Issue of Copyrights: For Now, It’s Cloudy in Cyberspace : Congress and courts are faced with a spate of questions
In a major case addressing key issues of the Internet, a U.S. district court has ruled that an online provider can be held liable for violating copyright law in cyberspace. The San Jose decision and a similar court case now pending in Virginia have revived the debate among civil libertarians and business interests over unencumbered access to information versus intellectual property rights. Congress could help sort things out by passing legislation that carefully balances the legitimate interests of consumers and creators.
Authors, photographers, software writers and other creative people should be compensated for their published works. In the world of paper, normally they are. But in cyberspace, in instances too numerous to track with accuracy, copyrighted material is easily duplicated and distributed illegally. The practice goes far beyond what the courts consider “fair use” under copyright laws.
Rooting out these cyberpirates is difficult in the vast reaches of the computer universe, which includes tens of thousands of networks accessed by tens of millions of users across the globe. That complexity has the courts and legislators playing catch-up in the arena of responsibilities and obligations.
In the San Jose case, for instance, U.S. District Judge Ronald M. Whyte determined in February that a Church of Scientology member-turned-critic had posted copyrighted material of the church on a computer bulletin board. In his 32-page ruling, Whyte held that the bulletin board operator and Netcom, a San Jose-based commercial online content provider, could be held liable for copyright infringement if they were aware they were breaking a law. That question will be settled in a coming trial.
The San Jose decision has caused concern among content providers--primarily book publishers--who complain that the ruling threatens to undercut copyright protection if violators can plead ignorance of the law. The critics contend that without blanket protection, the marketplace will not support their creations. The issue is who is responsible when copyrighted materials are disseminated without permission. What obligation do online providers (whom some liken to publishers) have to police the materials made available on their commercial networks?
Some of those issues could be addressed in legislation. For instance, Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) and Rep. Carlos J. Moorhead (R-Glendale) have introduced bills that would extend copyright protections specifically to digitally transmitted work. The measures would prohibit products designed to circumvent copyright protection systems. They would also make it a crime to intentionally “alter or falsify copyrighted material.” The Senate is scheduled to hold hearings on the legislation later this month. Other bills on the subject are anticipated.
New technology also may help, especially on the problem of illegally copied computer software. Computer encryption would allow distributors to prevent customers from capturing software and passing it on to unauthorized users.
Clearly more comprehensive Internet-related legislation on copyrights will be necessary. But as with the Hatch/Moorhead legislation, more discussion and negotiation will be needed to ensure that all sides are heard and all legal aspects discussed. There must not be a repeat of the Communications Decency Act fiasco. That law, which by most accounts did not receive a proper airing in Washington before its passage, is being challenged in the courts.
Thomas Jefferson once said of the suitability of laws in changing times, “We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him as a boy.” A Department of Commerce report on the question of new technology systems and copyrights noted the Jefferson quote and remarked, “Our task is to determine whether the coat still fits in this new information age.”
