LawMeme LawMeme Yale Law School  
LawMeme
Search LawMeme [ Advanced Search ]
 
 
 
 
Compulsory Licensing - What is Noncommercial Use?
Posted by Ernest Miller on Monday, September 08 @ 12:21:17 EDT Copyright
Much of the debate over compulsory licensing has been with regard to how fees are to be raised and distributed (including how the distribution of copyrighted works is to be tracked), which are enormously thorny problems. I don't believe these problems have been adequately solved by any of the schemes with which I am familiar.

However, compulsory licensing raises many more questions than that, and before we can seriously consider such schemes these questions must be answered. In an occasional series, I'll ask some of those questions that haven't gotten nearly the same attention as questions regarding fees and distribution of fees. My questions won't be all inclusive and I encourage readers to add their own questions and answers as well.

What, exactly, is noncommercial use?

Virtually all compulsory license schemes restrict themselves to noncommercial use. They are put forward as a solution to the P2P issue, of file sharing between consumers. No serious compulsory licensing scheme that I am aware of advocates that commercial vendors should be allowed free rein under the compulsory license. Unfortunately, I think that the distinction between commercial and noncommercial use in the P2P realm is not so easy to make. After all, previous compulsory licenses were essentially in the commercial realm. The commercial realm is, in many ways, much easier to regulate than the public or P2P realms (isn't that why people advocate compulsory licensing schemes in the first place?).

Some have argued that one couldn't solicit donations for engaging in noncommercial use. But how far would this restriction go? If I run a blog with a tip jar, am I prevented from having my music webcast link to my blog page? Am I prevented from running public service announcements on the webcast? If I run a neighborhood webcast that includes announcements of local events, would that be considered commercial? If the neighborhood got together and pooled money for such a webcast, would that be commercial? Who would police noncommercial use and how would those who violated this restriction be punished? There are serious questions regarding how this new regime would replace current copyright law on these issues.

Generally, most compulsory schemes would also have at least some limited privileges for noncommercial remixes, adaptations and other derivate works (often including a requirement noting the original author and the fact that modification was without consent). But what is a noncommercial remix? If I am a video artist, is it noncommercial for me to create music videos using popular music and spread them around the internet as a calling card or resume? Is it noncommercial if I identify that it was I who created the music video (and here's my homepage URL) in order to drive traffic to my site? What if my site then has a tip jar? What if my site is hosted on a service that includes third party ads in return for free hosting?

What about advertisements for third parties? Presumably it would clearly be illegal for McDonald's to make a commercial or jingle using someone else's copyrighted works without permission. But what if some fan turns a popular song into a jingle for McDonald's because they love Big Macs, or creates what is essentially a commercial for their favorite sports team using highlights and popular music? I can imagine fans of all sorts of endeavors creating their own commercials - check the web, you'll find them already. The individual creating the mixup gets no commercial benefit, so that would seem to be noncommercial use. Or would it be considered commercial, and how would we make that determination? Would third party advertisements for nonprofits be noncommercial? What about political advertisements? I recall that songwriters have objected to politicians using their songs at rallys ("I'm a Dole Man" as opposed to Isaac Hayes and Dave Porter's orginal "I'm a Soul Man").

A related question regards those who distribute such a work. What happens to P2P users who distribute a commercial work? Their distribution of the work is noncommercial, but the work itself is commercial. In traditional copyright law, if a business creates an advertisement with unlicensed content, damages can be sought and an injunction ordered to prevent distribution of the infringing work. However, once such a work gets out to the P2P public, would the public be liable for continued distribution? Could a copyright holder sue somebody who distributed an unlicensed commercial, even if the distributor didn't create it and gets no benefit from distributing it? Would the company that initially created the work have essentially unlimited liability if the infringing work became popular with the public?

Compulsory licensing has gotten a great deal of interest recently. However, I believe that we need to think a little more deeply about the issues such a system would raise.

 
Related Links
· More about Copyright
· News by Ernest Miller


Most read story about Copyright:
Top Ten New Copyright Crimes

Options

 Printer Friendly Page  Printer Friendly Page

 Send to a Friend  Send to a Friend

Threshold
  
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

Re: Compulsory Licensing - What is Noncommercial Use? (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Monday, September 08 @ 13:52:27 EDT
What we need is a model that provides for payment when revenue is received. mediAgora [mediagora.com] addresses this by providing for payments, and requiring purchase of source works alongside derived ones.


[ Reply to This ]


Re: Compulsory Licensing - What is Noncommercial Use? (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 @ 21:01:51 EDT
In discussing this very intriguing topic, could you post other sources of information? I agree further thought needs to be given; some sort of compulsory licensing scheme might be the solution adopted by holders if present draconian efforts fail.


[ Reply to This ]


Re: Compulsory Licensing - What is Noncommercial Use? (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Tuesday, October 07 @ 18:39:55 EDT
How to deal with the tracking aspect of the files under Compulsory Licensing.

If we desire to offer the customer the most benefit and least restrictions, most current DRMs would be out. My preference for some time has been a form on Content Tracking.

This would be accomplished as follows:
1. All software and/or hardware that allowed a copyrighted work to be burned, ripped, shared, etc. would be required by law to be registered by the owner prior to use. In other words, Product Activation. I know. I don't like it myself. However, the benefit of having DRM free content may be worth the trade off.

2. All content must be marked at the time of creation with certain encrypted and secure information.

This would include at a minimum:

a. Copyright Owner ID
b. Content ID (ex. ISBN # for books)
c. Content Version/Release ID
d. Root Purchaser ID
e. Current Copy Custodian ID
f. Prior Copy Custodian ID
g. Manufacturer of Hardware/Software ID
h. Serial Number of Hardware/Software
i. CRC Check or better to validate the above information has not changed since creation.



The Root Purchaser would always lead you to the individual that privided others illegal copies. The Current and Prior Custodian would provide content owners a tree to locate every individual that had received an illegal copy. Where the Root Purchaser and the Current Copy Custodian were different, you have a potential illegal copy. Content providers could then seek the identity of the user from the hardware/software ventor or approved third party for tracking such information.

In any cast, the content would play as normal. Content that had differing Root Purchaser and Current Copy Custodian could present the user with a warning message and/or be prompted to purchase a legal copy. I would make this a requirement. If a user has an illegal copy, he/she should always be given the option to purchase a legal copy. Such warnings have been used in software for some time. I ofter use the term "Nag Ware" . Nag then eneough and they either stop using the content or purchase a legal copy.

The IDs in the file header information could also be used in the tracking system to compensate content owners and creators. This information would need to be secure to allow for proper tracking of purshases. I still would not agree to preventing the content from being accessed. As a programmer myself, I have seen the occasional file header.


I haven't figured a way to prevent or track when Joe user gives a copy of his MP3s to his best friend two houses down. How to deal with the good old Copy (cp) command? Ideas?






[ Reply to This ]


Leges humanae nascuntur, vivunt, moriuntur
Human laws are born, live, and die

Contributors retain copyright interests in all stories, comments and submissions.
Everything else copyright (c) 2002 by the Information Society Project.

This material may be distributed only subject to the terms and conditions
set forth in the Open Publication License, v1.0 or later.
The latest version is currently available at http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/.

You can syndicate our news with backend.php

Page Generation: 0.246 Seconds