DOCSLIB.ORG

Copyright: History and Development in the United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Copyright: History and Development in the United States 1 Copyright: History and Development in the United States Tyson S. Wilbur Department of Journalism and Mass Communications, University of Nebraska, Kearney JMC 414: Communications Law Ford Clark April 28, 2021 2 Copyright: History and Development in the United States In the United States, Copyright has undergone many changes to become the law that we have today. What started as a declaration to promote progress and forward-thinking by the protection of authors, Copyright now holds greater value. With the increasing amounts of mediums and categories of eligible works, the simplicity of the original copyright law needed to be altered. Today, Copyright’s reach has expanded to meet this increase in intellectual property. The journey of how its influence has grown through learning, acts, amendments, and cases are all necessary towards understanding its role and importance in modern times. While the hope and plans for Copyright in the United States were declared in the U.S. Constitution, the foundation was modeled after Britain's Copyright laws. At the time, America was still colonized by Britain which had its own ways of monitoring and distributing print media. In 1557, Queen Mary granted a charter to the Stationers’ Company to obtain inherent government control over the press. According to Loren (1992). “The crown acquired the ability to censor the press and prevent the publication of "seditious, heretical, and schismatical materials". Additionally, when the printers from the Company obtained a manuscript, they would receive the licensing and could print copies of the publication while acquiring full rights to the text without the author having any rights to their work (UC San Diego, 2021). This extended until 1710 when Parliament passed the Statute of Anne which is widely known as the first standard of copyright laws. The Statute returned the rights of the work to the authors and introduced durations of publication rights before the work passes into the public domain. This concept was well received and was what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they wrote, “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries (U.S. 3 Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8). This was further elaborated on in the United States’ first copyright law, the Copyright Act of 1790 which would become the federal standard for copyright laws in the U.S. Furthermore, the Statute of Ann had influenced the act so much to the point that Bracha (2010) argues, While the influence of the Statute of Anne on early American copyright legislation is widely known, scholars often overlook the scale of duplication on the level of ideological purposes, concepts, technical legal arrangements, and specific text. When these identical features are examined closely, the genesis of the American copyright system appears to be a major operation of international plagiarism. (pp. 2) While there were many similarities, there were also some differences with already existing works receiving a 14-year term for those already published at the time the act went into effect. For the act, the drafters thought heavily about pushing forward the creation of science and arts while also rewarding authors. At the time, the act included coverage for original works for the popular mediums of the times. Included in this were charts, maps, books, and manuscripts with the ability for the authors to hold their works for 14 years and a choice of extension for another 14 years if the author was still alive. Moreover, the initial law brought the ability for authors to protect their works from monetary losses (Davis, 2009). As the U.S. was a new country, the Act of 1790 was the base for all copyright laws going forward and would be changed throughout the history of the nation. There were many feats in the copyright scene during the 19th century. Within 12 years of its inception, the Copyright Act was amended to allow coverage over another medium. Historical prints could now be registered and had the same terms lengths as other media (U.S. Const. amend. CLXXI). This was a significant shift as it because a stepping stone for other non-writing 4 mediums that would appear in the future. Over the century, copyrights overs prints would become more common and accessible as their price decreased. In 1831, the Copyright Act received its first revision which would solely change some of the fundaments set up in the Act of 1790. Like the newly updated Statute of Anne, the 14-year terms were considered short, and instead increased the initial length of terms to a doubled 28 years with the same option of a 14-year renewal with the creator's family and children receiving rights if they were to pass in the allotted term. Furthermore, Solberg states, “In addition to extending the term of protection, this first Act of general revision enlarged the scope of copyright protection by adding "musical compositions" and "prints, cuts or engravings" to "maps, charts and books" of the 1790 Act.” Lastly, the Act brought additional regulations for those publishing and printing without permission (Copyright Act, 1802). Even though the changes were somewhat minute, they were necessary quality of life changes for copyright in the growing U.S. 1834 was a big year for copyright in the 19th century for many reasons. The year featured copyright’s first landmark case ruling of Wheaton v. Peters, where Wheaton sued Peters for selling a reprint of his books on Supreme Court decisions (Vile, 2009). According to ("Wheaton v. Peters," n.d.), “The Court established the basic foundation of U.S. copyright law, holding that the statutory requirements for securing copyright must be strictly followed and that copyright exists primarily for the benefit of society and not the creator. Furthermore, while Peters had reprinted Wheaton's work, the judges had decided that there were some problems regarding Wheaton’s suit. At the time, Wheaton had failed to meet all the requirements for his work to be copyrighted under common law as he completed two out of the three necessary steps. Additionally, the courts had decided that cases could not be copyrighted as they would not grant the ability for someone to copyright the written opinions of the Court as they would have sole and private access to them. This also 5 refers to other government events and discussions which is why allowing this would obstruct the flow of public information. This case would be confirmed in the final years of the century when the Printing Act of 1895 would declare that the copyright of government publications would be prohibited. Another momentous event in 1834 was the beginning of recordation by the government for all material copyrighted. This allows for the owner of the copyright to give documents to the government allowing for the transfer of, or termination of the copyright. Next on the history of Copyright is the addition of copyright for dramatic works and all that they entail as well as photographs and their negative counterparts. 1870 brought the second revision to the Copyright law with the Copyright Act of 1870. This Act revised the prior Act of 1831 by further setting in stone the protection of photographs, as well as extra measures for submitting copyright, like turning in an extra copy of the source material to the government when registering one’s work. In addition to these revisions, extra measures were added to protect creators’ works like having to ask for permission to create translations of a copyrighted work and the prohibition on printing select portions of copyrighted content without permission (Copyright Act, 1870). Like Wheaton v. Peters, Baker v. Seldon was another important case involving copyright in the 19th century. In this case, Seldon copyrighted a book explaining the way he did his bookkeeping using a specific form with rows and columns to organize. Baker was able to produce the same result while using a method with a slightly differently styled form and thus started selling the forms (Baker v. Seldon, 1879). Due to the similarities, Seldon sued because of copyright infringement. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Baker and set precedent ruling that even though copyright law protects the expression of an idea, it does not protect the idea itself (U.S. Copyright Office, n.d.). International Copyright was the main topic of the Berne Convention in 1886 as many countries signed a treaty as a coalition into the protection of literary and artistic 6 works. While the U.S. did not sign at the time, the convention did prepare them for a similar fix to the issue. To conclude the 19th century, the United States signed its first foreign relations copyright law with the International Copyright Act of 1891. According to Rothchild (2019), “From the time of the first federal copyright law in 1790 until the enactment of the International Copyright Act in 1891, U.S. copyright law did not apply to works by authors who were not citizens or residents of the United States (pp. 361). Because of this, printers and publishers took advantage of the system and reprinted many international works that were sought after by the people. Now foreign creators would receive protection of the American copyright laws while Americans would, in turn receive the same protection in other countries. In the early years of the 20th century, the Copyright Act received its third revision. The terms for copyright were again extended with a work having an initial term of 28 years with an optional renewal for another 28-year term. Furthermore, the Act also gave rights to unpublished works with state laws protecting them until they are published, and Federal statutory copyright protection is given to those that applied for copyright and gave notice of their acceptance.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Versus "Infringing": Different Interpretations of the Word "Work" and the Effect on the Deterrence Goal of Copyright Law Sarah A
    Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review Volume 10 | Issue 1 Article 4 "Infringed" Versus "Infringing": Different Interpretations of the Word "Work" and the Effect on the Deterrence Goal of Copyright Law Sarah A. Zawada Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/iplr Part of the Intellectual Property Commons Repository Citation Sarah A. Zawada, "Infringed" Versus "Infringing": Different Interpretations of the Word "Work" and the Effect on the Deterrence Goal of Copyright Law, 10 Intellectual Property L. Rev. 129 (2006). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/iplr/vol10/iss1/4 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ZAWADA ARTICLE - FORMATTED 4/24/2006 6:52:27 AM “Infringed” Versus “Infringing”: Different Interpretations of the Word “Work” and the Effect on the Deterrence Goal of Copyright Law I. INTRODUCTION One of the key elements that courts use to determine an appropriate statutory damage award in a copyright infringement case is the number of infringements of a copyright.1 In most cases, the number of infringements of a copyright is obvious. For example, if a publishing company reprints an author’s copyrighted book without her permission, the author is entitled to one statutory damage award. Similarly, if a recording company includes one of a composer’s copyrighted songs without his permission on an album, the composer is entitled to one statutory damage award.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Copyright Law Excludes Systems and Processes from the Scope of Its Protection
    Why Copyright Law Excludes Systems and Processes from the Scope of Its Protection Pamela Samuelson* Section 102 is one of the few elegant and concise provisions of the Copyright Act of 1976 (1976 Act).' Section 102(a) sets forth the subject matter eligible for copyright protection. "Copyright protection subsists," it says, "in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression .... 2 Nicely complementing this provision is its statutory cousin, § 102(b), which provides: "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.",3 Once a work qualifies for copyright protection under § 102(a), § 102(b) informs its author and the rest of the world about certain aspects of the work that are not within the scope of copyright protection. Surprisingly few cases and very little commentary have probed the meaning of § 102(b), and in particular, of the eight words of exclusion it contains.4 Most often, courts and commentators have characterized § 102(b) * Richard M. Sherman Distinguished Professor of Law and Information, University of California at Berkeley. I wish to thank Robert Barr, Brian Carver, Julie E. Cohen, Phil Frickey, Andy Gass, Paul Geller, Dennis S. Karjala, Mark A. Lemley, Jessica Litman, Robert P. Merges, David Nimmer, Margaret Jane Radin, Anthony Reese, Jerome H. Reichman, Kate Spelman, and Molly Shaffer van Houweling for insightful comments on an early draft. Daniel Schacht provided outstanding research assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • The Origins and Meaning of the Intellectual Property Clause
    THE ORIGINS AND MEANING OF THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CLAUSE Dotan Oliar* ABSTRACT In Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003) the Supreme Court reaffirmed the primacy of historical and textual considerations in delineating Congress’ power and limitations under the Intellectual Property Clause. Nevertheless, the Court overlooked what is perhaps the most important source of information regarding these considerations: The debates in the federal Constitutional Convention that led to the adoption of the Clause. To date, several unsettled questions stood in the way of identifying fully the legislative history behind the Clause. Thus, the Article goes through a combined historical and quantitative fact-finding process that culminates in identifying eight proposals for legislative power from which the Clause originated. Having clarified the legislative history, the Article proceeds to examine the process by which various elements of these proposals were combined to produce the Clause. This process of textual putting together reveals, among other things, that the text “promote the progress of science and useful arts” serves as a limitation on Congress’ power to grant intellectual property rights. The Article offers various implications for intellectual property doctrine and policy. It offers a model to describe the power and limitations set in the Clause. It examines the way in which Courts have enforced the limitations in the Clause. It reveals a common thread of non-deferential review running through Court decisions to date, for which it supplies normative justifications. It thus concludes that courts should examine in future and pending cases whether the Progress Clause’s limitation has been overreached. Since Eldred and other cases have not developed a concept of progress for the Clause yet, the Article explores several ways in which courts could do so.
    [Show full text]
  • Pimps and Ferrets Pimps and Ferrets: Copyright and Culture in the United States: 1831-1891
    Pimps and Ferrets Pimps and Ferrets: Copyright and Culture in the United States: 1831-1891 Version 1.1 September 2010 Eric Anderson Version 1.1 © 2010 by Eric Anderson [email protected] This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution- Noncommercial 3.0 United States License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/us/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA Some Rights Reserved A Note on this Book Humanities academics in the United States generally receive little payment from the sale of books they have written. Instead, scholars write in an economy of prestige, promotion, and duty. Prestige comes from publishing with a reputable university press, from being well-reviewed in important academic journals, and from the accolades of academic peers. For a professionally young academic in the humanities at a medium-ranked institution in the United States, a peer-reviewed book at a mid-ranked University Press is essential for tenure and promotion. The doctoral dissertation (sometimes quite heavily revised) typically forms the core of this first academic book and sometimes several additional articles. Occasionally maligned, the the usual alternative to tenure is termination. Promotion (i.e. from Assistant to Associate Professor) leads to job security and a ten or fifteen thousand dollar increase in annual salary. In this context, book royalties are a negligible incentive. This book is a lightly revised version of my doctoral dissertation, completed in December of 2007. After graduation, I submitted it to a small academic legal studies press, where it was favorably reviewed by the editor of that press and by a knowledgeable senior academic associated with the Press, and accepted for publication.
    [Show full text]
  • Claiming Intellectual Property Jeanne C Fromert
    Claiming Intellectual Property Jeanne C Fromert This Article explores the claiming systems of patent and copyright law with a view to how they affect innovation. It first develops a two-dimensional taxonomy: claiming can be either peripheralor central, and either by characteristicor by exemplar Patent law has principally adopted a system of peripheralclaiming, requiringpatentees to articulate by the time of the patent grant their invention's bound usually by listing its necessary and sufficient characteristicsAnd copyright law has implicitly adopted a system of central claiming by exemplar, requiring the articulation only of a prototypical member of the set of protected works-namely, the copyrightable work itself fixed in a tangibleform. Copyright protection then extends beyond the exemplar to substantiallysimilar works, a set of works to be enumerated only down the road in case-by-case infringement litiga- tion. Despite patent law's typical peripheralclaims by characteristicand copyright law's typical central claims by exemplar, in practice,patent and copyright claiming are each heterogeneous, in that they rely on otherforms of claiming. This Article explores which forms of claiming promote intellectual property's overarching constitutionalgoal. "To promote the Progressof Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Au- thors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." It considers how each sort of claiming affects the costs of drafting claims, efficacy of no- tice to the public of the set of protected embodiments, ascertainment of protectability, breadth of the set of protected works, and the protectability of works grounded in after- developed technologies. With the goal of stimulating innovation, I suggest that patent law can be tweaked by adding claiming elements more reminiscent of copyright law, namely central claims and claims by exemplar.
    [Show full text]
  • Eg Phd, Mphil, Dclinpsychol
    This thesis has been submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for a postgraduate degree (e.g. PhD, MPhil, DClinPsychol) at the University of Edinburgh. Please note the following terms and conditions of use: This work is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, which are retained by the thesis author, unless otherwise stated. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the author. The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author. When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given. TEST FOR ECHO: COMPETITION LAW AND THE MUSIC INDUSTRIES FROM A BUSINESS MODEL PERSPECTIVE Evgenia Kanellopoulou Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Edinburgh, School of Law Academic year 2016/2017 DECLARATION I declare that this thesis was composed by myself and that the work contained herein is my own except where explicitly stated otherwise in the text. This thesis contains parts of work submitted to the University of Glasgow for the award of the LLM in International Commercial Law (academic year 2010/2011). Signed 1 Table of Contents DECLARATION ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • THE PATENT BATTLE THAT CREATED HOLLYWOOD by David Krell 10
    NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015 VOL. 87 | NO. 9 JournalNEW YORK STATE BAR ASSOCIATION Also in this Issue The Patent Battle Eight “Chiefs” That Created Criminal Justice Update Medical Malpractice Hollywood Proving a Joint Account By David Krell Simplify your everything. Your time is precious. That’s why Clio®’s intuitive design and powerful functionality will smooth out your processes and uncomplicate your overly-complex life. When your business systems are easy-to-use, intelligent and uncomplicated, you can put yourself first and prioritize your day accordingly. Simplify with Clio – the most complete and streamlined legal management solution around. We save you time. It’s up to you what you do with it. We’re the most comprehensive, yet easy-to-use cloud-based law practice management software. Join tens of thousands of legal professionals who trust Clio to manage and grow their firms. Start your free trial today at clio.com Simplify your everything. Clio® and the Clio Checkmark Logo™ are Trademarks or registered Trademarks of Themis Solutions Inc. ©2015 Themis Solutions Inc. All rights reserved. BESTSELLERS FROM THE NYSBA BOOKSTORE November/December 2015 Best Practices in Legal Management Entertainment Law, 4th Ed. NYSBA Practice Forms on CD 2014–2015 The most complete treatment of the business of Completely revised, Entertainment Law, More than 500 of the forms from Deskbook running a law firm. With forms on CD. 4th Edition covers the principal areas of enter- and Formbook used by experienced practitio- PN: 4131 / Member $139 / List $179 / tainment law. ners in their daily practice. 498 pages PN: 40862 / Member $150 / List $175 / Practice of Criminal Law Under the CPLR and 986 pages/loose-leaf Criminal and Civil Contempt, 2nd Ed.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright Protection for Federally Funded Research: Necessary Incentive Or Double Subsidy?
    Copyright Protection for Federally Funded Research: Necessary Incentive or Double Subsidy? by Samuel E. Trosow∗ (DRAFT 09.07.03: Please check this page http://publish.uwo.ca/~strosow/Sabo_Bill_Paper.pdf for updates prior to citing or circulating) Table of Contents Table of Contents.................................................................................................. 1 Abstract................................................................................................................. 2 Introduction........................................................................................................... 3 I. The Current State of U.S. Copyright Law under Section 105........................... 5 A. Legislative Background and Judicial Interpretations................................... 6 B. Changes in the Contemporary Policy Environment................................... 12 C. The Practices of the Funding Agencies...................................................... 19 1. General Grant Provisions Pertaining to Copyright ................................. 20 2. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) ................................................. 23 3. National Science Foundation (NSF) ....................................................... 26 4. OMB Circular-130.................................................................................. 31 D. The Purposes of Copyright Law ................................................................ 34 II. The Sabo Bill: Substantive Provisions ..........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 20191223115738971 18-1501 Liu V SEC Restitution Scholars Brief.Pdf
    No. 18-1501 In the Supreme Court of the United States CHARLES C. LIU et al., Petitioners, v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Respondent. __________ ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT __________ BRIEF OF REMEDIES AND RESTITUTION SCHOLARS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF NEITHER SIDE __________ Douglas Laycock Counsel of Record 2406 McBee St. Austin, TX 78723 512-656-1789 [email protected] QUESTIONS PRESENTED This brief addresses two questionss: 1. Whether “equitable relief” in the securities laws includes the longstanding equitable remedy of disgorgement, also known as accounting of profits, and 2. Whether disgorgement in the securities laws should be measured by the longstanding rules of equity, a measure that both petitioners and respondent appear to reject. i TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Authorities .................................................. iv Interest of Amici ..........................................................1 Summary of Argument ...............................................2 Argument .....................................................................5 I. Each Party’s Position Seriously Overreaches ......................................................5 II. Disgorgement, or Accounting for Profits, Is a Long-Established Equitable Remedy That Imposes Liability for the Wrongdoer’s Net Profits—Not Gross Profits or Gross Receipts .............................................................9 A. Disgorgement of a Wrongdoer’s Profits Is a Longstanding Equitable Remedy.
    [Show full text]
  • Enough Is Enough Time to Eliminate Design Patents and Rely on More Appropriate C
    16 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 325 Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal Winter 2008 Article ENOUGH IS ENOUGH: TIME TO ELIMINATE DESIGN PATENTS AND RELY ON MORE APPROPRIATE COPYRIGHT AND TRADEMARK PROTECTION FOR PRODUCT DESIGNS Daniel H. Breana1 Copyright (c) 2008 Intellectual Property Law Section of the State Bar of Texas; Daniel H. Brean I. Introduction 326 II. The Original Purposes of the Design Patent Laws 328 III. The Historical Development of Copyright and Trademark Protection for Designs 330 A. How Copyright Came to Protect “Designs for Useful Articles” 330 B. How Trademark Law came to Protect “Trade Dress” and “Product Design” 332 IV. Comparing the Current Subject Matter of Protectable Designs Under the Patent, 335 Copyright, and Trademark Laws A. The Subject Matter of Design Patents 336 B. Copyrightable Designs for Useful Articles 338 C. Product Designs Under Lanham Act § 43(a) 342 V. Comparing the Current Standards for Infringement of Designs Under the Patent, 346 Copyright, and Trademark Laws A. Design Patent Infringement - The Ordinary Observer Test 346 B. Copyright Infringement - Substantial Similarity and Fair Use 348 C. Trade Dress Infringement - Likelihood of Confusion 351 VI. How Designers and Manufacturers Can and Do Protect Their Designs 354 A. Who is Receiving Design Patents 354 B. Designers Who Have Utilized Copyright and Trademark Protection in Addition to or 356 in Lieu of Design Patents 1. The Statue of Liberty 356 2. The Classic Coke Bottle 357 3. The Levi’s Pocket 358 C. Amini Innovation Corp. v. Anthony Cal., Inc. - A Contemporary Case Study 361 VII. Reliance Interests in the Design Patent System 364 A.
    [Show full text]
  • Arthur Miller
    No. 18-956 In the Supreme Court of the United States GOOGLE LLC, Petitioner, v. ORACLE AMERICA, INC., Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE PROFESSOR AND FORMER CONTU MEMBER ARTHUR R. MILLER IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT THEODORE STEVENSON, III Counsel of Record CHELSEA A. PRIEST PATRICK PIJLS MCKOOL SMITH, P.C. 300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500 Dallas, TX 75201 (214) 978-4974 [email protected] TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................... II INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ............................ 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................... 2 I. Nothing Has Changed Since CONTU Addressed Many of the Issues Before This Court ................................................................. 3 II. Congress Has Accorded Copyright Protection to Functional Works Since 1790 ...................... 8 III. If a Work Becomes a Standard Form of Expression, Copyright Law Does Not Deny Protection Via Copyrightability or a Fair Use Defense ............................................................ 14 CONCLUSION .......................................................... 19 (I) II TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Apple Comput., Inc. v. Franklin Comput. Corp., 714 F.2d 1240 (3d Cir. 1983) ......................... 11, 12 Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1879) ................................................ 10 Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53 (1884) .................................................. 8 Eales v. Envtl. Lifestyles, Inc., 958 F.2d 876 (9th Cir. 1992) .................................. 9 Howell v. Miller, 91 F. 129 (6th Cir. 1898) ........................................ 9 Perris v. Hexamer, 99 U.S. 674 (1878) .............................................. 8, 9 Rockford Map Publ’rs v. Directory Serv. Co. of Colo., 768 F.2d 145 (7th Cir. 1985) ............................ 9, 13 Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) .............................................
    [Show full text]
  • The U.S. Making-Available Right: Preserving the Rights “To Publish” and “To Perform Publicly”
    The U.S. Making-Available Right: Preserving the Rights “To Publish” and “To Perform Publicly” By Thomas D. Sydnor II* EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recently, courts, litigants, policymakers and commentators have debated whether existing U.S. copyright laws based upon the Copyright Act of 1976 grant to copyright owners the “making-available right” required by the WIPO Copyright Treaty (the WCT) and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (the WPPT). ). For example, Article 14 of the WPPT states: “Producers of phonograms shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing the making available to the public of their phonograms, by wire or wireless means, in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.” The United States has acceded to and purportedly implemented this, and all other, requirements imposed by the WCT and the WPPT. Under the WCT and WPPT, a “making-available right” is an exclusive right to offer copies or streams of a copyrighted work over the Internet or a similar network to members of the public who can then decide whether to access, copy, stream, or otherwise experience the work. Such a right could be infringed by either a person posting a work on a public web-streaming site or by someone “sharing” it with other members of the public through peer-to-peer file-sharing programs like BitTorrent, Grokster, LimeWire, or KaZaA. Nevertheless, during the last decade, some judges and commentators have argued that existing U.S. copyright laws do not provide the making-available right required by the WCT, the WPPT, other treaties, and at least thirteen purportedly enacted-and-implemented bilateral or multilateral Free Trade Agreements.
    [Show full text]