DOCSLIB.ORG

Napster, the Net Act, and the Criminal Prosecution of File-Sharing." American University Law Review 50, No.2 (2000): 473-532

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

American University Law Review Volume 50 | Issue 2 Article 7 2000 COMMENT: A Nation of Felons?: Napster, the Net Act, and the Criminal Prosecution of File- Sharing Aaron M. Bailey American University Washington College of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Bailey, Aaron M. "COMMENT: A Nation of Felons?: Napster, the Net Act, and the Criminal Prosecution of File-Sharing." American University Law Review 50, no.2 (2000): 473-532. This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COMMENT: A Nation of Felons?: Napster, the Net Act, and the Criminal Prosecution of File-Sharing This comment is available in American University Law Review: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr/vol50/iss2/7 BAILEYPP.DOC 8/15/2001 11:40 AM COMMENT A NATION OF FELONS?: NAPSTER, THE NET ACT, AND THE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OF FILE-SHARING ∗ AARON M. BAILEY TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction.........................................................................................474 I. Background ...............................................................................478 A. The Fury Over MP3 “File-sharing”.....................................478 1. Technology....................................................................478 2. Why prosecute, and who? .............................................481 a. Potential defendants ...............................................482 b. Prosecutors ..............................................................484 c. Victims......................................................................485 B. The Object of “Theft”: Copyright as Property, Infringement and Defenses ...............................................488 1. What is being “stolen”? .................................................488 2. Criminal infringement before the rise of the internet..........................................................................489 3. Copyright Felony Act of 1992 and No Electronic Theft Act of 1997 ..........................................................491 4. Contributory and vicarious infringement....................493 5. Defenses to criminal infringement ..............................497 a. Substantial noninfringing uses ...............................498 b. Fair use.....................................................................500 6. Copyright legislation in the digital age........................502 ∗ Editor-in-Chief, American University Law Review, Volume 51; J.D. Candidate, 2002, American University, Washington College of Law; M.A., 1998, American University; A.B., 1995, Wabash College. The author thanks the many people who made this Comment possible, including Professor Peter Jaszi, Russell Upton, and Antonia Fasanelli. Special thanks go to Susan K. Nutter and my parents, Al and Teresa Bailey, without whose support the entire project would have been impossible. 473 BAILEYPP.DOC 8/15/2001 11:40 AM 474 AMERICAN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 50:473 II. Analysis.......................................................................................506 A. Is File-Sharing an Inherently Criminal Activity? ...............506 B. Criminal Liability for FTSs? ...............................................509 1. Contributory and vicarious criminal liability...............509 2. Conspiracy and accomplice liability.............................511 C. Criminal Infringement and File-Sharing Software Users....................................................................................513 1. Identification of criminal infringers ............................514 2. The elimination of the profit motive, the value of infringed works, and fair use........................................518 3. “Willful” infringement ..................................................522 4. Constitutional constraints to enforcement: The Fourth Amendment......................................................524 5. Entrapment ...................................................................529 6. Jurisdiction ....................................................................530 Conclusion ...........................................................................................531 Mr. Levy’s case should serve as a notice that the Justice Department has made prosecution of Internet piracy one of its priorities . Those who engage in this activity, whether or not for profit, should take heed that we will bring federal resources to bear to prosecute these cases. This is theft, pure and simple.1 James K. Robinson, Assistant Attorney General INTRODUCTION At the beginning of the new millennium, time and space are no longer obstacles to the flow of information and ideas.2 The Internet revolution is changing the way we live, work, and entertain ourselves.3 1. Ashbel S. Green, Net Piracy Law Gets First Conviction: UO Student, PORTLAND OREGONIAN, Aug. 21, 1999, at A1 (noting that the prosecution of Jeffrey Levy for criminal infringement of software and other protected works was the first successful prosecution under the No Electronic Theft (NET) Act of 1997). 2. See BRYAN ELLICKSON, GAUGING THE INFORMATION REVOLUTION 1-3 (1991); National Research Council, The Digital Dilemma: Intellectual Property in the Information Age, at http://books.nap.edu/ html/digital_dillemma/exec_summ.html (last visited May 22, 2000). 3. See DAN MABRY LACY, FROM GRUNTS TO GIGABYTES: COMMUNICATIONS AND SOCIETY 152-56 (1996) (describing the “explosion” of information technologies in the latter half of the twentieth century, including the advent of the “information highway”); David Beckman & David Hirsch, We Log On, Therefore We Believe: Philosophically Speaking, the Internet is Creating a New Reality, 86 A.B.A. J. 74 (2000) (arguing that attorneys must be cognizant of the Internet because it is homogenizing the way people view the world around them and speaking effectively to a jury requires knowledge of this Internet-reality); Peter Magnusson, The Internet Revolution History and Significance (Feb. 5, 1997), at http://www.sics.se/~psm/ar97/sld003.htm (noting that “[t]he Internet represents a fundamental and extensive force of change that will leave few areas of our lives unaffected”); National Research Council, The Digital Dilemma: Intellectual Property in the Information Age, at http://books.nap.edu/html/digital_dillemma/exec_summ.html (last visited May 22, BAILEYPP.DOC 8/15/2001 11:40 AM 2000] NAPSTER CRIMINAL PROSECUTION 475 At the same time, the Internet is also changing the way laws are broken.4 Internet-related technologies have recently become the focus of criticism and mild paranoia.5 For many, the focal point of this fear is the increasingly ugly battle centered on the distribution of copyrighted music via the Internet using a digital format known as “MP3.”6 Some critics argue that the monetary survival of artists is at stake because of the e-assault on copyright law led by “file-sharing” companies like Napster.com.7 Nevertheless, prosecutors have not yet filed criminal charges against these particular, alleged enemies of copyright.8 Although lawsuits may put MP3-trading Web sites out of business, the problem of file-trading will not end with Napster and its clones. Napster, which relies on an index available on a central server, is a 2000); COMPUTERS AND SOCIETY 2-5 (Colin Beardon & Diane Whitehouse eds., 1993). 4. See Laura Ann Forbes, Note, A More Convenient Crime: Why States Must Regulate Internet-Related Criminal Activity Under the Dormant Commerce Clause, 20 PACE L. REV. 189, 192 (1999) (noting that the Internet has provided a “new instrumentality” for criminals to commit old-fashioned crimes); Robert L. Ullmann & David L. Ferrera, Crime on the Internet, 42 BOSTON B.J. 4, 4 (1998) (noting that Internet crimes have grown in number along with the number of users and that the costs to businesses are astoundingly high). 5. One group of outraged music fans created a web site in an effort to sabotage Napster, explaining that its mission is to create “a monkey wrench in the machinery of online piracy” and noting that “[p]erhaps [this time web anarchy is] taking a form that shakes up your comfortable little online music shop.” See Cuckoo’s Egg Project Home Page, at http://www.hand-2-mouth.com/cuckooegg (last visited July 13, 2000). 6. See Tatiana Boncompagni, After Napster: Controversy Over Music Downloads Spurs Hill Lobbying Campaign, LEGAL TIMES (Washington, D.C.), Aug. 14, 2000, at 1 (noting that both Napster and the RIAA procured the services of lobbyists in Washington in an effort to secure beneficial legislation); Patricia Jacobus, Napster Suit Tests New Copyright Law, at http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-202-1679581.html (Apr. 11, 2000) (noting that the RIAA suit against Napster would be a significant test for application of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act); Major Recording Labels Sue MP3Board on Copyright (June 23, 2000), at http://legalnews.findlaw.com/ legalnews/ s/20000623/n23147889.html (reporting that BMG Music, Sony Music Entertainment, Inc., and Warner Brothers Records had filed a suit against MP3Board, Inc. for facilitating piracy of copyrighted musical works); Andy Sullivan, Online-Music
Recommended publications
  • PRO IP Act Annual Report FY 2019

    PRO IP Act Annual Report FY 2019

    United States Department of Justice ____________________________ PRO IP Act Annual Report FY 2019 PRO IP ACT ANNUAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FY 2019 INTRODUCTION The Department of Justice (the “Department” or “DOJ”)1 submits this Fiscal Year 2019 (“FY 2019”) annual report to the United States Congress pursuant to Section 404 of the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008 (“PRO IP Act” or “Act”), Pub. L. No. 110-403. The Act imposes a number of annual reporting requirements on the Attorney General, including actions the Department has taken to implement Title IV of the Act (“Department of Justice Programs”) and “a summary of the efforts, activities, and resources the [Department] has allocated to the enforcement, investigation, and prosecution of intellectual property crimes.” The Act requires similar reporting by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) on its intellectual property (“IP”) enforcement efforts pursuant to Title IV of the Act. To the extent a particular request seeks information maintained by the FBI, the Department respectfully refers Congress to the FBI Fiscal Year 2019 Report to Congress on Intellectual Property Enforcement (“FBI’s Annual Report”). 1 Appendix A contains a glossary of acronyms referenced throughout this report. PRO IP Act Annual Report FY 2019 1 Section 404(a) of the PRO IP Act requires the Attorney General to report annually to Congress on the Department’s efforts to implement eight specified provisions of Title IV during the prior fiscal year. Those provisions and the Department’s efforts to implement them during FY 2019 (i.e., October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019) are set forth below.
  • Section 512 of Title 17 a Report of the Register of Copyrights May 2020 United States Copyright Office

    Section 512 of Title 17 a Report of the Register of Copyrights May 2020 United States Copyright Office

    united states copyright office section 512 of title 17 a report of the register of copyrights may 2020 united states copyright office section 512 of title 17 a report of the register of copyrights may 2020 U.S. Copyright Office Section 512 Report ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The publication of this Report is the final output of several years of effort by the Copyright Office to assist Congress with evaluating ways to update the Copyright Act for the 21st century. The genesis of this Report occurred in the midst of the two years of copyright review hearings held by the House Judiciary Committee that spanned the 113th and 114th Congresses. At the twentieth and final hearing in April 2015, the Copyright Office proposed several policy studies to aid Congress in its further review of the Copyright Act. Two studies already underway at the time were completed after the hearings: Orphan Works and Mass Digitization (2015), which the Office later supplemented with a letter to Congress on the “Mass Digitization Pilot Program” (2017), and The Making Available Right in the United States (2016). Additional studies proposed during the final hearing that were subsequently issued by the Office included: the discussion document Section 108 of Title 17 (2017), Section 1201 of Title 17 (2017), and Authors, Attribution, and Integrity: Examining Moral Rights in the United States (2019). The Office also evaluated how the current copyright system works for visual artists, which resulted in the letter to Congress titled “Copyright and Visual Works: The Legal Landscape of Opportunities and Challenges” (2019). Shortly after the hearings ended, two Senators requested a review of the role of copyright law in everyday consumer products and the Office subsequently published a report, Software-Enabled Computer Products (2016).
  • THE CRIMINAL COPYRIGHT GAP Eldar Haber*

    THE CRIMINAL COPYRIGHT GAP Eldar Haber*

    Draft – Please do not cite without permission THE CRIMINAL COPYRIGHT GAP Eldar Haber* ABSTRACT Copyright law undergoes a criminalization process. Since the birth of criminal copyright in the 19th century, there has been a substantial increase in criminal copyright legislation. Copyright criminalization could possibly lead to a paradigm shift towards a criminal-oriented law. However, legislation alone is insufficient to change the perception of copyright as a criminal-oriented law, as it also depends on practice. Thus, if enforcement is sporadic and relatively low, an increase of criminal legislation in copyright law does not mark a paradigmatical change towards a criminal copyright perception. Analyzing statistical data regarding criminal copyright prosecutions reveals that criminal prosecutions are still relatively rare. Although the massive increase of criminal copyright legislation should have led to a higher scale of enforcement, the current reality is that criminal prosecutions are scant, leading to a criminal copyright gap between legislation and enforcement. This Article introduces the criminal copyright gap. I review the legislative history of copyright criminalization since its birth in 1897, while dividing the process into two separate phases: The Low-Tech Phase that took place in the end of the 19th century; and the High-Tech Phase, which is further divided into two sub-phases: an analog phase, which occurred in the beginning of the 1970s and lasted until 1992, and a digital phase, which occurred in the beginning of 1992 and still lasts. Then, I examine the practical aspects of copyright criminalization by analyzing statistical data on criminal copyright filings. I argue that statistical data reveals that the on-going legislative process of copyright criminalization is not applied in practice, and thus search for the possible explanations of this criminal copyright gap.
  • Privacy Vs. Piracy

    Privacy Vs. Piracy

    KATYAL: PRIVACY VS. PIRACY ARTICLE PRIVACY VS. PIRACY SONIA K. KATYAL* I. COMPETING FRAMEWORKS OF PRIVACY AND PROPERTY ...... 231 A. A SYMBIOTIC VIEW FROM REAL SPACE ........................... 233 B. A HIERARCHICAL VIEW FROM CYBERSPACE ................... 241 1. PLACE AND PANOPTICISM ......................................... 244 2. THE DIGITAL PERSONA AS PROPERTY ....................... 251 II. THE CONVERGENCE BETWEEN CONSUMER AND PIRACY SURVEILLANCE .................................................................... 263 A. ORIGINS OF PIRACY SURVEILLANCE ............................... 271 1. THE DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT AND PEER- TO-PEER JURISPRUDENCE ......................................... 271 2. THE LEGACY OF VERIZON ......................................... 281 B. SPECTERS OF PIRACY SURVEILLANCE ............................. 290 1. M ONITORING ............................................................ 293 2. M ANAGEM ENT .......................................................... 304 3. INTERFERENCE ......................................................... 311 III. TOWARDS A REGIME OF PANOPTIC PUBLICATION ................. 316 A. PRIVACY AND AUTONOMY ............................................... 319 B. DUE PROCESS AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION ............... 328 IV. BALANCING PRIVATE AND PUBLIC ENFORCEMENT .............. 335 V . C ON CLU SION ....................................................................... 345 This article was jointly reviewed and edited by YALE JOURNAL OF LAW & TECHNOLOGY and INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
  • Common Law Misappropriation in the Digital Era

    Common Law Misappropriation in the Digital Era

    Missouri Law Review Volume 64 Issue 4 Fall 1999 Article 3 Fall 1999 Common Law Misappropriation in the Digital Era Dale P. Olson Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Dale P. Olson, Common Law Misappropriation in the Digital Era, 64 MO. L. REV. (1999) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol64/iss4/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Missouri Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Olson: Olson: Common Law Misappropriation in the Digital Era Common Law Misappropriation in the Digital Era Dale P. Olson* I. INTRODUCTION Information is often valuable and when publicly disclosed may be difficult to protect or control.' Such information, whether in the form of data or a product configuration, unless it can be exploited while keeping it secret,2 is accordingly susceptible to copying by competitors absent legal protection. The law, however, has not provided a framework that supplements the armamentarium of federal intellectual property law3 because the protection authorized by federal constitutional limits also thrust works into the public domain. The evolving technological developments which permit the effectively instantaneous transmission of information, as well as the inexpensive copying of trade values in products, imposes an evolving challenge in providing a balance between protection of works and overprotection of works.
  • Charismatic Code, Social Norms, and the Emergence of Cooperation on the File-Sharing Networks

    Charismatic Code, Social Norms, and the Emergence of Cooperation on the File-Sharing Networks

    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 2003 Charismatic Code, Social Norms, and the Emergence of Cooperation on the File-Sharing Networks Lior Strahilevitz Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Lior Strahilevitz, "Charismatic Code, Social Norms, and the Emergence of Cooperation on the File-Sharing Networks," 89 Virginia Law Review 505 (2003). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW VOLUME 89 MAY 2003 NUMBER 3 ARTICLE CHARISMATIC CODE, SOCIAL NORMS, AND THE EMERGENCE OF COOPERATION ON THE FILE- SWAPPING NETWORKS Lior Jacob Strahilevitz * INTROD U CTION ................................................................................... 507 I. AN INTRODUCTION TO NAPSTER, GNUTELLA, AND THE FILE-SWAPPING HYBRIDS ........................................... 510 A . Nap ster ................................................................................... 511 1. Napster in Brief ............................... 511 2. Napster's G rowth ............................................................. 512 3. The Napster Litigation and Its Fallout.......................... 513 B . G n utella .................................................................................
  • When Code Isn't Law

    When Code Isn't Law

    Columbia Law School Scholarship Archive Faculty Scholarship Faculty Publications 2003 When Code Isn't Law Tim Wu Columbia Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Tim Wu, When Code Isn't Law, VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW, VOL. 89, P. 679, 2003; UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA SCHOOL OF LAW PUBLIC LAW & LEGAL THEORY RESEARCH WORKING PAPER NO. 03-10 (2003). Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/1290 This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Scholarship Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Archive. For more information, please contact [email protected]. UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA SCHOOL OF LAW 2003 SPRING PUBLIC LAW AND LEGAL THEORY RESEARCH PAPERS SERIES WHEN CODE ISN’T LAW TIM WU WORKING PAPER NO. 03-10 This Paper Can Be Downloaded Without Charge From The Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection Http://Ssrn.Com/Abstract_Id=413201 101 102 Virginia Law Review Vol. 89:nnn 2003] Compliance & Code 103 VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW VOLUME 89 JUNE 2003 NUMBER 4 ARTICLE WHEN CODE ISN’T LAW Tim Wu* INTRODUCTION...................................................................................104 I. A THEORY OF CODE, CHANGE, AND AVOIDANCE ...........................110 A. Reactions to Law in General Theories of Regulation .............110 B. When Groups Get Sick of Complying.....................................112 1. Avoidance Mechanisms ...................................................112 2. Change Mechanisms........................................................116 3. Summary: The Change/Avoidance Choice .......................118 C.
  • Intellectual Property Law Research Charlene Cain American University Washington College of Law, Ccain@Wcl.American.Edu

    Intellectual Property Law Research Charlene Cain American University Washington College of Law, [email protected]

    American University Washington College of Law Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law Research Guides Pence Law Library 1-1-2010 Intellectual Property Law Research Charlene Cain American University Washington College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/research_guides Part of the Intellectual Property Commons Recommended Citation Cain, Charlene, "Intellectual Property Law Research" (2010). Research Guides. Paper 8. http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/research_guides/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Pence Law Library at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Research Guides by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Intellectual Property Law Research Finding intellectual property materials in LEAGLE Search the following subject headings: Competition, Unfair Copyright Intellectual Property Marks of origin WASHINGTON COLLEGE OF LAW OF COLLEGE WASHINGTON Patents Trade Secrets Trademarks MERICAN NIVERSITY A Trademark infringement U Note: Use any of the above, narrowed by the following: --jurisdiction and —law and legislation Statutes Copyright 17 USC 101-801 Consolidated copyright laws: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/ LexisNexis: 17 USCS; Westlaw: FIP-USCA Trademarks 15 USC Ch 22 http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/law/CFR_12-28-09_tmlaw2.pdf LexisNexis: 15 USCS; Westlaw: FIP-USCA Patents 35 USC §1 et seq; LIBRARY.WCL.AMERICAN.EDU Consolidated Patent laws: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/ PENCE LAW LIBRARY PENCE LAW consolidated_laws.pdf See also 15 USC Ch 63 (Technology Innovation) LexisNexis: 15 USCS, 35 USCS; Westlaw: FIP-USCA Trade secrets Trade secrets law occurs at the state level.
  • File Sharing and Copyright Policy

    File Sharing and Copyright Policy

    NICHOLS COLLEGE File Sharing and Copyright Policy All members of the Nichols College community are expected to comply with Title 17 of the United States Code “also known as the “Copyright Act of 1976’” and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (1998) in their use of the College’s Internet connection. All users of Nichols College network resources are also expected to abide by the rules in the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 with regard to peer-to-peer file sharing. One site that can be used as reference for what sites to use for legal downloads of protected materials is www.campusdownloading.com. What You Can Do Make a backup copy of a CD, a DVD, or software that you purchased for your own use Copy music or movies that you purchase to your computer Copy music or movies that you purchase to your PDA, iPod, or MP3 music device Make a CD for yourself from music that you purchase from appropriate sites on the Internet What You Cannot Do Share, for others to download, music or movies, or software via a network (including the Internet) Make copies of a CD, DVD, or Software to give to a friend or that you borrowed from a friend Distribute for personal gain music you have purchased or downloaded Download music, movies, or software without purchasing it (unless it is legally “free”) Consequences of Violations Violations of copyright law can have serious consequences in the area of: Civil Liability – Persons found to have infringed may be held liable for substantial damages and attorneys’ fees.
  • Do NOT PASS Go, Do NOT PAY CIVIL DAMAGES: the UNITED STATES' HESITATION TOWARDS the INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION on CYBERCRIME's COPYRIGHT PROVISIONS

    Do NOT PASS Go, Do NOT PAY CIVIL DAMAGES: the UNITED STATES' HESITATION TOWARDS the INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION on CYBERCRIME's COPYRIGHT PROVISIONS

    Go TO JAIL-Do NOT PASS Go, Do NOT PAY CIVIL DAMAGES: THE UNITED STATES' HESITATION TOWARDS THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON CYBERCRIME'S COPYRIGHT PROVISIONS ADRIENNE N. KITCHEN Abstract The problem of combating copyright infringement increases tenfold when considered in light of today's global and digital environment. As more authors seek copyright protection, others seek to get around it by evading jurisdictional reach. The Council of Europe has developed the world's first International Convention on Cybercrime, which incorporates harsh substantive copyright provisions but neglects to include effective enforcement protocols. This Comment proposes that the United States not rush to adopt the Council of Europe's Convention, but rather seek a more definitive and effective solution in a singularly-focused agreement on intellectual property rights in a global economic context. Copyright © 2002 The John Marshall Law School Cite as 1 J. MARSHALL REV. INTELL. PROP. L. 364 Go TO JAIL-Do NOT PASS Go, Do NOT PAY CIVIL DAMAGES: THE UNITED STATES' HESITATION TOWARDS THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON CYBERCRIME'S COPYRIGHT PROVISIONS ADRIENNE N. KITCHEN* There are millions of people with personal computers to make copies. That is exactly one of the reasons I think you want to be very careful. You do not want to be accidentally taking a large percentage of the American people, either small business or citizens, into the gray area of criminal law.1 INTRODUCTION In the summer of 2001, a young Russian man named Dmitri Skylarov traveled to Las Vegas to take
  • The Fallacy That Fair Use and Information Should Be Provided for Free: an Analysis of the Responses to the DMCA's Section 1201, 31 Fordham Urb

    The Fallacy That Fair Use and Information Should Be Provided for Free: an Analysis of the Responses to the DMCA's Section 1201, 31 Fordham Urb

    Fordham Urban Law Journal Volume 31 | Number 1 Article 7 2003 The alF lacy that Fair Use and Information Should be Provided for Free: An Analysis of the Responses to the DMCA's Section 1201 Mauricio España Fordham University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Mauricio España, The Fallacy that Fair Use and Information Should be Provided for Free: An Analysis of the Responses to the DMCA's Section 1201, 31 Fordham Urb. L.J. 135 (2003). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol31/iss1/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Urban Law Journal by an authorized editor of FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The alF lacy that Fair Use and Information Should be Provided for Free: An Analysis of the Responses to the DMCA's Section 1201 Cover Page Footnote Mauricio España, J.D. 2003, Fordham University School of Law; Associate, Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw (as of September 2003). I would like to thank everyone who supported and encouraged me as I strived to carry on my endeavors. I would like to express special gratitude to my mother, father, family, and friends for their unending support, tolerance, and understanding. This article is available in Fordham Urban Law Journal: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol31/iss1/7
  • The Honeymoon Is Over: Evaluating the U.S.-China WTO Intellectual Property Complaint

    The Honeymoon Is Over: Evaluating the U.S.-China WTO Intellectual Property Complaint

    Fordham International Law Journal Volume 32, Issue 1 2008 Article 12 The Honeymoon is Over: Evaluating The U.S.-China WTO Intellectual Property Complaint Donald P. Harris∗ ∗ Copyright c 2008 by the authors. Fordham International Law Journal is produced by The Berke- ley Electronic Press (bepress). http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj The Honeymoon is Over: Evaluating The U.S.-China WTO Intellectual Property Complaint Donald P. Harris Abstract Over the last two decades, the United States and the People’s Republic of China have engaged in extensive negotiations regarding China’s protection of intellectual property rights. To date, the countries have entered into at least four substantive agreements detailing China’s commitments and obligations to enforce intellectual property rights (IPRs). Unfortunately, these commitments have not led to significant improvement in China’s enforcement of rampant piracy. When, in 2001, China finally acceded to the World Trade Organization, which included the Agreement on the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), many hoped that China would effectively finally fulfill its international obligations to protect intellectual property rights. Indeed, the United States initially refrained from taking any overt action against China for the next few years. The United States signaled this honeymoon period was over in April 2007 when it filed a controversial WTO complaint against China. The complaint charges China with violating its obligations under TRIPS to provide adequate protection for and deterrence against infringing intellectual property rights. THE HONEYMOON IS OVER: THE U.S.-CHINA WTO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY COMPLAINT Donald P. Harris* INTRODUCTION China's potential to become a major economic player was the source of extensive economic and political commentary dur- ing the 1980s and 1990s.' Today, China is well on its way to ful- filling-if it has not already fulfilled-that potential.