ILNews

Anti-piracy legislation tackles IP enforcement

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The notion of pirates pillaging treasures and bartering it on the high seas isn’t that far fetched for Indianapolis intellectual property attorney Jonathan Polak.

But this is the 21st century, and the version of piracy that he keeps tabs on involves the ever-expanding online universe. The crimes of counterfeiting and piracy are entrenched in the online marketplace for everything from music, movies, and books to personal creative writing.

As attorneys analyze who owns rights and what can or can’t appear online with third-party sites, the lines between free speech and contract law get cloudy as evolving intellectual property theory is sprinkled into the mix.

Jonathan Polak Polak

“The reality is that this will only get more and more complicated as technology develops more,” said Polak, a partner at Taft Stettinius & Hollister in Indianapolis. “There have always been counterfeiters and there always will be, whatever the legal framework is that exists.”

Recognizing these IP legal issues, the U.S. government has pushed forward to crack down on online piracy and counterfeiting in recent years. Last year, President Barack Obama’s IP enforcement coordinator released the nation’s first strategy to strengthen these government enforcement efforts.

Those efforts came to a head in mid-September when Congress introduced S. 3804 – known as the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act ­­– to provide even more legal tools that might disrupt the business models of online counterfeiters and pirates. The legislation is sponsored by several lawmakers including the Senate Judiciary Committee’s chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Indiana’s Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh. It remained before the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time the Senate left for a midterm election break.

The language of the bill, which IP attorneys expect would likely be challenged in court, says that any website that’s “primarily designed, has no demonstrable, commercially significant purpose or use other than … to offer goods or services in violation of title 17, United States Code” will face shutdown.

Under the proposed legislation, the Department of Justice would file a civil action against accused pirate domain names. If the domain name is U.S.-based, then the attorney general could ask a court to find that the domain name in question is dedicated to infringing activities. The DOJ would have the authority to serve the accused site’s registrar with an order to shut down the site. It would also have the power to prevent U.S. citizens from accessing accused sites based overseas by ordering Internet service providers to black-out those sites. The government could order Google or Visa to stop doing business with the alleged pirate sites. Site registrars receiving an injunction would have the right to appeal in federal courts, which is currently the only option in those types of cases but isn’t completely covered by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act enacted in 1998.

Supporters of the bill include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, AFL-CIO, and most of the major entertainment industry trade groups. They contend online piracy is hurting the country’s economy to the tune of more than $100 billion a year. Some copyright owners say intellectual property is now a commodity because pirates all over the world make the content available for free, and backers of the bill say the government needs better tools to combat such sites domestically and abroad.

Polak, for example, said he has Internet service provider clients that get requests falling outside the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and its takedown provisions. What happens can be tricky, and often the attorneys or clients are not able to pursue actions abroad as they might against domestic sites. On one hand, you don’t want the client to be contributorily infringing on any IP rights. But on the other hand, you don’t want to act prematurely without authority and subject yourself to a damages lawsuit, he said.

“Our claims and damages arise out of the basic copyright acts and knowing that you’ve used copyrighted material,” Polak said. “You’ve got tremendous First Amendment pressures running through all of this because of the content you’re dealing with.”

Those IP issues came up in a case involving the O.J. Simpson murders in which the Ron Goldman family was pursuing damages against the former football player, Polak said. The litigation involved whether the book “If I did it” was an asset and could be used to collect damages. Polak said TMZ uploaded it to its website while someone anonymously uploaded the entire chapter about the murder onto the site piratebay.org for anyone to see and download, impacting the potential sales of the book that was a key to the damages aspect of the case.

Polak said the TMZ site issue was settled confidentially, but there was no legal mechanism in place to go after the piratebay.org site, which is operated from an island abroad.

“It’s not just a matter of the number of people who view it on the Internet,” he said. “That spreads and the actual damage becomes exponential. These sites don’t have any respect for law, let alone IP rights, and this really is where anarchy meets IP law. Right now, there’s not much we can do about it.”

A.J. Correale, an IP attorney at Frost Brown Todd in Indianapolis, said the proposed legislation would be a good move to help clients protect IP rights from those types of sites. Representing record labels and artists in the entertainment industry, he said he’s often hired to go after those pushing the envelope of what’s allowed to be posted online.

“We’ve been fighting these battles very regularly for a long time, and it’s what we’ve been seeing since 1995,” he said. “Every time there’s a technological advance, like the Internet or social networks, you see a lot of fallout from it and the laws have to be amended.”

But critics say the proposed legislation is nothing more than censorship and would heap the copyright-protection problems on companies that shouldn’t bear the burden. Technology trade groups launched a public relations attack on the bill after it was introduced, and a group of prominent engineers who helped create the Internet sent a joint letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee declaring their opposition to the legislation. The nonprofit Electronic Frontier Foundation also opposes the bill and describes it as censorship. Some Hoosier IP attorneys agree.

Todd Vare Vare

“This imposes on the DOJ essentially the litigation responsibility that’s been otherwise taken on by private citizens to monitor and regulate the Internet,” said Todd Vare, an IP attorney at Barnes & Thornburg in Indianapolis who deals with these types of IP issues generally.

Vare said this bill is driven by the music and entertainment industries that are facing more of a bottom-line impact from these sites, and that most businesses outside of Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., aren’t dealing with these issues. This proposed law is too broadly worded and gives too much power to the government, he said.

“This may be good in terms of efficiency, but it’s a negative in that it adds a lot of government involvement in our life as an Internet monitor,” Vare said. “All of our clients and companies support IP rights, but they would like to have some sense of judicial resolution rather than a governmental blacklisting of the sites.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It really doesn't matter what the law IS, if law enforcement refuses to take reports (or take them seriously), if courts refuse to allow unrepresented parties to speak (especially in Small Claims, which is supposedly "informal"). It doesn't matter what the law IS, if constituents are unable to make effective contact or receive any meaningful response from their representatives. Two of our pets were unnecessarily killed; court records reflect that I "abandoned" them. Not so; when I was denied one of them (and my possessions, which by court order I was supposed to be able to remove), I went directly to the court. And earlier, when I tried to have the DV PO extended (it expired while the subject was on probation for violating it), the court denied any extension. The result? Same problems, less than eight hours after expiration. Ironic that the county sheriff was charged (and later pleaded to) with intimidation, but none of his officers seemed interested or capable of taking such a report from a private citizen. When I learned from one officer what I needed to do, I forwarded audio and transcript of one occurrence and my call to law enforcement (before the statute of limitations expired) to the prosecutor's office. I didn't even receive an acknowledgement. Earlier, I'd gone in to the prosecutor's office and been told that the officer's (written) report didn't match what I said occurred. Since I had the audio, I can only say that I have very little faith in Indiana government or law enforcement.

  2. One can only wonder whether Mr. Kimmel was paid for his work by Mr. Burgh ... or whether that bill fell to the citizens of Indiana, many of whom cannot afford attorneys for important matters. It really doesn't take a judge(s) to know that "pavement" can be considered a deadly weapon. It only takes a brain and some education or thought. I'm glad to see the conviction was upheld although sorry to see that the asphalt could even be considered "an issue".

  3. In response to bryanjbrown: thank you for your comment. I am familiar with Paul Ogden (and applaud his assistance to Shirley Justice) and have read of Gary Welsh's (strange) death (and have visited his blog on many occasions). I am not familiar with you (yet). I lived in Kosciusko county, where the sheriff was just removed after pleading in what seems a very "sweetheart" deal. Unfortunately, something NEEDS to change since the attorneys won't (en masse) stand up for ethics (rather making a show to please the "rules" and apparently the judges). I read that many attorneys are underemployed. Seems wisdom would be to cull the herd and get rid of the rotting apples in practice and on the bench, for everyone's sake as well as justice. I'd like to file an attorney complaint, but I have little faith in anything (other than the most flagrant and obvious) resulting in action. My own belief is that if this was medicine, there'd be maimed and injured all over and the carnage caused by "the profession" would be difficult to hide. One can dream ... meanwhile, back to figuring out to file a pro se "motion to dismiss" as well as another court required paper that Indiana is so fond of providing NO resources for (unlike many other states, who don't automatically assume that citizens involved in the court process are scumbags) so that maybe I can get the family law attorney - whose work left me with no settlement, no possessions and resulted in the death of two pets (etc ad nauseum) - to stop abusing the proceedings supplemental and small claims rules and using it as a vehicle for harassment and apparently, amusement.

  4. Been on social security sense sept 2011 2massive strokes open heart surgery and serious ovarian cancer and a blood clot in my lung all in 14 months. Got a letter in may saying that i didn't qualify and it was in form like i just applied ,called social security she said it don't make sense and you are still geting a check in june and i did ,now i get a check from my part D asking for payment for july because there will be no money for my membership, call my prescription coverage part D and confirmed no check will be there.went to social security they didn't want to answer whats going on just said i should of never been on it .no one knows where this letter came from was California im in virginia and been here sense my strokes and vcu filed for my disability i was in the hospital when they did it .It's like it was a error . My ,mothers social security was being handled in that office in California my sister was dealing with it and it had my social security number because she died last year and this letter came out of the same office and it came at the same time i got the letter for my mother benefits for death and they had the same date of being typed just one was on the mail Saturday and one on Monday. . I think it's a mistake and it should been fixed instead there just getting rid of me .i never got a formal letter saying when i was being tsken off.

  5. Employers should not have racially discriminating mind set. It has huge impact on the society what the big players do or don't do in the industry. Background check is conducted just to verify whether information provided by the prospective employee is correct or not. It doesn't have any direct combination with the rejection of the employees. If there is rejection, there should be something effective and full-proof things on the table that may keep the company or the people associated with it in jeopardy.

ADVERTISEMENT