing all of the proceeds paid by customers.
The waiters were apparently taking customers orders, delivering the
food, then collecting the bill. Unfortunately, some of the waiters
were not submitting the paid receipts to the house and thus kept all
of the proceeds for themselves. Much like MediaShield’s
independent monitoring agency, the patented system combated the
embezzlement by employing a head-waiter to track all of the food
obtained from the kitchen by each waiter. The total value of the food
obtained by an individual waiter was recorded and then compared to
the amount of receipts submitted. If the waiter was embezzling funds,
the total receipts submitted would be less than the amount of food
taken from the kitchen.
The court in Hotel Security invalidated the
patent on the grounds that the anti-embezzlement method was neither
novel nor non-obvious. Although the case is routinely cited as the
basis for the ‘business method’ exception to patentable
subject matter, the holding is actually based on obviousness and lack
of novelty.[8]
Although Dow may ultimately succeed in obtaining a patent for
MediaShield, it is unlikely that it will be enforceable
against IMATION. Like the anti-embezzlement method in Hotel
Security, there is little that is novel or non-obvious about Dow’s
plan to closely monitor the release and use of PCHE. Further,
MediaShield fails to transform or convert PCHE as required
by State Street.[9]
As a result, the protections afforded by patent
law do not ensure the ultimate success of MediaShield. In
part, this is due to the fact that patent protection has been
carefully developed to minimize the harmful effects on competition.
The expanding protections of copyright law in general, and the DMCA
in particular, may better serve Dow’s interests.
DMCA § 1201(b)(1)
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act represents an
effort by Congress to balance the need to enforce copyright while
still affording widespread access to information in the digital
age.[10]
In an apparent concession that much of copyright protection in the
near future will be provided by technological protection measures
controlled by the copyright owners themselves, the DMCA seeks to
protect copyright owners by prohibiting circumvention of measures
that control access to the copyright holders work. More importantly
for IMATION, the DMCA also bans devices whose primary purpose is to
enable circumvention of technical protection systems. §1201 of
the DMCA provides that:
“ (b) ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS.–(1) No
person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or
otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device,
component, or part thereof, that–
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the
purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological
measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under
this title in a work or a portion thereof;
(B) has only limited commercially significant
purpose or use other than to circumvent protection afforded by a
technological measure that effectively protects a right of a
copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion
thereof;...[11]
When considering whether the introduction of a
competing disc is prohibited by the §1201(b)(1), two threshold
issues must be addressed. First, is MediaShield a technological
protection measure as contemplated by the drafters of the DMCA.
Second, is the mere production of a competing disc an act of
circumvention as defined in the statute.
Is MediaShield a technological protection
measure?:
The DMCA provides that a technological measure
effectively protects a copyright owner if it prevents, restricts, or
otherwise limits the exercise of a right of a copyright
owner.[12]
MediaShield is clearly a measure designed to protect the
copyright owners’ right to reproduce copies of their work. The
real question, which is not addressed in the text of the DMCA, is
whether MediaShield is a technological measure.
There is no simple answer to this question.
IMATION can plausibly argue that the only technology involved in
MediaShield is PCHE, and PCHE by itself protects nothing. The
protection afforded by MediaShield is the strict monitoring
and reporting of the use of PCHE. The protection therefore, stems
from Dow’s business practices and not a technological
measure.
Dow will contend that such an analysis represents
a far too narrow and literal interpretation of the DMCA. Without the
technological advance offered by PCHE, its anti-piracy protection
would not be possible. PCHE is a critical technological component of
its copyright protection system. It would be unfair and contrary to
the clear mandate of the DMCA to isolate crucial components of any
protection system, label them non-technological, then assert that the
prohibitions of the DMCA are not applicable.
Is the manufacture of a competing resin ‘circumvention’?:
The DMCA attempts to resolve this question by
qualifying that “to ‘circumvent protection afforded by a
technological measure’ means avoiding, bypassing, removing,
deactivating, or otherwise impairing a technological measure.”[13]
However, this definition does little to resolve the question as to
whether the manufacture of a competing disc, the mere introduction of
which will make Dow’s protection measures ineffectual, is
enough to warrant the penalties of the DMCA anti-circumvention device
prohibitions.
Once again, IMATION will favor a narrower reading
of the DMCA. Their product in no way impairs the technology used by
Dow. Their optical discs do not interact with the PCHE discs, and
thus cannot be seen to have avoided, bypassed, or otherwise
impaired.
In contrast, Dow will ask the court to interpret
to follow the plain meaning of the DMCA. The DMCA was designed to
protect content providers who utilized technological protections to
prevent the theft of their works. MediaShield is just such a
measure. IMATION’s discs threaten to destroy these protections
without providing a commensurate benefit.
The resolution of both of these ‘threshold
questions’ is far from clear. In resolving the conflict, courts
will likely view IMATION’s purpose for entering the market as
the determining factor. Thus, the ultimate outcome may well hinge on
the testimony of the principles regarding their motives for
developing and marketing the competing discs.
What is the purpose of IMATION’s new
disc?:
The anti-device provisions of the DMCA prohibit
products, devices, components, or technologies that are either (A)
primarily designed for the purpose of circumvention, or (B) have only
a limited commercially significant purpose other than
circumvention.[14]
Thus the central question in this dispute concerns the purpose of
IMATION’s new disc. The answer to this question is fact
intensive, and each side will be forced to present evidence as to
both the nature and the composition of the market for the competing
optical disc. Such fact-intensive decisions make the success of a
summary judgement motion less likely. Thus even if Dow ultimately
loses, the litigation will likely be protracted and impose large
costs in terms of both money and time on IMATION.
IMATION’s arguments concerning the purpose
of their competing discs are readily apparent and easily supported.
IMATION will contend that they are simply providing consumers with a
competing product, thereby giving users of the next-generation
optical discs a choice. Their disc is designed to meet the
technological specifications required by high-definition digital
playback machines. The effectiveness of Dow’s anti-piracy
business method is of no importance to IMATION. Their discs in no way
interact with, much less disable, Dow’s PCHE discs. Further,
the use of IMATION’S discs in no effects the quality or
performance of the PCHE disc.
Further, IMATION will point to the legislative
intent of the DMCA. Congress included the anti-device provisions so
as to outlaw so-called ‘black box’ devices which are
designed for the sole purpose of circumventing a technological
protection measure. The competing discs are in no way comparable to
the ‘black boxes’ Congress sought to outlaw. The discs
provide much needed competition in the optical disc market. Far from
having limited commercial significance, the new discs represent
competition in a market dominated by a single product and thus devoid
of effective competition.
Dow, along with the major copyright industries
that helped get the anti-device measure included in the
DMCA,[15]
would argue against such a narrow reading of the anti-device
provisions of the DMCA. Dow will point out that they have entered
into long term supply contracts with all of the legitimate
replicators. Further, the replicators are all active participants in
the MediaShield anti-piracy program, and thus have no use for
IMATION’s discs. Even if there is some demand for the discs by
noncommercial IP producers and home users, Dow will argue that the
vast majority of users will be commercial pirates.
Dow will further argue that even if introduction
of unregulated discs into the market encourages some competition, it
will also enable widespread illegal copying. Thus, even if IMATION’s
purported claims to be interested in competing only in the ‘legitimate’
replicator market are true, the substantial likelihood of illegal use
would warrant banning the new discs. If not an outright ban, Dow
would argue that IMATION must follow similar tracking and reporting
standards as set forth in MediaShield. Further still, IMATION
should be required to sell only to ‘legitimate’
replicators. Dow will contend that they welcome healthy competition,
but the protection of the copyright owners must remain paramount.
Allowing unregulated release on IMATION’s discs would harm
copyright owners far in excess of any potential benefits from
increased competition in the disc market.
The Penalties:
Although it is far from clear whether Dow or other
copyright owners would be successful in maintaining an action against
IMATION under the DMCA, it is important to note that the penalties
provided for in the statute are severe. Thus, even if IMATION is
confident that they will ultimately prevail, the threat of
substantial civil and criminal sanctions will likely give potential
competitors pause.
Criminal Offenses and Penalties -
Section 1204(a) provides that–
“ Any person who violates section 1201 or
1202 willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private
financial gain–
(1) shall be fined not more than $500,000 or
imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both, for the first offense;
and
(2) shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or
imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both, for any subsequent
offense.”
Under accepted principles of criminal law, the ‘willful’
component expressed above refers not to the mere act of manufacturing
the discs, but rather the production of the discs with the intent to
circumvent Dow’s technological protection system. Thus,
testimony of IMATION’s president or CEO asserting that the
purpose of producing the discs was to compete with Dow in the
legitimate replicator market should be sufficient to escape criminal
liability.[16]
However, even if a conviction would be unlikely absent the adequate
mens rea, there is still ample probable cause to bring criminal
charges. The political implications of such a case cannot be ignored.
The defendants here are ‘foreigners’ charged with
stealing from American companies. The fact that PCHE was developed in
Dow’s Dusseldorf, Germany facility may very well escape the
prosecutor’s attention.
Civil Remedies
Even assuming no criminal charges are brought,
section 1203 of the DMCA offers substantial civil remedies. Any
person injured by a violation of either §1201 or §1202
may file an action in U.S. District Court. Once in district court,
the judge may; (1) grant a temporary or permanent injunction, (2)
impound, at any time, any device the court has reasonable cause to
believe was involved in a violation, (3) award either actual or
statutory damages (the latter being between $200 - $2,500 per act of
circumvention), (4)(5) recovery of costs and attorney’s fees to
the prevailing party, (6) order the remedial modification or
destruction of any device impounded or in the possession of the
violator.[17]
The severity of the remedies, including the
seizure and destruction of the offending discs will undoubtably
factor in IMATION’s decision whether to enter the market.
Although over time the scope of the DMCA may likely limit IMATION’s
liability exposure, those parties who are the first to explore the
scope and breath of the DMCA’s prohibitions face substantial
risks.
Standing:
Another interesting question left unanswered by
the DMCA is who has standing to bring a lawsuit against the alleged
circumventor. The plain language of §1203 refers to “any
person injured”. This would seem to include Dow, who could
argue that its MediaShield anti-piracy technological
protection system will be ineffectual in the face of the widespread
distribution of unregulated discs. The legitimate replicators could
also sue, arguing that the proliferation of commercially pirated
versions of movies will necessarily lower the demand for legitimate
copies, and thus lower the demand for their services. Finally, the
individual copyright owners could maintain a cause of action given
that the proliferation of pirated copies will undoubtedly cause them
severe and irreparable harm. Thus, IMATION faces not one, but
potentially dozens of potential lawsuits should they elect to enter
the market.
The issue of who has standing to sue under the
DMCA is not entirely clear. Although not technically part of the
statute, the Clinton administration issued a ‘green paper’
contending that only the copyright owners, and not the makers of the
protective technology, would have standing to sue under the
anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA.[18]
This argument seems intuitively correct, given that one would think
you would need to own a copyright in order to sue under the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act. Even if standing is limited to
copyright owners, IMATION still faces the potential of numerous
lawsuits.
Non-DMCA Attacks; Contributory and Vicarious
Copyright Infringement
In addition to the statutorily based causes of
action provided by the DMCA, copyright owners can pursue common law
principles of contributory and/or vicarious copyright infringement
against IMATION. Section 1201(c)(2) of the DMCA provides, “Nothing
in this section shall enlarge or diminish vicarious or contributory
liability for copyright infringement in connection with any
technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof.”
Thus, courts are left to the emerging doctrines of copyright law to
handle these questions.
Vicarious Liability:
Vicarious copyright infringement stems from the
common law theory of respondeat superior. The theory holds, in
essence, that a principle is liable for the acts of its agent -
regardless of whether the principle knew or consented to its agent’s
acts. In order to find IMATION liable for vicarious infringement, a
plaintiff must prove, 1) that IMATION had the right or ability to
supervise the infringing activity, and 2) that IMATION had a direct
financial interest in the infringing activities.[19]
The majority of cases involving vicarious
copyright infringement involve landlord-tenant cases where the tenant
is guilty of selling infringing works and the landlord either
directly or indirectly benefits. Importantly, the plaintiff need not
prove that the landlord had knowledge of the infringing sales. As
applied to IMATION’s discs, an important factual predicate is
the nature of the terms and conditions they impose on the sale or
lease of their discs. If IMATION merely sells the discs without
condition and retain no control over their use, a claim of vicarious
liability will not be sustained. However, the more IMATION attempts
to limit the purchaser’s use of the discs, the greater their
supervision, and thus the greater the potential of vicarious
liability. If IMATION sells its discs subject to the same terms that
Dow proposes, including monitoring and reporting requirements, a
court may find that they have retained the ‘right of
supervision’. Once established that IMATION has retained the
right to supervise, establishing that they directly benefit from
sales of illegal copies is all but certain.
Such an outcome presents IMATION with a difficult
choice. The more they attempt to protect individual copyright owner’s
intellectual property rights, the greater the civil penalties they
face if they fail. Considering just the threat of vicarious liability
alone, IMATION would do well to offer the discs without condition or
question to anyone willing to pay for them.
Contributory Copyright
Infringement:
In contrast to vicarious infringement,
contributory copyright infringement stems from the concept that any
person who knowingly participates in a tortious activity will be held
jointly and severally liable for any resulting harm caused to the
plaintiff.[20]
In order to establish the prima facia case of contributory
infringement, plaintiff must establish that IMATION had, 1) knowledge
of the infringing activity, and 2) induced, caused, or materially
contributed to the infringing conduct of another.[21]
The seminal case dealing with contributory
copyright infringement in the technical arena is Sony v.
Universal, 464 US 417 (1984). In that case, Universal owned the
copyrights on several publically broadcast television programs and
sued the makers of Betamax video tape recorders alleging
contributory infringement. Universal also sued a home user of the VCR
who had used the machine to copy a television program. The United
States Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s findings,
holding that the homeowner’s copying was ‘fair use’,
and that Sony had not contributorily infringed. The Court maintained
that because the machines were capable of ‘substantial
non-infringing uses’, and the mere fact that VCRs may also be
used for illegal copying is not enough to find the manufacturer
liable for contributory infringement.
A key factual component of the decision was the
finding that the home copying of the program was ‘fair use’.
The Court found that the machines were primarily used by individuals
for legal copying. Punishing Sony for the acts of those that elect to
copy illegally, the Court reasoned, would effectively eliminate the
publics’ ability to legally copy the programs. To eliminate
such widespread legal use, Universal would need to show more than the
machines are merely capable of illegal copying.
The decision in Sony affords potential
defendants such as IMATION great protection against contributory
infringement claims. After Sony, IMATION need only prove a ‘substantial
non-infringing use’ in order to be insulated from liability.
Dow will undoubtedly argue that given their long-term supply
contracts with all of the ‘legitimate’ replicators, the
new discs can only be used for illegal commercial copying. Copyright
owners can bolster Dow’s argument by asserting that they
require their replicators to use only PCHE discs because of the
anti-piracy protection Dow affords. If they discovered that a
replicator was using another disc, the copyright owners would likely
refuse to do business with that replicator. If valid, such
contentions offer strong evidence in favor of Dow.
However, if IMATION can establish that there are
legitimate consumers of these discs in addition to commercial
replicators, they will likely be immune from liability for
contributory copyright infringement. IMATION may also plan to promote
an anti-piracy program similar to Dow’s, but at a significantly
lower price. Even if all of the legitimate replicators
are currently under contract with Dow, this does not prevent some
replicators from ultimately signing with IMATION. IMATION also may
market to home users who wish to back up important files to disc, or
to businesses who wish physical backups of their hard drives.
A similar dispute regarding ‘substantial
non-infringing use’ was recently illustrated in A&M
Records v. Abdallah , 948 F.Supp. 1449 (CD Cal. 1996). In
Abdallah, the maker of time-loaded audio cassettes was found
liable for contributory infringement. In distinguishing its result
from Sony, the court focused on the nature of the ‘time-loaded’
cassettes. Time-loaded cassettes contain a variable amount of tape
depending on the customer’s needs. The primary advantage of
these tapes is that they eliminated the excess tape either before or
after the recorded material that is common with standard length
tapes. Thus, if an infringer wanted to copy a commercial record
lasting 102 minutes, he would order a 102 minute long tape from the
defendant. In contrast, a standard 120 minute tape would leave 18
minutes of slack tape.
Abdallah argued that many of his customers ordered
time-loaded tapes to record non-copyrighted material such as home
performances and the like. The court rejected the notion that merely
because the tapes had non-infringing uses the defendant was immune
from liability under Sony. The court noted the vast majority
of time-loaded tapes were used for pirating, and that the defendant
actively pursued and promoted the commercial piracy by its
customers.
A determining factor for whether the protection
afforded by Sony is applicable centers on whether the item in
question is a staple commodity of commerce. If the product is a
staple, then it likely has ‘substantial non-infringing use’,
and is protected by Sony. If it is not a staple, then it is
not immune from claims of contributory infringement. The VCRs in
Sony were considered staples, while the time loaded cassettes
in Abdallah were not.
Thus, the key factual question for the court in
the IMATION case is whether the discs are a staple good. Although Dow
will argue strongly that they have only a limited use, it is unlikely
that they will prevail. Polycarbonate discs are similar to standard
length cassettes. Only if IMATION altered their discs in some way to
allow or encourage commercial piracy will a claim of contributory
infringement be sustained.
Licensee Liability
Dow’s proposed MediaShield
anti-piracy plan includes requiring replicators to agree to a host of
terms and conditions concerning the use and sale of PCHE. These
conditions presumably include monitoring the replicators themselves
to ensure that the content that they copy is indeed valid. This level
of control raises several interesting questions concerning the
liability of both Dow and the replicators in the event that there is
a dispute regarding whether the content to be replicated is itself
valid copyrightable material.
Consider the following hypothetical example;
Suppose a film producer approaches George Lucas
and requests a license to create what the producer describes as a
parody of ‘The Phantom Menace’. Mr. Lucas, for a host of
reasons, refuses to license the derivative work. The producer goes
ahead anyway and creates the film using most, if not all, of the
important characters and plot devices found in the original movie.
The target audience for the producer’s movie are primarily film
students and patrons of small art theaters. As a result, the film is
released ‘straight to video’. Producer approaches
Reliable Replicator requesting 10,000 copies of the movie on PCHE
discs. Reliable agrees to fill the order. George Lucas, who also uses
Reliable Replicator to copy his movies to disc, hears of the plan and
is incensed. Noting that his organization orders no less than 600,000
copies a year from Reliable, Lucas demands that Reliable refuse to
replicate what he considers a pirated derivative work of ‘The
Phantom Menace’.
If Reliable goes ahead and replicates producer’s
movie, both they and Dow will likely be sued for contributory
infringement by Lucas. Given that Lucas put them on notice of the
alleged infringement, and both Dow and Reliable can be said to have
materially contributed to the infringement by providing the discs,
the prima facia elements of contributory infringement have been
established.[22]
The threat of the lawsuit combined with the economic clout of Mr.
Lucas will likely cause both Dow and Reliable to refuse to copy the
producers film.
The refusal to contract with Producer raises
serious concerns regarding the access to markets of smaller,
non-mainstream authors and producers. Even if Producer could get a
summary judgement declaring that the movie was a parody and thus
protected by the fair use doctrine, it is unlikely that Reliable or
Dow would copy the parody and risk alienating one of its largest
customers.
Given his influence, George Lucas could
conceivably seek to prevent or delay the release of a competing ‘space’
movie that was scheduled for release at the same time as his movie.
The consolidated power of Dow and George Lucas, obtained at least in
part from federal copyright legislation, could have a significant
negative impact on the free exchange of ideas that are the
cornerstone of modern copyright and intellectual jurisprudence.
The Misuse Defense:
The potential influence of Dow and George Lucas
are not without limitations. The seldom used, but valid theory of
copyright misuse may give large content providers pause before
actively opposing the introduction of competing or critical works.
Copyright misuse is a logical extension of the patent misuse doctrine
established in Morton Salt v. G.S. Suppinger, 314 US 488
(1942). In Morton Salt Suppinger obtained a patent for a salt
dispensing machine, then sued Morton Salt alleging that Morton’s
machine infringed their patent. Without addressing the substantive
claim of infringement, the Supreme Court noted that Suppinger’s
requirement that all users of his machine use only salt tablets
produced by a Suppinger subsidiary constituted an illegal tying
arrangement. That is, the requirement that users of the patented
machine purchase an unpatented commodity represented an illegal
effort by Suppinger to expand the government granted monopoly in salt
dispensing machines. Invoking the equitable doctrine of ‘unclean
hands’, the Court held that Suppinger’s otherwise valid
patent was unenforceable during the period that they pursued the
illegal tying arrangement. Only after Suppinger proved they were no
longer ‘misusing’ their patent could they bring an action
for patent infringement.
The doctrine of copyright misuse was established
in Lasercomb America v. Reynolds, 911 F.2d 970 (4th
cir., 1990). In Lasercomb, the copyright owner licensed its
software program to the defendant on the condition that the licensee
not attempt to design their own competing program for 99 years. This
attempt to prevent the design of a non-infringing competing program
was seen as an inequitable attempt to extend the life of the
copyright granted to Lasercomb beyond the statutorily granted period.
The court held that the license was evidence of misuse, and therefore
refused to consider Lasercomb’s claims of copyright
infringement.
Whether an individual producer could maintain an
action against George Lucas for copyright misuse under the facts
given remains to be seen.[23]
However, the underlying premise behind the misuse doctrine of both
patent and copyright is an effort to limit the adverse effect upon
the public interest created by the government’s grants of
exclusive rights to authors and inventors.
Conclusion
The hypothetical conflict between Dow and IMATION
is designed to illustrate some of the potential dangers surrounding
the trend towards increased protection of intellectual property
rights. Although the actual outcome may ultimately favor IMATION, the
costs of obtaining final victory will be substantial. Further still,
it is entirely plausible that a lower court, feeling compelled to a
literal interpretation of the novel issues concerning the DMCA, would
rule that IMATION’s discs are indeed violations of the
anti-circumvention provisions.
As they cliche goes, time is money, and the longer
Dow can delay their competitors entry into this market the longer
they can expect to earn high returns. Dow will have ample incentive
to use the DMCA’s anti-device provisions and other intellectual
property laws to attack potential competitors before they introduce
their products to the market. Thus, even if Dow’s management
recognized the ultimate futility of their lawsuits, the return on
their investment (in terms of the legal costs of suing IMATION) may
well warrant bringing the action. Any delay, whether it be in the
release of IMATION’s disc, difficulty in IMATION securing
capital for its research and development of the new disc, or in the
hesitancy of IMATION’s management to be the first to challenge
Dow’s assertion that MediaShield is a technological
protection measure, all enure to the benefit of Dow.
Intellectual property laws have historically
attempted to balance the need to reward authors and inventors for
their works while encouraging the free flow of information. The
limited duration of the grants and the fair use doctrine are prime
examples of this balancing approach. The goal has always been to
adequately compensate creativity without stifling the publics’
access to this information. The combination of the DMCA’s
anti-device provisions and Dow’s MediaShield program
threaten to upset this balance. For the first time since the advent
of the printing press, the ability to completely control the ability
to copy a work may rest with the author and their agents. Along with
this power comes the specter of giant corporate interests actively
limiting the ability of competing or critical works from getting ‘to
press’.
[1]
Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 8, U.S. Constitution.
[2]see
February 22, 2000 press
release announcing MediaShield
program to fight commercial piracy.]
[3]
A replicator refers to the legal entity responsible for both the
manufacture of optical discs from the PCHE provided by Dow and the
transfer of content onto the disc itself. Thus if a copyright owner
wanted 100,000 copies of their movie for commercial distribution, the
replicator would be responsible for creating the discs and for
placing the content on the disc.]
[4]
see Debbie Galante Block, Rallying the Disc Patrol:
Protection Schemes for CD and DVD, EMedia Professional, (Dec.
1998).
[5]see
Eric Schlachter, Renaissance in Cyberspace, 12 Berkeley
Tech.L.J. 15, 43, (1997).
[6]
see Terry McMahon, Anatomy of a Patent Case,
Intellectual Property Litigation Techniques (Santa Clara Univ.,
Spring 2000).
[7]
see infra, Patent Misuse Doctrine, p. 26.
[8]see
Rinaldo Del Gallo, Are “Methods of Doing Business”
Finally Out of Business as a Statutory Rejection?, 38
IDEA:J.L.&Tech. 403.
[9]see
also
Loews Drive-In Theaters v. Park-In
Theaters, 174 F.2d. 547 (rejecting patent for drive-in movie
theaters; noting that although idea was novel, physical means to
accomplish open-air theater was neither novel nor non-obvious).
[10]see
generally, Pamela Samuelson, Intellectual Property And The
Digital Economy: Why The Anti-Circumvention Regulations Need To Be
Revised, 14 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 519, Spring 1999.
[11]
see 17 U.S.C.A. §1201(b)(1).
[12]
see Id. §1201(b)(2)(B).
[13]
see Id. §1201(b)(2)(A).
[14].
see 17 U.S.C.A. §1201(b)(1)(A) and (B).
[15]
see Samuelson, 14 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 519 (describing the
battle in Congress over the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA
as a battle between Hollywood and Silicon Valley).
[16]
see Id. at 550
[17]
see 17 U.S.C.A. §1203(b)(1)-(6).
[18]
see Samuelson, FN 168 (discussing standing under the DMCA)
[19]
see Melville and David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyrights,
§1204(A)(1) at 1270-72, (1995).
[20]
see Neil Boorstyn, Boorstyn on Copyright,
§10.06[2] at 10-21 (1994).
[21]
see Gershwin Publishing v. Columbia Artists Management,
443 F.2d 1159, 1162 (1994).
[22]
see supra Contributory Infringement, p.21.
[23] see Carole K. Jeffrey, Copyright Misuse: A Defense Whose Time Has Come?, 27-JUN Colo.Law 143, 145 (discussing affirmative use misuse doctrine).
Back to Class Web Page