Questions for DoJ IP Attorneys Asked and Answered

Date: November 25, 2003
Source: Computer Crime Research Center


... its position such as evidence of the value of the pirated works infringed by the defendant, the number of times the pirated works were reproduced or distributed, or, in some instances, the amount of money the defendant earned from his illegal activity. At the same time, the defendant may introduce evidence to establish what he believes is the appropriate valuation for sentencing purposes. Neither the U.S. Probation Office, which ultimately recommends a sentencing range to the court in what is known as a pre-sentence report, nor the sentencing judge is bound by the government's claimed damage amount. The government's recommendation for a particular sentence is subject to multiple checks and balances. It is not simply the by-product of numbers offered by industry. We have to support and defend our position in a court of law which is the way it should be.


Finally, while people convicted of intellectual property crimes do face serious consequences for their actions, they are not treated more severely than violent criminals such as rapists. The vast majority of prosecutions of violent criminals take place at the state and local level, not the federal level, which is where DOJ s jurisdiction lies. However, in those instances where there are federal violent crimes, the penalties are more severe than those imposed for copyright infringement. For example, as mentioned, the *maximum* sentence you can receive for one count of copyright infringement is 60 months, while the *minimum* for someone convicted federally of aggravated sexual assault is generally between 70 to 87 months.




If DRM-included hardware does become the law via the CBDTPA (SSSCA) or any other legislation, how does this interact with regards to copyright expiration? The DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent such DRM, thereby basically enforcing perpetual protection of the work. If the work is perpetually protected via this combination of law and technology, how can it be copyrighted legitimately, since the work will never *really* be able to join the public domain? This is analogous to trade secrets vs. patents, unless measures are taken to ensure the DRM encryption is removed once the copyright term is over. Or would that be illegal through the DMCA as well? The DMCA states, "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." The title referred to is title 17 of the US Code, which covers copyright. I can therefore assume that removing copyright protections on expired copyrights would not be against the law. However, the DMCA also forbids the selling of tools to circumvent the very same DRM. I find it hard to believe that the RIAA/MPAA would let these tools become available regardless of the user's intent and/or rights under copyright expiration rules. Any comments about this apparent paradox?


I don t believe that the CBDTPA is under consideration in the current Congress, nor are we aware of other pending bills that would mandate the use of digital rights management systems. However, your question seems more focused on the DMCA, specifically the portions of the DMCA that govern anti-circumvention technologies, i.e. Section 1201 of Title 18. For purposes of answering this question, the term DMCA refers specifically to Section 1201.


The DMCA prohibits trafficking (which includes manufacture, sale, distribution, importation, etc.) in tools (i.e., technologies, products, services, devices, etc.) that:


(a) are primarily designed to circumvent,

(b) are primarily marketed for use in circumventing, or
(c) have limited commercially significant purpose or use other than circumventing,



either one of the following:

(1) a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title [i.e., the Copyright Act] (see 18 U.S.C. Section) 1201(a)(2); or

(2) a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright holder under this title (see Section 1201(b(1)).



The first type of control above will be referred to as an access control, the second as a copy control. In addition to the restrictions on trafficking, the DMCA also prohibits actual circumvention of access controls (see Sec. 1201(a)).

The DMCA s main purpose is to help protect the rights of copyright holders. However, the DMCA was also designed in part to protect and preserve the rights of people who use copyrighted works. First, the DMCA expressly states that it is not intended to affect limitations on copyright or defenses to infringement such as fair use. Second, the DMCA contains a number of exceptions and exemptions that, for example, allow in some circumstances reverse engineering, encryption research, and certain actions by libraries and certain educational institutions. Third, while the DMCA prohibits the actual circumvention of access controls, it does not prohibit the actual circumvention of copy controls. As the district court in the Elcom case noted, Congress omitted a prohibition against circumventing copy controls specifically so that users could engage in fair use (and, presumably, to use works that enter the public domain). (See U.S. v. Elcom, Ltd., 203 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1020 (N.D.Cal. 2002)).



Your question deals with how the DMCA might affect works that have entered the public domain. As you know, copyright law grants copyright holders certain exclusive rights, such as the right to copy and distribute their work for a period of time. Currently, the length of the copyright term is the life of the author plus 70 years; for works made for hire, it is 95 years from first publication or 120 years from creation of the work (whichever comes first). After this term expires, works enter the public domain and are presumably available in some form that can be read, viewed, heard, etc., by the public.


While a court could find that the DMCA allows the circumvention of protections on works in the public domain, the statute nonetheless prohibits trafficking in tools intended for use in circumventing controls on protected works. While those same tools could potentially be used to remove access or copy controls on works in the public domain, it may still be unlawful under the DMCA to traffic in them.


We have not encountered any criminal case that involved this specific issue. Indeed, we are not aware of a court case either civil or criminal that has addressed this issue directly (although the district court in the Remeirdes case - the 2600 magazine case - acknowledged this issue, but because it was not central to the case before it, the court declined to elaborate).


It is possible that the interplay between the DMCA and access to public domain works will be addressed through rule-making or legislation. The DMCA provides for a periodic review process by the Librarian of Congress, and the issue of circumvention of technological protections on public domain works was one of the issues raised in the most recent review session earlier this spring (See http://www.copyright.gov/1201/).


Here in Britain, we recently shut down the governemental body that regulated our train services because they were tending to take the side of the small number of contact personnel at the train companies that they dealt with on a day to day basis rather than the side of the faceless multitiude of passengers who they only knew through a few angry mails.


Given that your department will (in the vast majority on cases) be working on behalf of a very very small number of copyright-holding organisations against potentially millions of nearly anonymous file sharers, how will you prevent this 'going native' phenomenon biasing your investigations in favour of people you having a close working relationship with, and how will you defend yourselves against the inevitable accusations that you have 'gone native' and are a 'private police force' for the copyright holders?


You ask an excellent question: how do we, as federal prosecutors, ensure that we retain independent judgment throughout the prosecutorial process? The decision to bring any criminal prosecution is significant and has serious consequences. For this reason, although we work with victims frequently, we work diligently to preserve our independent prosecutorial decision-making authority.


As attorneys for the Department of Justice, our mission is to enforce the laws fully and fairly on behalf of the people of the United States. This is a responsibility we take very seriously. While we work with a wide range of victims, from large multi-national corporations to small mom and pop businesses, the ultimate responsibility for making prosecutorial decisions remains solely with us.


Throughout the criminal justice process, there are checks on how we exercise our authority, including the citizens of the grand jury (who can reject our allegations), judges (who can dismiss charges or rule evidence inadmissible), and ultimately the citizens on the trial jury (who can acquit the defendant). However, even though these checks and balances are in place, from our perspective, it is still our responsibility to maintain appropriate boundaries at all times.


As a result, we try always to exercise independent, unbiased prosecutorial judgment when reviewing cases referred to our office for prosecution. Although you may not hear about it, we frequently decide not to move forward with criminal charges even in instances where the victim wants us to do so. The public doesn't hear about the prosecutions that are declined, only those that go forward. The decision to prosecute or not is a decision based upon a full and independent evaluation of the...

---

Add comment  Email to a Friend