10 Things Cory Doctorow Hates about ASCAP

by on June 20, 2006 · 4 comments

Randy Picker has an interesting post on potential RIAA legal action against YouTube for posting videos containing copyrighted music:

The 1909 Copyright Act assigned a number of rights to copyright holders. These included the right to print and make copies of the work; to perform the work publicly if the work was a drama; and, for musical compositions, to perform the work “publicly for profit.” Be clear on what this means. Same piece of paper–sheet music–but different rights depending on use. I could buy sheet music and take it home and sing to my heart’s content, but I could not take it to my restaurant and do so without violating copyright if that counted as a public performance of the music for profit. Was it? Yes, indeed, said the Supreme Court in 1917, in Herbert v. Shanley Co., in a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Holmes. Eight years later, a federal appellate court reached the same conclusion for the new mass medium of that day, radio broadcasting. These are not laws of nature. We could have a rule that said that anyone buying sheet music can use it in any fashion possible, at home or in a restaurant, on the radio or streamed from YouTube. Our original copyright law–enacted in 1790–didn’t say anything about music at all. This is a choice, a choice that some uses are different from others and that copyright holders can appropriately charge different prices for different uses.

The question, I think, is whether the entity “publicly performing” the song is YouTube or the person who uploaded the content. I don’t know the caselaw, but it seems plausible to argue that YouTube is simply a common carrier like my ISP. And it seems like if a kid makes a video of herself singing her favorite Britney Spears song, that wouldn’t be public performance “for profit.”

In any event, Picker’s broader point is right: there’s no law of nature concerning what the precise rules ought to be. If the courts don’t come up with a reasonable solution, Congress can and should step in to clarify the rules.

If Congress does step in, I hope they’ll do so in a way that makes gems like 10 Things I Hate About Commandments possible. Collecting ASCAP royalties every time somebody watches the video probably isn’t economically feasible. And as Picker points out, it’s a great video.

  • Randy Picker

    Quick points. The “for profit” language from the 1909 Act isn’t in current law, which has a unified set of rules for public performances (not tied to profit).

    YouTube will clearly try to take advantage of the Section 512 safe harbor, and the line of cases regarding “passive” activities of intermediaries, such as the Netcom case and more recently in Fourth Circuit, CoStar. That will be the fighting ground should it ensue.

  • Randy Picker

    Quick points. The “for profit” language from the 1909 Act isn’t in current law, which has a unified set of rules for public performances (not tied to profit).

    YouTube will clearly try to take advantage of the Section 512 safe harbor, and the line of cases regarding “passive” activities of intermediaries, such as the Netcom case and more recently in Fourth Circuit, CoStar. That will be the fighting ground should it ensue.

  • http://lippard.blogspot.com/ Jim Lippard

    “it seems plausible to argue that YouTube is simply a common carrier like my ISP”

    Pet peeve–ISPs aren’t common carriers. ISPs do have exemption from liability for defamation by their users (under a piece of the Communications Decency Act that has survived constitutional scrutiny, see Zeran v. AOL, Blumenthal v. Drudge & AOL, and Aquino v. ElectriCiti), but when it comes to copyright the online provider safe harbor under the DMCA you mention is the only real route they have. And that means they’ve got to honor takedown requests and take action to remove access for users who are persistent violators.

    (BTW, to clarify, some companies that offer Internet services are regulated as common carriers, but their Internet service is not. They’re common carriers only in virtue of being ILECs/CLECs/IXCs/LD carriers.)

  • http://lippard.blogspot.com/ Jim Lippard

    “it seems plausible to argue that YouTube is simply a common carrier like my ISP”

    Pet peeve–ISPs aren’t common carriers. ISPs do have exemption from liability for defamation by their users (under a piece of the Communications Decency Act that has survived constitutional scrutiny, see Zeran v. AOL, Blumenthal v. Drudge & AOL, and Aquino v. ElectriCiti), but when it comes to copyright the online provider safe harbor under the DMCA you mention is the only real route they have. And that means they’ve got to honor takedown requests and take action to remove access for users who are persistent violators.

    (BTW, to clarify, some companies that offer Internet services are regulated as common carriers, but their Internet service is not. They’re common carriers only in virtue of being ILECs/CLECs/IXCs/LD carriers.)

Previous post:

Next post: