This American Copyright Life 201 THIS AMERICAN COPYRIGHT LIFE: REFLECTIONS on RE-EQUILIBRATING COPYRIGHT for the INTERNET AGE
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
\\jciprod01\productn\C\CPY\61-2\CPY202.txt unknown Seq: 1 1-MAY-14 10:19 This American Copyright Life 201 THIS AMERICAN COPYRIGHT LIFE: REFLECTIONS ON RE-EQUILIBRATING COPYRIGHT FOR THE INTERNET AGE by PETER S. MENELL* ABSTRACT This article calls attention to the dismal state of copyright’s public approval rating. Drawing on the format and style of Ira Glass’s “This American Life” radio broadcast, the presentation unfolds in three parts: Act I – How did we get here?; Act II – Why should society care about copyright’s public approval rating?; and Act III – How do we improve copyright’s public approval rating (and efficacy)? *Koret Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley School of Law and co-founder and Director, Berkeley Center for Law & Technology. I owe special thanks to David Anderman, Mark Avsec, Robby Beyers, Jamie Boyle, Hon. Ste- phen G. Breyer, Andrew Bridges, Elliot Cahn, David Carson, Jay Cooper, Jeff Cunard, Victoria Espinel, David Given, Jane Ginsburg, Paul Goldstein, Jim Grif- fin, Dylan Hadfield-Menell, Noah Hadfield-Menell, Scotty Iseri, Dennis Karjala, Rob Kasunic, Chris Kendrick, Mark Lemley, Larry Lessig, Jessica Litman, Rob Merges, Eli Miller, Neal Netanel, Hon. Jon O. Newman, Wood Newton, David Nimmer, Maria Pallante, Shira Perlmutter, Marybeth Peters, Gene Roddenberry, Pam Samuelson, Ellen Seidler, Lon Sobel, Chris Sprigman, Madhavi Sunder, Gary Stiffelman, Pete Townshend, Molly Van Houweling, Fred von Lohmann, Joel Waldfogel, Jeremy Williams, Jonathan Zittrain, and the participants on the Cyber- prof and Pho listserves for inspiration, perspective, provocation, and insight; and Claire Sylvia for her steadfast love, encouragement, and support. None of these people bear responsibility for what follows — and I suspect many will disagree with some or all of what I have to say. My hope is that the dot product of the reactions achieves the golden mean. Following my presentation of the Brace Lecture, I had the opportunity to re- prise the lecture at Cardozo Law School, George Washington Law School (and the D.C. Chapter of the Copyright Society), Hebrew University, Indiana University, the Northern California Chapter of the Copyright Society, Sony Pictures, Tel Aviv University, U.S. Copyright Office, University of California at Berkeley, University of California at Davis, University of California (Hastings), University of Penn- sylvania, and the USC Intellectual Property Conference Speakers’ Dinner. I thank Shyam Balganesh, Stefan Bechtold, Bob Brauneis, Ben Depoorter, Kristelia Gar- cia, Naomi Jane Gray, Justin Hughes, Linda Joy Kattwinkel, Joesph Liu, Mike Mattioli, David Morrison, Maria Pallante, Madhavi Sunder, Aimee Wolfson, Felix Wu, Christopher Yoo, and the numerous law students and copyright professionals who shared their reactions. \\jciprod01\productn\C\CPY\61-2\CPY202.txt unknown Seq: 2 1-MAY-14 10:19 202 Journal, Copyright Society of the U.S.A. CONTENTS ACT I: HOW DID WE GET HERE? ........................... 207 R A. Copyright Enforcement in the Analog Age............ 210 R B. The Gathering Digital Copyright Storm ............... 214 R C. The Perfect Copyright Storm ......................... 216 R D. The Digital Copyright Enforcement Saga.............. 218 R ACT II: WHY SHOULD SOCIETY CARE ABOUT COPYRIGHT’S PUBLIC APPROVAL RATING? ....... 236 R A. Content Governance: From the Analog Age to the Internet Age ......................................... 237 R B. Reflections on Popular Music and Independent Film in the Internet Age ..................................... 239 R 1. Popular Music: Creators Caught in a Dual Vise . 239 R 2. Popular Films: Anytime, Anywhere, and Free ..... 254 R C. The Copyright/Internet Paradox ...................... 257 R 1. Digital Music Platform Pathology ................. 258 R 2. Digital Film Platform Pathology................... 263 R ACT III: HOW DO WE IMPROVE COPYRIGHT’S PUBLIC APPROVAL RATING (AND EFFICACY)? ............. 264 R A. Legislative Agenda ................................... 268 R 1. Dual Enforcement Regime........................ 268 R a) Non-Commercial/Small-Scale Infringers ....... 269 R (1) Re-calibrating Statutory Damages ......... 272 R (2) Expanded Subpoena Power for Detecting File-Sharers ............................... 273 R (3) Confirming the Making Available Right . 274 R (4) Encouraging Responsibility for Web Access Points .................................... 277 R (5) A Small Claims Processing Institution for File-Sharing Infringements ................ 277 R b) Commercial/Large Scale Infringers ............ 278 R (1) Re-calibrating Statutory Damages ......... 279 R (2) Instituting Balanced Public Enforcement . 283 R (a) A Balanced Public Enforcement Process ................................. 295 R (b) Working Collaboratively Across the Content and Technology Sectors ........ 297 R (c) Balanced International Efforts to Promote Copyright Protection .......... 301 R c) Whistleblower Bounties ....................... 303 R 2. Promoting Cumulative Creativity.................. 305 R a) Academic Research ........................... 306 R b) Digital Archiving and Search.................. 308 R \\jciprod01\productn\C\CPY\61-2\CPY202.txt unknown Seq: 3 1-MAY-14 10:19 This American Copyright Life 203 c) Orphan Works ................................ 310 R d) Operationalizing Fair Use ..................... 312 R e) Experimental and Self-Expressive Use ........ 314 R f) Photography of Public Art .................... 316 R g) Remix Compulsory License ................... 318 R h) Enhanced Penalties for Abuse of the Notice and Takedown System ........................ 324 R B. Market-Based Solutions .............................. 325 R 1. The Grand Kumbaya Experiment ................. 327 R 2. Graduated Embrace .............................. 332 R CONCLUSIONS ................................................ 337 R I am deeply honored to deliver the Brace Lecture, which has long served as a platform for celebrating, understanding, and addressing the challenges of the copyright system.1 I dare say that at no time in the Brace Lecture’s forty-two year history, or for that matter, copyright law’s 300 year history, has the copyright system been more severely criticized as being out of touch and out of date. We are now thirteen years since Napster’s revolutionary appearance — what seems like an eternity in the rapidly evolving Internet Age. My law students have come of age in the post-Napster era. Netizens who were in high school when peer-to-peer functionality went viral are now beyond the age at which no one should be trusted.2 We have since seen the rise of innumerable file-sharing and cyberlocker services. The emergence of the Internet as a principal platform for distributing works of authorship has 1 Prior Brace lecturers include many of the most influential copyright jurists, practitioners, and academics. I have had the honor to learn from and, in two cases, collaborate with prior Brace lecturers — David Nimmer, Paul Goldstein, Mark Lemley, and Jane Ginsburg. I also want to recognize special debts to the Honorable Stephen G. Breyer and the Honorable Jon O. Newman. I had the opportunity to write my first article on copyright law — Tailoring Legal Protection for Computer Software, 39 STAN. L. REV. 1329 (1987) — in a seminar led by then-Judge, now Justice, Breyer. His economic and policy orientation resonated with my graduate studies in law and economics and has provided a valuable foundation throughout my career. Following law school, I had the privilege to clerk for Judge Newman on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. His deep interest in copyright jurisprudence and legislative history very much influenced my own understanding, appreciation, and interest in this extraordinary and dynamic field. 2 The 1960s phrase “Don’t Trust Anyone Over 30” was first uttered by Jack Weinberg, a UC Berkeley student involved with the Free Speech Movement, in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle in 1964. See Don’t Trust Anyone Over 30, Unless It’s Jack Weinberg, BERKELEY DAILY PLANET (Apr. 6, 2000), http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2000-04- 06/article/759. \\jciprod01\productn\C\CPY\61-2\CPY202.txt unknown Seq: 4 1-MAY-14 10:19 204 Journal, Copyright Society of the U.S.A. focused public opinion on copyright law like at no other time in copyright’s long history. As last year’s cataclysmic battle over the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) revealed, the glare of public opinion can be harsh.3 For those reasons, I would like to begin this year’s Brace Lecture by calling attention to a topic that has not attracted much attention at such staid gatherings: copyright’s public approval rating. For reasons that I will explain, the public’s perception of the copyright system has become increasingly central to its efficacy and vitality. I believe that copyright’s role in promoting progress in the creative arts, freedom, and democratic values depends critically upon restoring public support for its purposes and rules. Rather than approach this lecture as merely an opportunity to present an academic paper, I have chosen a more personal and confessional approach. I hope that this will be more entertaining than a traditional lecture. But more importantly, I hope that my journey will better communicate the difficult challenges confronting the copyright system and reveal key insights for sustaining and improving it. The confessional aspect of my story revolves around my struggle with what I will call technology-content schizophrenia4 — a disorder that has not yet