Digital copyright legislation passed by Congress on to the Oval Office earlier this month, is apparently a first step toward protecting copyrighted works published on the Internet.
But there will still be plenty of work left to do establishing the rules for protecting everything from sonnets to software, if President Bill Clinton signs the legislation which sets up guidelines for digital copyright protection. As of Oct. 20, the president had not signed the bill, according to information available on Congress’ legislative information Web site Thomas.
Seifert Systems Invests in Energy Efficiency to Strengthen Operations
For manufacturers, energy is more than just another operating expense. It plays a critical role…
Learn More
“Not only will there be more (laws), they’ll be more difficult,” said attorney James Webster, who is a partner in the Providence firm of Peabody & Brown and represents a number of clients dealing with intellectual property issues. “This is designed to stimulate e-commerce, not suppress it,” Webster said.
The legislation is complicated and attempts to strike a balance for a number of parties interested in the issue, including Internet service providers, academic researchers, librarians, and people who have made copyrighted works available online. Those who have published copyrighted text, art, music, spreadsheets, software and other works fear their work could be appropriated without credit or compensation, while researchers and librarians worry that legislation could limit their access to information.
Meanwhile, there is some concern about liability on the part of ISPs if a customer illegally uses someone else’s copyrighted work. Reuters news service reported on Oct. 13 that movie studios and book publishers were among those to support the legislation, because of a fear their products could be more easily pirated via the Internet. Because the legislation is so complicated, Congress approved a two-year rule making period, during which officials from the Department of Commerce will have time to research and write new rules, Webster said.
In its latest version, the bill establishes guidelines extending existing protections to any copyrighted works published online, and strengthens the protection for sites that include encryption devices designed to prevent infringement. Guidelines encouraging the use of encryption devices lessen the legal burdens for a plaintiff in cases of copyright infringement and increase the chances of establishing a successful case, Webster explained.
The bill also exempts ISPs from “liability for monetary relief for contributory infringement or vicarious liability,” if a client uses infringing material without the company’s knowledge. And it prohibits the use, sale, and manufacture of technology that helps would-be pirates evade encryption and other protection devices installed on a copyrighted site.
Though ISPs may have trouble identifying instances when customers use their service to publish material that does not belong to them, they have been the target of legal action before. This is because “many times customers have no money, but the ISP does,” Webster said. Existing copyright laws written for more traditional forms of communication don’t completely protect copyright holders when it comes to the high tech world, because of reverse engineering techniques that make it easy to cloud evidence of who really generated a particular computer document, Webster explained. But with the encryption provision it would be easier to establish who generated the original document, he added.
Electronically distributing ideas is one of the quickest ways to get an idea into the market. “The more facile that becomes for people, the more it will become a fundamental part of life,” Webster said. “The ultimate idea is for the Internet to become a real source of revenue. Nobody wants to squelch the Internet,” he added.
John Sulima, an executive with RIconneCT Internet Services in Westerly, said he is not particularly concerned about the liability issue, because he sees it as a non-issue.
“Basically as ISPs, we’re conduits for data. I don’t see how we could be held responsible,” Sulima said.
