Making Available Right Report From U.S. Copyright Office

united states copyright office
the making available right

in the united states
a report of the register of copyrights
february 2016
united states copyright office
the making available right

in the united states
a report of the register of copyrights
february 2016
U.S.CopyrightOffice
TheMakingAvailableRightintheUnitedStates
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
TheU.S.CopyrightOfficepreparedthisreportfollowingacomprehensiveanalysisofU.S.and
internationallegaldevelopments.Iamconfidentthatitwillbeavaluableresourcetothe
Congress,thecourts,andthepublicformanyyearstocome.
Iextendmyappreciationandrespecttomycolleaguesandstaffwhoworkeddiligentlyonthe
reportfortwoyears.TheOfficeofPolicyandInternationalAffairs,U.S.CopyrightOffice,took
thelead,underKarynTempleClaggett,AssociateRegisterandDirectorofPolicyand
InternationalAffairs,andMariaStrong,DeputyDirectorofPIA,whotogetherguidedtheproject
frominitialresearchtoroundtablediscussions,drafting,andrecommendations.
IamgratefulforthecontributionsofKevinAmerandKimberleyIsbell,SeniorCounselsinPIA,
whoservedastheprincipalauthors;theirdedicatedanalysisandcommandofcomplexissues
wasoutstanding.JacquelineCharlesworth,GeneralCounselandAssociateRegister,andRob
Kasunic,DirectorofRegistrationPolicy&PracticeandAssociateRegister,providedkeeninsights
ondomesticlawmattersthroughoutthestudyprocess.
Severalmembersofthelegalstaffprovidedvaluablelegalanalysesandcitationandresearch
assistancealongtheway,includingCounselsBradGreenberg,AureliaSchultz,andKatieAlvarez;
AttorneyAdvisorChristopherWeston;andRingerFellowsDonaldStevens,MichelleChoe,and
AndrewMoore.FormerPIAattorneysandlawclerksalsoparticipatedbyprovidingresearch
andcitationassistance,includingAttorneyAdvisorAaronWatson,CounselMollyTorsenStech,
aswellasLawClerksKonstantiaKatsouli,XingyuLiu,CherylFoong,DawnLeung,Alison
Davenport,andPushpaBhat.ColleaguesintheOfficeofPublicInformationandEducationably
assistedwiththeroundtableandfinalproductionofthisreport.
Finally,thewidevarietyofcommentsfromthemanyorganizationsandindividualswho
participatedinthestudywereextremelyvaluabletotheOffice.Theissuesdiscussedinthis
reportreflecthighlycomplexanddifficultareasofthelaw,andthethoughtfulcommentsand
recommendationswereceivedthroughoutthestudyprocesscontributedgreatlytoour
understandingandviews.
MariaA.Pallante
RegisterofCopyrightsandDirector
U.S.CopyrightOffice
U.S.CopyrightOffice
TABLEOFCONTENTS
EXECUTIVESUMMARY.............................................................................................................................1
I.
INTRODUCTIONANDSTUDYHISTORY......................................................................................6
II. THEWIPOINTERNETTREATIESANDTHEMAKINGAVAILABLERIGHT........................10
III. U.S.IMPLEMENTATIONOFTHEMAKINGAVAILABLERIGHT...........................................15
A. UnitedStatesTreatyRatification..............................................................................................15
B. ExclusiveRightsRelevanttoMakingAvailable..................................................................18
1. RightofDistribution............................................................................................................19
a. DigitalFilesasMaterialObjects...................................................................................19
b. EvidenceRequiredtoEstablishDistribution.............................................................22
i. StatutoryLanguageandContext...........................................................................24
ii. LegislativeHistory...................................................................................................29
(a) RelationshiptoHistoricRightstoPublishandVend.................................30
(b) RoleofNimmeronCopyrightTreatise............................................................34
2. RightofPublicPerformance................................................................................................36
a. OfferstoStream..............................................................................................................37
b. IndividualizedStreams.................................................................................................40
i. StreamsasPublicPerformances........................................................................41
ii. VolitionalConductRequirement...........................................................................44
3. RightofPublicDisplay........................................................................................................47
4. RightofReproduction..........................................................................................................51
C. FactorsRelevanttoAllExclusiveRights..................................................................................54
1. LegislativeHistoryofTreatyImplementation.................................................................54
2. TheCharmingBetsyCanon...................................................................................................55
IV. MAKINGAVAILABLEIMPLEMENTATIONBYOTHERTREATYPARTNERS......................57
A. InternetTreatiesModel..............................................................................................................59
1. OnetoOneTransmissions..................................................................................................59
2. Offers......................................................................................................................................63
B. AlternativeLanguageModel.....................................................................................................64
1. OnetoOneTransmissions..................................................................................................64
2. Offers......................................................................................................................................67
C. StatutorySilenceModel..............................................................................................................68
D. EmergingIssuesRelatingtotheMakingAvailableRight.....................................................69
V. CONCLUSIONSANDRECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................73
A. SufficiencyofCurrentStatute....................................................................................................74
ii
U.S.CopyrightOffice
1. OfferstoCommunicate........................................................................................................74
2. IndividualizedCommunications........................................................................................77
LegislativeOptions.....................................................................................................................79
B.
APPENDICES
AppendixA: StudyRequestfromRepresentativeMelvinL.Watt
AppendixB: FederalRegisterNotices
AppendixC: CommentingParties
AppendixD: AgendaforPublicRoundtableHeldonMay5,2014
AppendixE: SurveyofForeignLawsRegardingStatutoryApproachestotheRightofMaking
Available
iii
U.S.CopyrightOffice
EXECUTIVESUMMARY
Inthedigitalage,fewquestionsareascentraltocopyrightjurisprudenceaswhetherand
howthecreativeworksofauthorsmaybeaccessedanddisseminatedontheInternet.These
issuesfrequentlyturnupontheapplicationofnationalcopyrightlawstoneworimproved
technologiesandemergingbusinessmodels.AsdiscussedinthisReport,however,national
copyrightlawsdonotoperateinavacuum.Rather,theyreflectthebindingprovisionsoftreaties
andotherintergovernmentalagreementsthatareessentialtomoderncommerce.
Intheearlydaysofthedigitaleconomy,memberstatesoftheWorldIntellectualProperty
Organization(WIPO),includingtheUnitedStates,metinGeneva,Switzerlandtoupdatethe
internationalcopyrightframework.In1996,theycompletedapairoftreaties,widelyregardedas
balancedandforwardthinking,togetherreferredtoastheWIPOInternetTreaties.Amongother
achievements,theTreatiesaffirmedtheoperationofexclusiverightsintheonlineenvironment,
includingtheprerogativeofauthorstoauthorizethemakingavailabletothepublicofworksin
suchawaythatmembersofthepublicmayaccesstheseworksfromaplaceandatatime
individuallychosenbythem.1
Incraftingthemakingavailableright,thetreatypartiesanticipatedtheimpactof
continuingtechnologicaladvancement,andworkedtocreatelanguagethatwouldbeboth
effectiveforcopyrightownersandadaptabletofuturefactpatterns.Forexample,themaking
availablerightistechnologyneutral.Thismeansthatitcoversallformatsinwhichaworkmay
bedigitallycommunicated,includingdownloads,streams,andanyotherexistingorfuture
developedmethodsofonlinetransmission.2Themakingavailablerightalsofocusesonaccess
ratherthanreceipt.3Thisensuresthatacopyrightownercanestablishaninfringementclaimby,
WIPOCopyrightTreatyart.8,Dec.20,1996,36I.L.M.65(1997)(WCT);seealsoWIPOPerformancesand
PhonogramsTreatyarts.10,14,Dec.20,1996,36I.L.M.76(1997)(WPPT).
1
SeeJaneC.Ginsburg,CommentsSubmittedinResponsetoU.S.CopyrightOfficesFeb.25,2014NoticeofInquiryat2
(Apr.7,2014)(GinsburgInitialComments)(notingthatWCTArticle8isdesignedlytechnologyneutralinorderto
avoidobsolescenceandthatitdoesnotmatterwhetherthememberofthepublicobtainsaccesstotheworkviaa
realtimestreamorviathedeliverytohercomputerorotherdeviceofadigitalcopythatshesubsequentlyopensin
ordertoseeorhearthework).AsusedinthisReport,adownloadisatransmissionofanelectronicfilecontaininga
digitalcopyofa...workthatissentfromanonlineservertoalocalharddrive,resultinginthecreationofacopyof
thefileatthelatterlocation.UnitedStatesv.Am.SocyofComposers,Authors&Publishers,627F.3d64,69(2dCir.2010)
(ASCAP).Astreamisanonlinetransmissionthatrendersaworkperceptiblebytherecipientasitisreceivedbythe
clientcomputerstemporarymemory.Id.at74.
2
3SeeWIPO,DiplomaticConferenceonCertainCopyrightandNeighboringRightsQuestions,Geneva,Dec.220,1996,
BasicProposalfortheSubstantiveProvisionsoftheTreatyonCertainQuestionsConcerningtheProtectionofLiteraryand
ArtisticWorkstoBeConsideredbytheDiplomaticConference,10.10,at44,WIPODoc.CRNR/DC/4(Aug.30,1996)
(WIPOBasicProposal),availableathttp://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/diplconf/en/crnr_dc/crnr_dc_4.pdf(The
relevantactisthemakingavailableoftheworkbyprovidingaccesstoit.);seealsoINTERNETPOLICYTASKFORCE,U.S.
DEPTOFCOMMERCE,COPYRIGHTPOLICY,CREATIVITY,ANDINNOVATIONINTHEDIGITALECONOMY15(2013)(GREEN
PAPER),availableathttp://www.uspto.gov/news/publications/copyrightgreenpaper.pdf(Incountrieswherethe
makingavailablerighthasbeenexplicitlyadopted,ithasbeeninterpretedtocovertheplacementofaworkonthe
Internetwhereitcanbeaccessedbyindividualmembersofthepublic.).
U.S.CopyrightOffice
forexample,showingthatthedefendantuploadedacopyrightedworktoapubliclyaccessible
filesharingnetworkwithoutauthorization.And,themakingavailablerightextendstothe
deliveryofworksthroughonetooneondemandtransmissionsi.e.,thosethatcanbereceived
bymembersofthepublicindividuallyinseparateplacesandatdifferenttimes.4Thisensures
thatapartyengaginginunauthorizedcommunicationofacopyrightedworkcannotevadethe
reachoftherightbydeliveringtheworktothepublicinmanyseparateindividualized
transmissions.
TheUnitedStatesratifiedandimplementedtheWIPOInternetTreatiesin1998,
incorporatinganumberofnewlystatedobligationsinamendmentsthatcomprisetheDigital
MillenniumCopyrightAct(DMCA).Congressmadenoexpresschangesregardingthemaking
availableright,however,concludinginsteadthattheexclusiverightsenumeratedinSection106
oftheCopyrightActaresufficientinanygiveninstancetosupportandeffectthesubstanceofthe
relevanttreatyprovisions.Thisdeterminationwasconsistentwiththeunderstandingamongthe
negotiatorsatthetimeoftheTreatiesadoptionthatthemakingavailablerightcouldbe
implementedinnationallegislationthroughapplicationofanyparticularexclusiveright...or
combinationofexclusiverights,aslongastheactsdescribedin[thetreaty]Articleswerecovered
bysuchrights.5
Duringthepasttwodecades,U.S.governmentofficialshaveuniformlymaintainedthat
theCopyrightActsexclusiverights,takentogether,coverthefullrangeofconductencompassed
bythemakingavailableright,meaningthatsuchconductwillimplicateandbegovernedbyone
ormoreoftheSection106exclusiverights,including,forexample,thedistribution,public
display,andpublicperformancerights.6SubsequentCongresseshavereaffirmedthisconclusion
throughtheirapproval,between2003and2011,ofadozenfreetradeagreementswithforeign
SeeJORGREINBOTHE&SILKEVONLEWINSKI,THEWIPOTREATIESONCOPYRIGHT:ACOMMENTARYONTHEWCT,THEWPPT,
ANDTHEBTAP7.8.33,at139(2015)(Examplesoftheondemandsituationarewebsitesthatofferachoiceofmusical
works,cinematographicworks,scientificarticles,orotherworksforaccessatanytimeduringwhichtheserviceis
offered,tobechosenbytheindividualmembersofthepublicfromtheplacechosenbythem.).
5WIPO,DiplomaticConferenceonCertainCopyrightandNeighboringRightsQuestions,Geneva,Dec.220,1996,
SummaryMinutes,MainCommitteeI,WIPODoc.CRNR/DC/102(Aug.26,1997)(WIPOMinutes),availableat
http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/diplconf/en/crnr_dc/crnr_dc_102.pdf;seealsoMihlyFicsor,TheSpring1997
HoraceS.MangesLectureCopyrightfortheDigitalEra:TheWIPOInternetTreaties,21COLUM.VLAJ.L.&ARTS197,211
(1997)([W]henthisprovisionwasdiscussedinMainCommitteeI,itwasstatedandnodelegationopposedthe
statementthatContractingPartiesarefreetoimplementtheobligation...throughthecombinationofdifferent
rightsaslongastheactsofsuchmakingavailablearefullycoveredbyanexclusiveright(withappropriate
exceptions).).
See,e.g.,PiracyofIntellectualPropertyonPeertoPeerNetworks:HearingBeforetheSubcomm.onCourts,theInternet,&
IntellectualProp.oftheH.Comm.ontheJudiciary,107thCong.114(2002)(letterfromMarybethPeters,Registerof
Copyrights);GREENPAPER,supranote3,at15(notingthatatthetimeofimplementation,bothCongressandthe
Administrationconcludedthattherelevantactswereencompassedwithintheexistingscopeofexclusiverights,and
concludingthattheexclusiverightofdistributionwasintendedtoincludethemereofferingofcopiestothepublic).
6
U.S.CopyrightOffice
nationsobligingtheUnitedStatestoprovideamakingavailableright,determiningineachcase
thatadoptionwouldnotrequirechangestoU.S.copyrightlaw.7
ThecourtsoftheUnitedStateshavebeenlessconsistentintheiranalysesanddecisions.
Ontheonehand,theSupremeCourtsrecentdecisioninAmericanBroadcastingCos.v.Aereo,Inc.
confirmsthatthepublicperformancerightencompassesthetransmissionofcopyrightedworksto
thepublicthroughindividualizedstreams.Ontheotherhand,inthecontextofoffersofaccessto
copyrightedcontent,somedistrictcourtshavequestionedtheexistenceoftherightunderU.S.
law,ultimatelyfailingtorecognizeacauseofactionwherecopyrightownerscannotprovethat
downloadsorreceiptoccurred.Othershavewhollyrejectedtherightoutofhand,failingto
discussorevenacknowledgetheinternationalobligationsoftheUnitedStates.8Attheappellate
level,courtshaveyettoconclusivelyresolvetheseissuesincasesinvolvingworksindigital
format.Thereare,however,twoappellatedecisionsholdingthat,inthecontextofalibrary
offeringphysicalcopiesofaworktothepublic,distributiondoesnotnecessarilyrequireanactual
transferofcopies.9
Evidentiaryrequirementsareamongtheissuesthatwouldbenefitfromclarification
soonerratherthanlater,toensurethattherulesforbringingaprimafacieinfringementcaseare
clearandconsistent.Inthecontextoffilesharingcases,forexample,somecourtshaveattempted
apracticalfix.Effectively,theyhavepermittedplaintiffstoproceedwiththeirclaimsusing
circumstantialorinvestigatorevidencethatinfersorsuggeststhatdownloadinghasoccurred,
evenwhenitcannotbeprovendirectly.Unfortunately,thissolutionisdifficulttoreconcilewith
aproperconstructionofthetreatylanguage,inthatitturnsuponreceiptratherthanaccess.
Morepractically,itcreatesfactualquagmiresandburdensomelitigationcoststhataffectall
involved,includingthecourtsthemselves.Thisisnottosaythatcircumstantialevidencecould
notbehelpfulinprovingappropriatefactualquestions,suchas,forexample,whetherandhow
defendantsallegedlyofferedaccess.
Inaccordancewiththecongressionalassignmentthattriggeredthisstudy,theCopyright
Officehasfocuseditsreviewofthelegallandscapeonthreekeyissues.Theseare:(1)howthe
existingbundleofrightsunderTitle17coversthemakingavailable...right[]inthecontextof
digitalondemandtransmissionssuchaspeertopeernetworks,streamingservices,andmusic
downloads,aswellasmorebroadlyinthedigitalenvironment;(2)howforeignlawshave
SeePartIII.A,infra.
See,forexample,thedistrictcourtsonesentencedismissaloftheexistenceofamakingavailablecopyrightunder
106inAlticorInc.v.UMGRecordings,Inc.,No.6:14cv542Orl37DAB,2015WL8536571,at*7(M.D.Fla.Dec.11,
2015).
8
SeeDiverseyv.Schmidly,738F.3d1196,1203(10thCir.2013)(Theessenceofdistributioninthelibrarylendingcontext
istheworksavailabilitytotheborrowingorbrowsingpublic.)(citationomitted);Hotalingv.ChurchofJesusChristof
LatterDaySaints,118F.3d199,203(4thCir.1997)(Whenapubliclibraryaddsaworktoitscollection,liststheworkin
itsindexorcatalogsystem,andmakestheworkavailabletotheborrowingorbrowsingpublic,ithascompletedallthe
stepsnecessaryfordistributiontothepublic.).
9
U.S.CopyrightOffice
interpretedandimplementedtherelevantprovisionsoftheWIPOInternetTreaties;and(3)the
feasibilityandnecessityofamendingU.S.lawtostrengthenorclarifyourlawinthisarea.10
TheCopyrightOfficeengagedinanextensivepublicprocesswhileanalyzingtheseissues,
andreceivedtheviewsofstakeholdersrepresentingabroadrangeofinterestsandperspectives.
Thesesubmissionscapturedthehistoricalandpolicyunderpinningsoftherelevantlegal
provisions,aswellastheirpracticalapplicationinlitigationandbusinesstransactions.The
CopyrightOfficealsotookintoaccounttheexperiencesofothernationsinapplyingtheexclusive
rightsofcopyrightownerstoemergingtechnologies.
Basedonalloftheseconsiderations,theCopyrightOfficereachesthefollowing
conclusions:
Consistentwithitsprioranalysesandtestimony,aswellastheviewsofCongress,
multipleAdministrations,appellatecourts,andleadingacademicauthorities,the
CopyrightOfficeconcludesthattheexclusiverightsofcopyrightownerssetforth
under17U.S.C.106collectivelymeetandadequatelyprovidethesubstanceofthe
makingavailableright.
ConsistentwiththeplainlanguageoftheTreaties,whichdefinesthemakingavailable
rightintermsofwhethermembersofthepublicmayaccessacopyrightedwork,
U.S.lawshouldbereadtoincludetheofferofpublicaccess,includingthroughon
demandservices,withoutregardtowhetheracopyhasbeendisseminatedor
received.Doingsoisalsoconsistentwiththejudicialopinionsofforeignjurisdictions
onthispoint.
Withintheparticularcontextofdownloads,U.S.lawprovidesthemakingavailable
rightthroughtheexclusiverightofdistributionunderSection106(3).Whilesome
courtshavefailedtofinddistributionintheabsenceofevidenceofcompleted
transfers,andthereforedeclinedtorecognizeclaimsbasedsolelyonmakingcopies
availabletothepublicfordownload,theCopyrightOfficeconcludesthatthe
appropriatereadingofSection106(3)inthecontextofmakingavailableclaimsisthat
itcoversoffersofaccess.
WithinthecontextofInternetstreamingorthedisplayofanimageonline,theUnited
Statesprovidesthemakingavailablerightthroughtherightsofpublicperformance
andpublicdisplayunderSection106(4)(6),respectively.Moreover,inthecontextof
ondemandtransmissions,theSupremeCourtsAereodecisionconfirmsthatthepublic
performancerightcoverstransmissionstothepublicviaindividualizedstreams.
Furtherstill,whereanactoffilesharingorstreaminginvolvesthecreationofadigital
copyofawork,italsomayimplicatetherightofreproductionunderSection106(1).
LetterfromRep.MelvinL.Watt,RankingMember,Subcomm.onCourts,IntellectualProp.,&theInternet,H.Comm.
ontheJudiciary,toMariaA.Pallante,RegisterofCopyrightsandDirector,U.S.CopyrightOffice2(Dec.19,2013)
(attachedasAppendixA).
10
U.S.CopyrightOffice
AlthoughtheUnitedStatesapproachtothemakingavailablerightdiffersfromthatof
itstreatypartners,themajorityofwhichhaveimplementedtherightthrougha
broadlywordedrighttocommunicatecopyrightedworkstothepublic,both
approachesarereasonableandeffective,andindeed,botharesanctionedbythetreaty
language.ItwouldnotnecessarilybebeneficialfortheUnitedStatestoamendits
approachbyenactingaseparatemakingavailableorcommunicationtothepublic
rightatthistime,forexampletorespondtodisparatecourtopinionsortoconfirmthe
applicationoftheTreatiestonewandemergingonlineactivity.Onthecontrary,such
anendeavorwouldlikelyprovemoredisruptive,notless,totheruleoflawinthis
area.
Atthistime,theCopyrightOfficesrecommendationisthatCongresscontinuetomonitor
theopinionsofbothdistrictandappellatecourtsregardingthescopeandapplicationofthe
makingavailablerightintheUnitedStates,especiallybecausethepublicationofthisReportand
theanalysescontainedhereinshouldprovehelpfultobothcourtsandpractitionerslookingfor
guidanceinthisareainthefuture.Totheextentitbecomesnecessary,Congresscouldchooseto
providelegislativeclarity.SuchclaritymightcomeintheformofaSection101definition,i.e.,
statingthattherightofdistributionincludestherighttoofferaccess,and/oritmightcomeinthe
formofaclarifyingamendmenttoSection106,i.e.,providingthatacopyrightownersexclusive
rightsthereunderencompasstherighttomakeaworkavailabletothepublic,includinginsucha
waythatmembersofthepublicmayaccesstheworkfromaplaceandatatimeindividually
chosenbythem.
Alternatively,Congresscouldadoptthelanguageoftherightofcommunicationtothe
publicthatisusedbysomeothercountries.Asnotedabove,however,thisapproachis
exponentiallymorecomplex,andwouldlikelyrequireareorderingoftheexistingSection106
rightsandcorrespondingchangestoapplicableexceptionsandlimitations.
Finally,theCopyrightOfficenotesthatthisReportsanalysisofU.S.lawislimitedtothe
questionofwhethertheCopyrightActprovidesauthorswithacauseofactionforthemaking
availableofcopyrightedworkstothepublic,asrequiredbytheWIPOInternetTreaties.
Questionsabouttheapplicationoftherightwillcontinuetoariseasbusinessmodelsevolve,and
theReportexpressesnoopinionastofacts,technologies,oractivitiesthathavenotyetbeen
addressedbycourts.
Moreover,itisimportanttonotethatevenwhereacourtfindsaparticularformofonline
accesstoimplicateanexclusiveright,thatdeterminationmeansonlythatacopyrightownermay
establishaprimafacieinfringementcaseonthatground;itdoesnotmeanthatthedefendantin
anygivencaseultimatelywillbefoundliable.Asalways,thefairusedoctrineandother
enumeratedcopyrightexceptionsinthelawwillprovideimportantbulwarksagainstoverbroad
claimsthatcouldimpededesirableonlineactivities.Theroleofthecourtswillbecriticalto
effectingthisoverallbalance.
U.S.CopyrightOffice
I.
INTRODUCTIONANDSTUDYHISTORY
Thegrowthofnewtechnologiesinthedigitalagehasrapidlyexpandedtheavailabilityof
copyrightedworksthroughbothlegalandillicitsources.Inthemid1990s,whentheInternetwas
relativelynewbutgrowingexponentially,theinternationalcopyrightcommunitysoughtto
ensurethatcopyrightedworkswouldbeadequatelyprotectedonline.Tofurtherthisgoal,the
WorldIntellectualPropertyOrganization(WIPO)11anditsmemberstates(includingtheUnited
States)begandiscussionsonhowtobestensurethatcopyrightlawcouldbeappliedeffectivelyto
thenewmedium.ThesediscussionsledtotheWIPOInternetTreatiestheWIPOCopyright
Treaty(WCT)andtheWIPOPerformancesandPhonogramsTreaty(WPPT).12Amongother
obligations,theWCTrequiresmemberstatestorecognizeauthorsexclusiverighttoauthorize
anycommunicationtothepublicoftheirworks,bywireorwirelessmeans,includingthe
makingavailabletothepublicoftheirworksinsuchawaythatmembersofthepublicmay
accesstheseworksfromaplaceandatatimeindividuallychosenbythem.13TheWPPTextends
therighttoperformersandphonogramproducers.14Thesetreatyprovisionsensurethat
copyrightownershavetheexclusiverighttoprovideondemandaccesstotheirworksonthe
Internetandelsewhere.15
TheUnitedStatesimplementedtheWIPOInternetTreatiesin1998viatheDMCA.16The
DMCAdidnot,however,addaspecificmakingavailablerightanddidnototherwiseamend
theCopyrightActsenumerationofexclusiverightsinSection106.Instead,Congressfound
thattheWCTandWPPTdidnotrequireanychangeinthesubstanceofcopyrightrightsor
WIPOistheglobalforumforintellectualpropertyservices,policy,informationandcooperation,andisaself
fundingagencyoftheUnitedNations,with188memberstates.InsideWIPO,WIPO,http://www.wipo.int/about
wipo/en/index.html.
11
WCT,supranote1;WPPT,supranote1.See1WIPO,RECORDSOFTHEDIPLOMATICCONFERENCEONCERTAINCOPYRIGHT
ANDNEIGHBORINGRIGHTSQUESTIONS,GENEVA1996(WIPO,PublicationNo.348(E),1999),availableat
ftp://ftp.wipo.int/pub/library/ebooks/wipopublications/wipo_pub_348e_v1.pdf.
12
WCT,supranote1,art.8.
13
WPPT,supranote1,arts.10,14.
14
SeeWIPOBasicProposal,supranote3,10.10.11,at44.Forthepurposesofthisreport,themakingavailable
rightreferstotherightssetforthinArticle8oftheWCTandArticles10and14oftheWPPT.Wedonotaddressherein
eithertheexclusivedistributionrightssetforthinArticle6oftheWCTandArticles8and12oftheWPPT,ortheright
ofremunerationforperformersandproducersofphonogramssetforthinArticle15oftheWPPT.
15
DigitalMillenniumCopyrightAct,Pub.L.No.105304,101105,112Stat.2860,286177(1998);seeH.R.REP.NO.
105796,at63(1998)(Conf.Rep.)(Thistitleimplementstwonewintellectualpropertytreaties,theWIPOCopyright
TreatyandtheWIPOPerformancesandPhonogramsTreaty,signedinGeneva,SwitzerlandinDecember1996.).The
WIPOInternetTreatiesweresubmittedtoCongressforadviceandconsentthepreviousyear,andtheSenatevotedto
approvetheTreatiesshortlybeforepassageoftheDMCA.SeeWIPOCopyrightTreaty(1996)andWIPOPerformances
andPhonogramsTreaty(1996),July28,1997,S.TREATYDOC.NO.10517(1997);105CONG.REC.S12,972(dailyed.Oct.
21,1998).
16
U.S.CopyrightOffice
exceptionsinU.S.law.17Sincethen,U.S.governmentofficialsconsistentlyhavestatedthatthe
CopyrightActsexistingexclusiverightscoverthemakingavailableright,18andCongresshas
affirmedthatunderstandingbyapprovingnumerousinternationalagreementswithoutany
changestoU.S.law.19
Somecourts,however,havestruggledtodeterminetheapplicationofparticularexclusive
rightsundertheActtovariousonlineactivities,includingnewlydevelopedformsofondemand
access.Inlightofthesechallenges,thenRepresentativeMelvinL.Watt,RankingMemberofthe
HouseJudiciaryCommitteesSubcommitteeonCourts,IntellectualProperty,andtheInternet,
askedtheCopyrightOfficetostudythecurrentstateofthemakingavailablerightunderU.S.
law.20Specifically,heaskedthattheOfficereviewandassesshowtheexistingbundleofrights
underTitle17coverstherightinthecontextofdigitalondemandtransmissions...aswellas
morebroadlyinthedigitalenvironment.21Inaddition,RepresentativeWattaskedtheOfficeto
addresshowforeignnationshaveimplementedthemakingavailableright,andtoassessthe
feasibilityandnecessityofamendingU.S.lawinthisarea.22
TheOfficeissuedarequestforpubliccommentsonFebruary25,2014,23andreceived
twentysevenwrittenresponsesfromarangeofparties,includingacademics,industrygroups,
andpublicinterestorganizations.24TheOfficethenheldaroundtablediscussioninWashington,
D.C.onMay5,2014,duringwhichmembersofthecopyrightcommunitydiscussedavarietyof
H.R.REP.NO.105551,pt.1,at9(1998);seealsoWIPOCopyrightTreatiesImplementationAct;andOnlineCopyright
LiabilityLimitationAct:HearingonH.R.2281andH.R.2180BeforetheSubcomm.onCourts&IntellectualProp.oftheH.
Comm.ontheJudiciary,105thCong.27(1997)(HearingonH.R.2281andH.R.2180)(statementofRep.HowardCoble,
Chairman,Subcomm.onCourts&IntellectualProp.)(ThetreatiesdonotrequirethattheUnitedStateschangethe
substanceofourdomesticcopyrightrightsorexceptions.).
17
SeePiracyofIntellectualPropertyonPeertoPeerNetworks,supranote6,at114(letterfromMarybethPeters,Registerof
Copyrights);GREENPAPER,supranote3,at15;WTOTradePolicyReviewBody,TradePolicyReview,UnitedStates,
MinutesofMeeting,Addendum3,WTODoc.WT/TPR/M/126/Add.3,at13334,140(Nov.22,2004);WTOTradePolicy
ReviewBody,TradePolicyReview,UnitedStates,MinutesofMeeting,Addendum2,WTODoc.WT/TPR/M/126/Add.2,at35
(Mar.25,2004);WTOTradePolicyReviewBody,TradePolicyReview,UnitedStates,MinutesofMeeting,Addendum1,
WTODoc.WT/TPR/M/88/Add.1,at121(Jan.8,2002).
18
SeePartIII.A,infra.
19
LetterfromRep.MelvinL.Watt,supranote10.
20
Id.at2.
21
Id.
22
23StudyontheRightofMakingAvailable;CommentsandNoticeofPublicRoundtable,79Fed.Reg.10,571(Feb.25,
2014).ThisrequestandallotherFederalRegisternoticesissuedinconnectionwiththisstudyareattachedasAppendix
B.AlldocumentsrelatedtothisstudycanbeaccessedontheMakingAvailableStudywebpageontheCopyright
Officewebsite,athttp://copyright.gov/docs/making_available/.
24ThecommentsreceivedinresponsetothisfirstrequestareavailableontheCopyrightOfficewebsiteat
http://copyright.gov/docs/making_available/comments/docket2014_2/.Referencesinthisdocumenttotheseinitial
commentsarebypartyname(abbreviatedwhereappropriate)followedbyInitialComments.Completelistsofthe
partieswhosubmittedwrittencommentsinresponsetotheOfficesrequestsareprovidedinAppendixC.
U.S.CopyrightOffice
issuesrelatingtothemakingavailableright.25TheOfficeprovidedthepublicwithanadditional
opportunitytoprovidewrittencommentsviaaJuly15,2015RequestforAdditionalComments,
whichresultedintwentyeightadditionalcomments.26
Thecommentssubmittedinresponsetothetwonoticesfellintoroughlythreecategories
ofviews.Manycopyrightownerrepresentativestooktheviewthatnolegislativechangeis
currentlynecessarybecauseU.S.lawalreadyprovidesamakingavailableright,andthatthelaw,
properlyinterpreted,encompassestheprovisionofaccesstocopyrightedworks,evenwithout
evidencethatauserreceivedacopy.27Asmallernumberofcommentersagreedwiththat
interpretation,butarguedthatCongressshouldstronglyconsideramendingthelawtoprovide
TheagendafortheOfficesMay5,2014publicroundtableisattachedasAppendixD,andisalsoavailableat
http://copyright.gov/docs/making_available/publicroundtable/FinalMakingAvailableAgenda.pdf.Thetranscriptof
theroundtableisavailableathttp://copyright.gov/docs/making_available/publicroundtable/transcript.pdf.References
tothetranscriptinthisdocumentareindicatedbyTr.,followedbythepage(s)andline(s)ofthereferenceandthe
speakersnameandaffiliation.VideosoftheroundtablesessionsareavailableontheCopyrightOfficewebsiteinfour
parts:Session1:ExistingRightsUnderTitle17,Part1,athttp://www.loc.gov/today/cyberlc/feature_wdesc.php?rec=
6407&loclr=rssloc;Session2:ExistingRightsUnderTitle17,Part2,athttp://www.loc.gov/today/cyberlc/feature_
wdesc.php?rec=6408&loclr=rssloc;Session3:BenefitsofClarification/PossibleChangestoU.S.Law,athttp://www.loc.
gov/today/cyberlc/feature_wdesc.php?rec=6409&loclr=rssloc;andSessions4/5:ForeignImplementationand
InterpretationoftheWIPOTreaties,athttp://www.loc.gov/today/cyberlc/feature_wdesc.php?rec=6410&loclr=rssloc.
25
StudyontheRightofMakingAvailable:RequestforAdditionalComments,79Fed.Reg.41,309(July15,2014);
ExtensionofCommentPeriod;StudyontheRightofMakingAvailable;RequestforAdditionalComments,79Fed.
Reg.44,871(Aug.1,2014).Thecommentsreceivedinresponsetothissecondrequestforcommentsareavailableon
theCopyrightOfficewebsiteathttp://copyright.gov/docs/making_available/comments/docket2014_2/reply/.
Referencesinthisdocumenttothesecommentsarebypartyname(abbreviatedwhereappropriate)followedby
AdditionalComments.
26
See,e.g.,AssnofAm.Publishers(AAP),CommentsSubmittedinResponsetoU.S.CopyrightOfficesFeb.25,2014
NoticeofInquiryat4(Apr.4,2014)(AAPInitialComments)(Congresssconvictionthattheexistingexclusiverights
underSection106alreadyprovidethemakingavailablerightinthedigitalenvironmenthasandcontinuestobe
clear.);CopyrightAlliance,CommentsSubmittedinResponsetoU.S.CopyrightOfficesFeb.25,2014Noticeof
Inquiryat2(Apr.4,2014)(CopyrightAllianceInitialComments)([W]ebelievethebundleofrightsestablishedin
106,wheninterpretedasCongressintendedandinaccordancewithinternationaltreatyobligations,adequately
addressesthemakingavailableright.Therefore,wedonotbelievelegislativechangesarenecessaryatthispoint.);
EntmtSoftwareAssn(ESA),CommentsSubmittedinResponsetoU.S.CopyrightOfficesFeb.25,2014Noticeof
Inquiryat1(Apr.4,2014)(ESAInitialComments)([W]edonotbelievethatlegislativechangesarecurrently
warranted.Inourview,consistentwiththeearlierexpressedpositionoftheCopyrightOffice,thebundleofexclusive
rightsaffordedtorightsholdersby106oftheCopyrightActprovidesprotectioncommensuratetothatrequiredby
theWIPOInternetTreaties,includingthemakingavailableandcommunicationtothepublicrights.);Motion
PictureAssnofAm.,Inc.(MPAA)andRecordingIndus.AssnofAm.,Inc.(RIAA),CommentsSubmittedin
ResponsetoU.S.CopyrightOfficesFeb.25,2014NoticeofInquiryat2(Apr.4,2014)(MPAARIAAJointInitial
Comments)(ExistingU.S.lawsfullyimplementthemakingavailableandpubliccommunicationrightswithinthe
frameworkofthereproduction,distribution,performanceanddisplayrightsofSection106oftheCopyrightAct.);
Software&Info.Indus.Assn(SIIA),CommentsSubmittedinResponsetoU.S.CopyrightOfficesFeb.25,2014
NoticeofInquiryat3(Apr.4,2014)(SIIAInitialComments)(Wedonotbelievethatlegislationoranytypeof
furtherCongressionalclarificationisneededtoprovideforamakingavailablerightunderU.S.law.);U.S.Chamberof
CommerceGlob.IntellectualProp.Ctr.(GIPC),CommentsSubmittedinResponsetoU.S.CopyrightOfficesFeb.25,
2014NoticeofInquiryat6(Apr.4,2014)(Therightsofdistribution,reproduction,publicdisplayandpublic
performance,properlyunderstood,alreadyencompasstheactofmakingavailablecopyrightedworks.).
27
U.S.CopyrightOffice
greaterclarity.28Others,includingsomepublicinterestandtechnologygroups,concededthe
obligationtorecognizesucharight,buturgedanarrowerunderstandingofitsscope,arguing
thatthemakingavailablerightdoesnotnecessarilyrequireU.S.lawtocovermereoffersof
access.29Somecommentersalsocontendedthattheadditionofexpressmakingavailable
languagetoU.S.copyrightlawwouldhavesignificantadverseconsequences,includingcreating
uncertaintyastothelegalityofcommonplaceonlineactivities.30Importantly,noonechallenged
theviewthattheUnitedStatesisobligatedbyinternationalagreementstorecognizethemaking
availableright,orthattheexclusiverightsinSection106couldserveasabasisforthefulfillment
ofthoseobligations.31
SeePeterS.Menell,CommentsSubmittedinResponsetoU.S.CopyrightOfficesFeb.25,2014NoticeofInquiryat2
(Apr.4,2014)(MenellInitialComments)(Congressshouldclarifythescopeofthedistributionright.Thedissensus
surroundingthemakingavailableissueneedlesslycreatesuncertaintyandincreasesthecostsoflitigation.);Am.
SocyofComposers,AuthorsandPublishers(ASCAP),BroadcastMusic,Inc.(BMI),SongwritersGuildofAmerica
(SGA),SESAC,Inc.,andNatlMusicPublishersAssn(NMPA),CommentsSubmittedinResponsetoU.S.
CopyrightOfficesFeb.25,2014NoticeofInquiryat6(Apr.4,2014)(MusicalWorksOrganizationsJointInitial
Comments)(Tofurtherclarityinthelawforallparties,andparticularlyifthecourtscannotstraightenthewobbly
table,webelieveCongresswillneedtotakeactionbyexplicitlyclarifyingtheexistenceofthemakingavailableright
underSection106.).
28
29See,e.g.,Comput.&CommcnsIndus.Assn(CCIA),CommentsSubmittedinResponsetoU.S.CopyrightOffices
Feb.25,2014NoticeofInquiryat3(Apr.4,2014)(CCIAInitialComments)([N]ointernationalobligationcompels
thecreationofanewcauseofactionforattempteddistributionoranyotherright....);GlynnS.Lunney,Comments
SubmittedinResponsetoU.S.CopyrightOfficesFeb.25,2014NoticeofInquiryat1(Apr.2,2014)(LunneyInitial
Comments)([W]ehavesatisfiedourtreatyobligationswhetherwerequireproofofadownloadtoestablish
infringementofthedistributionrightornot.);Pub.Knowledge(PK)andElect.FrontierFound.(EFF),Joint
CommentsSubmittedinResponsetoU.S.CopyrightOfficesFeb.25,2015NoticeofInquiryat12(Apr.4,2014)(PK
EFFJointInitialComments)([O]bligationsundertheWIPOtreatieswillbefulfilledevenifUnitedStatescourts
concludethatinsomesituations,merelyofferingtouploadafiledoesnotimplicateanexclusiveright.);SocyofAm.
Archivists(SAA),CommentsSubmittedinResponsetoU.S.CopyrightOfficesFeb.25,2014NoticeofInquiryat3
(Apr.1,2014)(SAAInitialComments)([D]istributionrequiresatleastatemporarytransferofcustody,suchas
lending....Thisinterpretationisfullyconsistent...withourinternationalobligations.).
30See,e.g.,CCIAInitialCommentsat7(Addinganotherexclusiverightofmakingavailablewouldfurtherexacerbate
problemswithoverlappingrights,andcreateanothergatekeeperattemptingtoextractroyalties.);Dig.Pub.Libraryof
Am.(DPLA),CommentsSubmittedinResponsetoU.S.CopyrightOfficesFeb.25,2014NoticeofInquiryat1(Apr.
4,2014)(DPLAInitialComments)(DPLAhasstrongreservationsaboutthecreationofabroadmakingavailable
rightbecausewebelievesucharightwouldinhibitfreeandopenlinkingtoworksthatshouldbelegitimatelymade
availableonline.);InternetAssn,CommentsSubmittedinResponsetoU.S.CopyrightOfficesJuly15,2014Noticeof
Inquiryat5(Aug.14,2014)(InternetAssnAdditionalComments)(Commenterswarnthatamakingavailable
rightwouldcomplicatethecurrentsystembypresentingproblemsinexistingcontractswherenewtechnologieswere
notconsideredandwouldevenquestionthelegalityofonlinefunctionssuchaslinkingandembedding.);PKEFF
JointInitialCommentsat6(TheUnitedStatesshouldnotcreateanewmakingavailablerightbecausedoingsocould
riskmakinganumberofdesirablebehaviorsthatarecurrentlylawful,unlawful.);SAAInitialCommentsat3(Anew
explicitrightwouldonlyleadtofurtherconfusionandlitigationastothescopeofthatrightandwouldreinforcethe
sometimesoverlycautiousapproachofarchivistsbutwithnocommensuratebenefittocopyrightowners.).
31See,e.g.,CCIAInitialCommentsat23([T]heU.S.CopyrightActdoesnotprovideaspecificmakingavailableright
in17U.S.C.106,althoughitneverthelessprovidesauthorswithdistributionandperformancerights,combinedwith
variousdoctrinesofsecondaryliability,whicharemorethanadequatetosatisfyinternationalobligations.);ESAInitial
Commentsat1([T]hebundleofexclusiverightsaffordedtorightsholdersby106oftheCopyrightActprovides
U.S.CopyrightOffice
II. THEWIPOINTERNETTREATIESANDTHEMAKINGAVAILABLERIGHT
Beginningintheearly1970s,WIPOembarkeduponalmosttwodecadesofstudyand
analysistoconsiderthemosteffectivewaytoadapttheinternationalcopyrightregimetonew
andemergingtechnologies.32Membercountrieswerekeenlyawarethattheprimarytreaty
governinginternationalcopyright,theBerneConventionfortheProtectionofLiteraryand
ArtisticWorks,wasfirstadoptedinthelate1800sandhadbeenmostrecentlyamendedin1971.
Thus,theinternationalcopyrightregimelaggedwellbehindsubsequentdevelopmentsin
computers,photocopying,andsatellitetechnology.In1991,WIPOconvenedtwoCommitteesof
Expertstoconsiderthenegotiationofnewinstrumentstoaddresstheseissues.33Thedigital
agenda,asitbecameknown,concernedcertaindefinitions,rightsapplicableforthestorageof
worksandobjectsofneighboringrightsindigitalsystems,transmissionofworksandobjectsof
neighboringrightsindigitalnetworks,limitationsonandexceptionstorightsinadigital
environment,technologicalprotectionmeasuresandrightsmanagementinformation.34
Throughoutthedigitalagendadiscussions,theUnitedStatesandothercountries
highlightedtheimmediate,costless,andwidespread35copyingfacilitatedbytheInternet,
whichallow[ed]usersofelectronicmediatosendandretrieveperfectreproductionsof
copyrightedmaterialeasilyandnearlyinstantaneously,toorfromlocationsaroundtheworld.36
Asaresult,theInternetposedseverallegalchallengesincludingtheeasewithwhich
infringementcouldbecarriedoutacrossinternationalbordersthatincreasedtheimportanceof
harmonizinginternationalcopyrightstandards.37TheworkoftheseCommitteesultimately
protectioncommensuratetothatrequiredbytheWIPOInternetTreaties,includingthemakingavailableand
communicationtothepublicrights.);LunneyInitialCommentsat1([O]urexistingstructureofrightsprovides
protectionequivalenttothemakingavailableandcommunicationtothepublicrightsrequiredbytheWIPO
CopyrightTreaty...andtheWIPOPerformanceandPhonogramsTreaty....);MPAARIAAJointInitialComments
at2(TheSection106rightsarebroadenoughtoincludetherightsofmakingavailableandcommunicationtothe
publicthatwereintendedbyCongressandthattheWCT,WPPT,andotherinternationaltreatiesobligatetheUnited
Statestoprovide.);PKEFFJointInitialCommentsat3([I]tisclearthattheUnitedStatesalwaysintendedtofulfill
WIPOtreatyobligationsthroughexistingexclusiverights,andthereisnoreasontobelievethatthisapproachisno
longersufficienttosatisfythoseobligations.).
SILKEVONLEWINSKI,INTERNATIONALCOPYRIGHTLAWANDPOLICY17.01.04,at42829(2008).
32
Between1971and1991,WIPOfacilitatedastrategyofguideddevelopmentthatresultedinrecommendations,
guidingprinciples,...modelprovisions,and...studies,ratherthanpreparingforanewrevisionconference.Id.
17.01,at428.Expertbodies,convenedbyWIPOandtheUnitedNationsEducational,ScientificandCultural
Organization,focusedonphotocopying,cabletelevision,computerprograms,andothercomputerrelatedcopyright
issues;rentalandlendingrights;privatecopying;anddirectbroadcastingbysatellite.SeeMIHLYFICSOR,THELAWOF
COPYRIGHTANDTHEINTERNET:THE1996WIPOTREATIES,THEIRINTERPRETATIONANDIMPLEMENTATION1.03.10,at58
(2002).
33
Ficsor,supranote5,at202.
34
DavidNimmer,ATaleofTwoTreatiesDateline:GenevaDecember1996,22COLUM.VLAJ.L.&ARTS1,5(1997).
35
H.R.REP.NO.105551,pt.1,at9(1998).
36
SeeH.R.REP.NO.105551,pt.1,at9(1998)(Withthisevolutionintechnology,thelawmustadaptinordertomake
digitalnetworkssafeplacestodisseminateandexploitcopyrightedworks.);JaneC.Ginsburg,GlobalUse/Territorial
37
10
U.S.CopyrightOffice
resultedintheWCT,whichprovidesprotectionforauthorsofliteraryandartisticworks
(includingwritings,computerprograms,musicalworks,audiovisualworks,fineartworks,
photographs,anddatabases);andtheWPPT,whichincludesprotectionsforperformersand
producersofphonograms.
DuringthenegotiationoftheWIPOInternetTreaties,theCommitteesdiscussedtheneed
toaddressauthorsrightsinlightoftheadventofdigitalinteractive,ondemandtransmissions
andagreedthatthetransmissionofworksandobjectsofneighboringrightsontheInternetand
insimilarnetworksshouldbesubjectedtoanexclusiverightofauthorizationoftheownersofthe
rights.38TheCommitteesdidnotagree,however,onhowtograntauthorstherighttoauthorize
suchtransmissions.Instead,thememberstatesdebatedtwocompetingbundlesofexclusive
rightsthroughwhichtoprovidethisprotectioneithertherightofreproductionplusabroad
rightofdistribution,orreproductionplustheBerneConventionsrightofcommunicationtothe
public.39TheUnitedStatesarguedthatthedistributionrightproperlyencompasseddigital
transmissions,butseveralothercountriespreferredtocoversuchtransmissionsthrougha
communicationtothepublicright.40TheEuropeanCommunitywasastrongproponentofthe
latterviewandproposeddrafttreatylanguagethathousedanauthorsrighttomakeworks
availablebywireorwirelessmeanswithintherightofcommunicationtothepublic.41Afterit
Rights:PrivateInternationalLawQuestionsoftheGlobalInformationInfrastructure,42J.COPYRIGHTSOCYU.S.A.318,31920
(1995);DavidR.Johnson&DavidPost,LawandBorderstheRiseofLawinCyberspace,48STAN.L.REV.1367,138387
(1996);MichaelJ.OSullivan,InternationalCopyright:ProtectionforCopyrightHoldersintheInternetAge,13N.Y.INTLL.
REV.1,1,40(2000);JulieS.Sheinblatt,TheWIPOCopyrightTreaty,13BERKELEYTECH.L.J.535,535(1998)(Thetreaties
werecreatedinresponsetothearrivalofthedigitalage,whichhasmadeinformationakeybusinessasset,expanded
internationalcommerce,andenabledfasterandeasiercopyingofcopyrightedwork.Thevalueofharmonizingglobal
copyrightlawhasgrownaccordingly.TheCopyrightTreatywasformedbothtoharmonizeglobalcopyrightlawand
toextendthatlawintothedigitaldomain.).
38
39SeeBerneConventionfortheProtectionofLiteraryandArtisticWorksart.11bis,Sept.9,1886,asrevisedJuly24,1971,
andasamendedSept.28,1979,S.TreatyDoc.9927,1161U.N.T.S.3(Authorsofliteraryandartisticworksshallenjoy
theexclusiverightofauthorizing:(i)thebroadcastingoftheirworksorthecommunicationthereoftothepublicbyany
othermeansofwirelessdiffusionofsigns,soundsorimages....).
40SeeDavidO.Carson,MakingtheMakingAvailableRightAvailable,22ndAnnualHoraceS.MangesLecture,February3,
2009,33COLUM.J.L.&ARTS135,145(2010);PamelaSamuelson,TheU.S.DigitalAgendaatWIPO,37VA.J.INTLL.369,
39394(1997)(notingthatonepossiblereasonforthedividebetweentheUnitedStatesandtheEuropeanCommunity
wasrootedindifferencesinnationallawsbecauseU.S.copyrightlawgrantedauthorsanexclusiverighttodistribute
copiestothepublicbutnotanexclusiverighttocommunicateworkstothepublic,whilemanyEuropeanUnion
memberstatesdidnothaveanexclusivedistributionrightbutdidgrantauthorstherighttocontrolcommunicationsof
workstothepublic);ThomasD.SydnorII,TheMakingAvailableRightUnderU.S.Law,16PROGRESSONPOINTno.7,Mar.
2009,at58,17(equatingthemakingavailablerightwiththerightofpublicationandnotingthatcivillawcountries,
likemostintheEuropeanUnion,implementedpublicationrightsthroughtheexclusiverighttocommunicateaworkto
thepublic).
WIPO,CommitteeofExpertsonaPossibleProtocoltotheBerneConventionSeventhSession,CommitteeofExperts
onaPossibleInstrumentfortheProtectionoftheRightsofPerformersandProducersofPhonogramsSixthSession
Geneva,May2224,1996,ProposalsoftheEuropeanCommunityanditsMemberStates,at34,WIPODoc.BCP/CE/VII/1
INR/CE/VI/1(May20,1996),availableathttp://www.wipo.int/mdocsarchives/BCP_CE_VII_1_INR_CE_VI/BCP_CE_VII_
1INR_CE_VI_1_E.PDF;REINBOTHE&VONLEWINSKI,supranote4,7.8.4,at126;Ficsor,supranote5,at20809.
41
11
U.S.CopyrightOffice
becameclearthatneithertheUnitedStatesnortheEuropeanCommunityspreferenceswould
generallybeaccepted,acompromisesolution,referredtoastheumbrellasolution,was
developedandincorporatedintotheWCTandWPPT.42
Theumbrellasolution,inattemptingtoclosetheBerneConventiongapsincoveragefor
thedistributionandcommunicationtothepublicrights,providestreatymemberswithflexibility
inhowtheyimplementtheexclusiverighttoauthorizeondemandandinteractivedigital
transmissionsintonationallaw.43ThisflexibilitywasparticularlyimportantfortheUnitedStates.
Atthe1996DiplomaticConferencethatyieldedthefinaltextoftheWIPOInternetTreaties,the
U.S.delegation,accordingtotheofficialminutes,stressedtheunderstandingwhichhadnever
beenquestionedduringthepreparatorywork...thatthoserightsmightbeimplementedin
nationallegislationthroughapplicationofanyparticularexclusiveright...orcombinationof
exclusiverights,aslongastheactsdescribedin[thetreaty]Articleswerecoveredbysuch
rights.44Thoughtheapplicabletreatyprovisionsusedthetermscommunicationtothepublic
andmakingavailable,treatymemberswerefreetoimplementtheobligationseitherasasubset
oftherightofcommunicationtothepublic,asastandalonemakingavailableright,orthrough
someotherexclusiverightorcombinationofrightsfoundintheirnationallaws.45Thegoalwas
toprovideavehicleforgrant[ing]effectiveandefficientprotectioninthedigitalenvironment,
and[for]facilitat[ing]interoperabilitybetweendifferentsystems.46Thus,themostbasic
elementoftheumbrellasolution[was]theneutral,legalcharacterizationfreedescriptionof
interactivetransmissions(neutralinthesensethatitshouldnotbecharacterizedeitheras
distributionorcommunicationtothepublic)coveredbythenewlyarticulatedright.47
TheWCTandtheWPPTreflecttheumbrellasolutioninslightlydifferentways.WCT
Article8,entitledRightofCommunicationtothePublic,firstprovidesanexclusiverightfor
SeeMIHLYFICSOR,WIPO,GUIDETOTHECOPYRIGHTANDRELATEDRIGHTSTREATIESADMINISTEREDBYWIPOAND
GLOSSARYOFCOPYRIGHTANDRELATEDRIGHTSTERMSCT8.2CT8.9,20708(2003)(WIPOGUIDE)(discussingthe
problemsassociatedwithadoptingeitherthedistributionorthecommunicationtothepublicapproachtodigital
distributionsofworks).
42
Beyondthedisagreementaboutwhichexclusiverightwaspreferred,therealsowasrecognitionthattheborderlines
amongtherightofreproduction,therightofdistribution,andtherightofcommunicationtothepublicaregetting
blurred.MihlyFicsor,InternationalHarmonizationofCopyrightandNeighboringRights,inWIPOWORLDWIDE
SYMPOSIUMONCOPYRIGHTINTHEGLOBALINFORMATIONINFRASTRUCTURE,374(WIPOPub.No.746(E/S),1995).
43
WIPOMinutes,supranote5,301,at41.Nodelegationopposedthestatement.SeeFicsor,supranote5,at211;
REINBOTHE&VONLEWINSKI,supranote4,7.8.24,at135.
44
SeeVONLEWINSKI,supranote32,17.80,at458([S]incetheTreatiesallowimplementationofthemakingavailable
rightbyanysuitableright...itsrelationtothecommunicationrightundertheTreatieshasnobearingonthechoiceof
itssystematicclassificationundernationallaw.).Foracomparisonofdifferentimplementationmodels,seethe
SurveyofForeignLawsRegardingStatutoryApproachestotheRightofMakingAvailable,attachedasAppendixE.
45
46
FICSOR,supranote33,C8.06,at496;seealsoVONLEWINSKI,supranote32,17:78,at458;Tr.at121:21122:1(May5,
2014)(JohnC.Beiter,SESAC)(callingtechnologyneutralityahallmarkoftheWIPOTreatieswhenitcomesto[the]
makingavailableright).
47
12
U.S.CopyrightOffice
authorsofliteraryandartisticworkstoauthorizeanycommunicationtothepublic...bywire
orwirelessmeans,andthenextendsthatexclusiverighttotransmissionsviainteractiveservices,
withoutlegallycharacterizingthenatureoftheright:
WithoutprejudicetotheprovisionsofArticles11(1)(ii),11bis(1)(i)and(ii),
11ter(1)(ii),14(1)(ii)and14bis(1)oftheBerneConvention,authorsofliteraryand
artisticworksshallenjoytheexclusiverightofauthorizinganycommunication
tothepublicoftheirworks,bywireorwirelessmeans,includingthemaking
availabletothepublicoftheirworksinsuchawaythatmembersofthepublic
mayaccesstheseworksfromaplaceandatatimeindividuallychosenbythem.48
TheWPPTreflectstheumbrellasolution49byprovidinganexclusiverightofmakingavailablein
Articles10forperformers50and14forproducersofsoundrecordings.51TheWPPTusesthe
phrasecommunicationtothepublicinanentirelydifferentcontext,referringnottothe
interactiveelementbuttomoretraditionalcommunicationstothepublic,similartothepublic
performancerightintheUnitedStates.52
DuringtheDiplomaticConference,theChairmanoftheCommitteesofExpertsprovided
guidanceonwhattypesofactivitiesthemakingavailablerightwasintendedtoreach.The
ChairmanstressedthatoneofthemainobjectivesofWCTArticle8wastomakeitclearthat
interactiveondemandactsofcommunicationarewithinthescopeoftheprovision.53Similarly,
WPPTArticles10and14arebasedoninteractivityandonondemandaccessbytransmission,
ratherthanphysicaldistributionsofcopies.54Inaddition,theChairmanexplainedthattheaction
coveredbytheexclusiverightisthemakingavailableoftheworkbyprovidingaccesstoit.
Whatcountsistheinitialactofmakingtheworkavailable,notthemereprovisionofserverspace,
WCT,supranote1,art.8;seeWIPOGUIDE,supranote42,CT8.10,at209([T]hetreaty,first,extendsthe
applicabilityoftherightofcommunicationtothepublictoallcategoriesofworks,andthenclarifiesthattherightalso
coverstransmissionsininteractivesystemsdescribedinalegalcharacterizationfreemanner....).
48
SeeWIPOGUIDE,supranote42,PPT10.2,at24748;VONLEWINSKI,supranote32,17:79,at458.
49
WPPT,supranote1,art.10(Performersshallenjoytheexclusiverightofauthorizingthemakingavailabletothe
publicoftheirperformancesfixedinphonograms,bywireorwirelessmeans,insuchawaythatmembersofthepublic
mayaccessthemfromaplaceandatatimeindividuallychosenbythem.).
50
WPPT,supranote1,art.14(Producersofphonogramsshallenjoytheexclusiverightofauthorizingthemaking
availabletothepublicoftheirphonograms,bywireorwirelessmeans,insuchawaythatmembersofthepublicmay
accessthemfromaplaceandatatimeindividuallychosenbythem.).
51
WPPTArticle15containsarightofequitableremunerationforbroadcastingandcommunicationtothepublic,which
isseparatefromthemakingavailableright.SeeREINBOTHE&VONLEWINSKI,supranote4,8.15.32,at400([T]heright
ofmakingavailableforaccessasdescribedunderArticles10and14WPPTisnotcoveredbyArticle15WPPT.)
(boldingomitted);WIPOGUIDE,supranote42,PPT10.4,at248.Infact,theWPPTcontainsspecificdefinitionsfor
bothbroadcastingandcommunicationtothepublicasitappliesintheWPPT.SeeWPPT,supranote1,art.2(f),(g).
52
WIPOBasicProposal,supranote3,10.11,at44.
53
Id.11.03,at54.TherighttoauthorizephysicaldistributionofcopiesiscoveredbyArticles8(forperformers)and12
(forproducersofsoundrecordings)oftheWPPT.
54
13
U.S.CopyrightOffice
communicationconnections,orfacilitiesforthecarriageandroutingofsignals.55Finally,the
Chairmannotedthat[i]tisirrelevantwhethercopiesareavailablefortheuserorwhetherthe
workissimplymadeperceptibleto,andthususableby,theuser.56
SincetheTreatiesadoption,mostauthoritiesincludingjudicialdecisionsincountries
thathaveincorporatedexplicitmakingavailablelanguageintonationallawhaveinterpreted
therighttocovernotonlytheactualtransmissionofawork,butalsotheofferingtothepublicof
accesstoaworkondemand.57Theynotethatthetreatytextreferstomakingworksavailablein
suchamannerthatmembersofthepublicmayaccessthem.58Thus,asoneleadingtreatise
concludes,simplyofferingtheworkonanundiscriminatingbasis,sothatanymemberofthe
generalpublicmayaccessthework,shouldcomewithinthescopeoftheright....Itisnot
necessarythattheofferbeaccepted:makingavailableembracesincipientaswellaseffected
communications.59Themajorityofparticipantsinthisstudyagreedwiththatinterpretation.60
Id.10.10,at44.
55
Id.;seealsoGinsburgInitialCommentsat2([I]tdoesnotmatterwhetherthememberofthepublicobtainsaccessto
theworkviaarealtimestreamorviathedeliverytohercomputerorotherdeviceofadigitalcopythatshe
subsequentlyopensinordertoseeorhearthework.).
56
See,e.g.,CaseC306/05,SociedadGeneraldeAutoresyEditoresdeEspaa(SGAE)v.RafaelHotelesSA,2006E.C.R.I
11519,2006EURLexCELEX62005CJ0306,para.43(Dec.7,2006)(RafaelHoteles);CaseC466/12,NilsSvenssonand
Othersv.RetrieverSverigeAB,2014EURLexCELEX62012CJ0466,para.19(Feb.13,2014)(Svensson)(citingRafael
Hoteles,2006EURLexCELEX62005CJ0306,para.43);PolydorLtd.v.Brown,[2005]EWHC3191(Ch)(Eng.);
LandgerichtHamburg[LGHamburg][RegionalCourtofHamburg]Jan.25,2006,MULTIMEDIAUNDRECHT[MMR]2006,
700(Ger.);GinsburgInitialCommentsat2(TheconceptofmakingavailablesetoutinWCTarticle8necessarily
encompassesnotonlytheactualtransmissionofaworktomembersofthepublic,butespeciallytheofferingtothe
publictoaccesstheworkondemand.);REINBOTHE&VONLEWINSKI,supranote4,7.8.26,at137([U]sersdonot
necessarilyneedtoaccesstheworkinordertotriggerthemakingavailableright.Itissufficientthattheyhavethe
opportunitytoaccessitasaconsequenceoftheactofmakingitavailablesothataccessispossible.);BrigitteLindner,
TheWIPOTreaties,inCOPYRIGHTINTHEINFORMATIONSOCIETY1819(BrigitteLindner&TedShapiroeds.,2011)(First,
asfarasscopeoftherightisconcerned,itisgenerallyconsideredthatmakingavailablecoverstwoconnectedacts:the
offeroftheworkwhichmaybeaccessedindividuallybymembersofthepublicandthesubsequenttransmissionofthe
worktoamemberofthepublicathisorherrequest.However,itisnotnecessarythatsuchtransmissiontakeplace:
theofferofthecontentissufficientforthemakingavailablerighttocomeintoplaywhethertheuserultimately
requeststhetransmissionornot.).
57
SeeJaneC.Ginsburg,CommentsSubmittedinResponsetoU.S.CopyrightOfficesJuly15,2014NoticeofInquiryat2
(Sept.3,2014)(GinsburgAdditionalComments)(TheWCTtextisclearthattherightcoverstheofferof
individualizedaccesstoworks,becauseitspecifiesthemakingavailabletothepublicof[authors]worksinsucha
waythatmembersofthepublicmayaccesstheseworksfromaplaceandatatimeindividuallychosenbythem....)
(alterationandemphasisinoriginal);REINBOTHE&VONLEWINSKI,supranote4,7.8.26,at13637;RafaelHoteles,2006
EURLexCELEX62005CJ0306,para.43(ItfollowsfromArticle3(1)ofDirective2001/29andArticle8oftheWIPO
CopyrightTreatythatfortheretobecommunicationtothepublicitissufficientthattheworkismadeavailabletothe
publicinsuchawaythatthepersonsformingthatpublicmayaccessit.).
58
SAMRICKETSON&JANEC.GINSBURG,INTERNATIONALCOPYRIGHTANDNEIGHBORINGRIGHTS:THEBERNECONVENTION
59
ANDBEYOND12.58,at747(2ded.2005).
See,e.g.,Am.AssnofIndep.Music(A2IM),CommentsSubmittedinResponsetoU.S.CopyrightOfficesJuly15,
2014NoticeofInquiryat2(Sept.15,2014)(A2IMAdditionalComments)(Theconceptofmakingavailable...does
60
14
U.S.CopyrightOffice
III. U.S.IMPLEMENTATIONOFTHEMAKINGAVAILABLERIGHT
Asnotedabove,theumbrellasolutiongrantscountriesflexibilityinhowtheyimplement
themakingavailablerightasastandaloneexclusiveright,orthroughacombinationofother
exclusiverights.Ultimately,however,themakingavailablerightasincorporatedintotheWCT
andtheWPPTsoughttoreservetocopyrightownerstherighttocontrolinteractive,ondemand
disseminationofcopyrightedworksovertheInternet,includingprovisionofaccesstostreamsor
downloads.InevaluatingU.S.implementationofthemakingavailableright,then,wemustlook
tohowU.S.lawaddressestheseandsimilarformsofcommunicatingcopyrightedworkstothe
publicunderitsexclusiverightsscheme.
A. UnitedStatesTreatyRatification
TheU.S.SenatepassedaresolutiontoratifytheWIPOInternetTreatiesinNovember
1998.61DuringdeliberationsonimplementingtheTreatiesexclusiverightsprovisions,including
makingavailable,officialsfromboththeCopyrightOfficeandtheU.S.PatentandTrademark
OfficetestifiedthattheTreatieswouldnotrequireamendmenttotheexclusiverightssetforthin
Section106oftheCopyrightAct.TheRegisterofCopyrightsstatedthat[a]fteranextensive
analysistheCopyrightOfficeconcludedthatexistingprotections[inTitle17were]adequateto
fulfill...thesubstantivetreatyobligationsimplicatingcopyrightownersexclusiverights,and
thereforetherewasnoneedtoalterthenatureandscopeofthecopyrightsandexception[]s,or
changethesubstantivebalanceofrightsembodiedintheCopyrightAct.62TheAssistant
nothingeonwhetherindividualsactuallyreceivethedeliveryofcopyrightedmaterialthroughthebroadcastofpublic
performance;rather,itstipulatesthattherightofdistributioninherentlybelongstothecopyrightownerwho
authorizesanddetermineshowandwhenaprotectedworkisaccessed.);MusicalWorksOrganizationsJointInitial
Commentsat4([I]tisnecessarytodemonstrateonlyuploadingtoapublicsource,anditisnotnecessarytoshow
transmissionstoindividual,ondemandrecipients.);GinsburgInitialCommentsat1(CompliancewiththeWCT
requiresamemberstate...tocovernotonlyactualtransmissionsofstreamsanddownloads,butalsotheofferingto
communicatetheworkasastreamoradownload.);ThomasD.SydnorII,CommentsSubmittedinResponsetoU.S.
CopyrightOfficesFeb.25,2014NoticeofInquiryat7(Apr.4,2014)(SydnorInitialComments)(TheWIPOInternet
TreatiesandallrecentU.S.FreeTradeAgreementsinarguablyrequiretheU.S.toprovideauthorswithanexclusive
righttomakecopiesorperformancesoftheirworksavailableovertheInternetregardlessofwhethertheworkwas
madeavailablebecauseitwasdownloadedorstreamedfromawebsiteorcopiedintothesharedfolderofafile
sharingprogramlikeGrokster,KaZaA,LimeWire,orFrostwire.);Tr.at171:13(StevenTepp,GIPC)([T]heterm
makingavailablehasaplainmeaning,anditsmakingavailable.);id.at174:1214(JosephDiMona,BMI)(Itisvery
plainthatmakingavailablemeanstheoffering,notrequiringadistribution.).Butseesupranote29(commentsarguing
thatTreatiesmaypermitmemberstatestorequireevidenceofdissemination).
105CONG.REC.S12,985(dailyed.Nov.12,1998).Theresolutionprovidedthat[t]heUnitedStatesshallnotdeposit
theinstrumentsofratificationfortheseTreatiesuntilsuchtimeasthePresidentsignsintolawabillthatimplements
theTreaties.Id.TheimplementinglegislationwascontainedintheDMCA,TitleIofwhichisentitledtheWIPO
CopyrightandPerformancesandPhonogramsTreatiesImplementationActof1998.H.R.REP.NO.105796,at2(1998)
(Conf.Rep.).
61
HearingonH.R.2281andH.R.2180,supranote17,at43(statementofMarybethPeters,RegisterofCopyrights).The
twotreatyobligationsthatrequiredimplementinglegislationweretheprovisionsrelatingtothecircumventionof
technologicalmeasuresusedbycopyrightownersandthealterationorremovalofelectroniccopyrightmanagement
information,nowimplementedunder17U.S.C.1201and1202,respectively.
62
15
U.S.CopyrightOffice
SecretaryofCommerceandCommissionerofPatentsandTrademarkstestifiedthatnothingin
theseTreaties...affectstheissueofliabilityforparticularactsofcopyrightinfringement.63
InOctober1998,PresidentClintonsignedtheDMCA,TitleIofwhichisentitledtheWIPO
CopyrightandPerformancesandPhonogramsTreatiesImplementationActof1998.64The
ConferenceReportaccompanyingthelegislationstatesthatTitleIimplementstwonew
intellectualpropertytreaties,theWIPOCopyrightTreatyandtheWIPOPerformancesand
PhonogramsTreaty,signedinGeneva,SwitzerlandinDecember1996.65TheDMCAdidnot
modifyanyoftheexclusiverightsprovidedunderSection106ofTitle17.Consistentwiththe
viewoftheRegisterandtheAdministration,theHouseJudiciaryCommitteeReportonthe
legislationconcludedthat[t]hetreatiesdonotrequireanychangeinthesubstanceofcopyright
rightsorexceptionsinU.S.law.66
Sincethen,theU.S.governmenthasmaintainedconsistentlythattheCopyrightAct
satisfiestheWIPOInternetTreatiesmakingavailableobligations.Forexample,in2002,the
RegisterofCopyrightsstatedthat[w]hileSection106oftheU.S.CopyrightActdoesnot
specificallyincludeanythingcalledamakingavailableright,theactivitiesinvolvedinmakinga
workavailablearecoveredundertheexclusiverightsofreproduction,distribution,public
displayand/orpublicperformance,andthatthespecificrightinvokedinanygivencontextwill
dependonthenatureofthemakingavailableactivity.67Additionally,informalstatementsto
theWorldTradeOrganization,theUnitedStatesaffirmedthatitprovidesfullrightsofmaking
availableasrequiredbytheWCTandWPPT68andthat[t]heWCTandWPPTobligationto
providearightofmakingavailable...isfullysatisfiedthroughprovisionsofSection106.69And
in2013,theDepartmentofCommercesInternetPolicyTaskForcenotedthattheUnitedStates
implementsthemakingavailablerightinpartthroughtheActsexclusiverightofdistribution,
andconcludedthatthatrightwasintendedtoencompassthemereofferingofcopiestothe
public.70
Id.at37(statementofBruceA.Lehman,AssistantSecyofCommerce&CommrofPatents&Trademarks).
63
DMCA,Pub.L.No.105304,112Stat.2860,2861(1998).
64
H.R.REP.NO.105796,at63(1998)(Conf.Rep.).
65
H.R.REP.NO.105551,pt.1,at9(1998).
66
PiracyofIntellectualPropertyonPeertoPeerNetworks,supranote6,at114(letterfromMarybethPeters,Registerof
Copyrights).
67
MinutesofMeeting,UnitedStatesTradePolicyReview,at134,WT/TPR/M/126/Add.3(Nov.22,2004);seealsoid.at140
(Copyrightownershavearighttocommunicationtothepublicoftheirworks,bywireorwirelessmeans.Thisright
includesthemakingavailabletothepublicoftheirworksinsuchawaythatmembersofthepublicmayaccessthese
worksfromaplaceandatatimeindividuallychosenbythem.Thisobligationissatisfiedthroughsections106(1),
106(3),106(4),106(5)and106(6)oftheU.S.copyrightlaw....).
68
MinutesofMeeting,UnitedStatesTradePolicyReview,at121,WT/TPR/M/88/Add.1(Jan.8,2002).
69
70GREENPAPER,supranote3,at15.TheTaskForcesGreenPaperalsonotedthatcontraryjudicialdecisionspredate
...recentacademicscholarshiponpreviouslyunanalyzedlegislativehistory.Id.at16.
16
U.S.CopyrightOffice
TheUnitedStatesalsohasreaffirmeditsobligationtorecognizethemakingavailableright
innumerousbilateralandmultilateralfreetradeagreements(FTAs)enteredintowithother
nations.ElevenFTAs(involvingsixteenforeigncountries)incorporatelanguagebasedcloselyon
WCTArticle8.71Forexample,theUnitedStatesKoreaFreeTradeAgreement,whichenteredinto
forcein2012,provides:
WithoutprejudicetoArticles11(1)(ii),11bis(1)(i)and(ii),11ter(1)(ii),14(1)(ii),and
14bisoftheBerneConvention,eachPartyshallprovidetoauthorstheexclusive
righttoauthorizeorprohibitthecommunicationtothepublicoftheirworks,by
wireorwirelessmeans,includingthemakingavailabletothepublicoftheir
worksinsuchawaythatmembersofthepublicmayaccesstheseworksfroma
placeandatatimeindividuallychosenbythem.72
AnotherFTAprovidesageneralobligationtogiveeffecttoprovisionsoftheWCTandWPPT,
includingthearticlesestablishingthemakingavailableright.73
Pursuanttostatute,theExecutiveBranchsubmittedtheseagreementstoCongressfor
approval.74EachoftheFTAsexpresslyreferencingthemakingavailablerightwasaccompanied
byaformalStatementofAdministrativeActionsettingouttheExecutiveBranchsviews
regardinghowimplementationoftheagreementwouldchangeoraffectexistinglaw.75Ineach
case,theAdministrationconcludedthatnostatutoryoradministrativechangewouldberequired
toimplementthechapteronintellectualpropertyrights,whichincludedtheprovisionson
SeeUnitedStatesKoreaFreeTradeAgreement,U.S.S.Kor.art.18.5,June30,2007,46I.L.M.642,
https://ustr.gov/tradeagreements/freetradeagreements/korusfta/finaltext;UnitedStatesPanamaTradePromotion
Agreement,U.S.Pan.,art.15.6,June28,2007,http://www.ustr.gov/tradeagreements/freetradeagreements/panama
tpa/finaltext;UnitedStatesColombiaTradePromotionAgreement,U.S.Colom.,art.16.5.4,Nov.22,2006,
http://www.ustr.gov/tradeagreements/freetradeagreements/colombiafta/finaltext;UnitedStatesPeruTrade
PromotionAgreement,U.S.Peru,art.16.5.4,Apr.12,2006,http://www.ustr.gov/tradeagreements/freetrade
agreements/perutpa/finaltext;UnitedStatesOmanFreeTradeAgreement,U.S.Oman,art.15.5,Jan.19,2006,
http://www.ustr.gov/tradeagreements/freetradeagreements/omanfta/finaltext;UnitedStatesBahrainFreeTrade
Agreement,U.S.Bahr.,art.14.5,Sept.14,2004,44I.L.M.544,http://www.ustr.gov/tradeagreements/freetrade
agreements/bahrainfta/finaltext;DominicanRepublicCentralAmericaUnitedStatesFreeTradeAgreement,U.S.
CostaRicaDom.Rep.ElSal.Guat.Hond.Nicar.,art.15.6,Aug.5,2004,43I.L.M.514,https://ustr.gov/trade
agreements/freetradeagreements/caftadrdominicanrepubliccentralamericafta/finaltext;UnitedStatesMorocco
FreeTradeAgreement,U.S.Morocco,art.15.6,June15,2004,44I.L.M.544,http://www.ustr.gov/tradeagreements/free
tradeagreements/moroccofta/finaltext;UnitedStatesAustraliaFreeTradeAgreement,U.S.Austl.,art.17.5,May18,
2004,43I.L.M.1248,http://www.ustr.gov/tradeagreements/freetradeagreements/australianfta/finaltext;United
StatesChileFreeTradeAgreement,U.S.Chile,art.17.5.2,June6,2003,42I.L.M.1026,http://www.ustr.gov/trade
agreements/freetradeagreements/chilefta/finaltext;UnitedStatesSingaporeFreeTradeAgreement,U.S.Sing.,art.
16.4.2(a),May6,2003,42I.L.M.1026,https://ustr.gov/tradeagreements/freetradeagreements/singaporefta/finaltext.
71
UnitedStatesKoreaFreeTradeAgreement,supranote71,art.18.5.
72
SeeUnitedStatesJordanFreeTradeAgreement,U.S.Jordan,art.4.1(c),(d),Oct.24,2000,https://ustr.gov/trade
agreements/freetradeagreements/jordanfta/finaltext.
73
See19U.S.C.3805(a)(1)(C).
74
Seeid.3805(a)(1)(C),(2)(A).
75
17
U.S.CopyrightOffice
makingavailable.76CongressspecificallyapprovedeachoftheseStatementsinthelegislation
implementingtherespectiveFTAs.77
B. ExclusiveRightsRelevanttoMakingAvailable
TheUnitedStatesimplementsthemakingavailablerightprincipallythroughthe
CopyrightActsexclusiverightsofdistribution,publicperformance,andpublicdisplay.In
addition,totheextentthattheactofmakingaworkavailabletothepublicinvolvesthecreation
ofacopy,itmayalsoimplicatetherightofreproduction.78
76StatementofAdministrativeAction,UnitedStatesPanamaTradePromotionAgreementImplementationAct,at32
(2011),http://waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/PANAMA_Statement_of_Administrative_Action.pdf;
StatementofAdministrativeAction,UnitedStatesColombiaTradePromotionAgreementImplementationAct,at30
(2011),http://waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/COLOMBIA_Statement_of_Administrative_Action.pdf;
StatementofAdministrativeAction,UnitedStatesKoreaFreeTradeAgreementImplementationAct,at30(2011),
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/KOREA_Statement_of_Administrative_Action.pdf;Statementof
AdministrativeAction,UnitedStatesPeruTradePromotionAgreementImplementationAct,at29(2007),
http://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Leg%20110%20100307peruaction.pdf;StatementofAdministrative
Action,UnitedStatesOmanFreeTradeAgreementImplementationAct,H.R.DOC.NO.109118,at288(2006),
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CDOC109hdoc118/pdf/CDOC109hdoc118.pdf;StatementofAdministrativeAction,
UnitedStatesBahrainFreeTradeAgreementImplementationAct,at21(2005),http://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/
media/doc/110805Bahrain%20FTA%20SAA.pdf;StatementofAdministrativeAction,DominicanRepublicCentral
AmericaUnitedStatesFreeTradeAgreementImplementationAct,at31(2005),https://ustr.gov/archive/assets/
Trade_Agreements/Regional/CAFTA/Transmittal/asset_upload_file816_7815.pdf;StatementofAdministrativeAction,
UnitedStatesMoroccoFreeTradeAgreementImplementationAct,at23(2004),http://waysandmeans.house.gov/
Media/pdf/morocco/hr4842saa.pdf;StatementofAdministrativeAction,UnitedStatesAustraliaFreeTradeAgreement
ImplementationAct,at26(2004),http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Media/pdf/australia/australiassa.pdf;Statementof
AdministrativeAction,UnitedStatesSingaporeFreeTradeAgreementImplementationAct,at34(2003),
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Media/pdf/singapore/hr2739SingaporeSAA71503.pdf;StatementofAdministrative
Action,UnitedStatesChileFreeTradeAgreementImplementationAct,at31(2003),http://waysandmeans.house.gov/
Media/pdf/chile/hr2738ChileSAA71503.pdf.
77UnitedStatesPanamaTradePromotionAgreementImplementationAct,Pub.L.No.11243,101(a)(2),125Stat.497,
499(2011);UnitedStatesColombiaTradePromotionAgreementImplementationAct,Pub.L.No.11242,101(a)(2),
125Stat.462,464(2011);UnitedStatesKoreaFreeTradeAgreementImplementationAct,Pub.L.No.11241,101(a)(2),
125Stat.428,430(2011);UnitedStatesPeruTradePromotionAgreementImplementationAct,Pub.L.No.110138,
101(a)(2),121Stat.1455,1457(2007);UnitedStatesOmanFreeTradeAgreementImplementationAct,Pub.L.No.109
283,101(a)(2),120Stat.1191,1192(2006);UnitedStatesBahrainFreeTradeAgreementImplementationAct,Pub.L.
No.109169,101(a)(2),119Stat.3581,3582(2006);DomincanRepublicCentralAmericaUnitedStatesFreeTrade
AgreementImplementationAct,Pub.L.No.10953,101(a)(2),119Stat.462,464(2005);UnitedStatesMoroccoFree
TradeAgreementImplementationAct,Pub.L.No.108302,101(a)(2),118Stat.1103,1104(2004);UnitedStates
AustraliaFreeTradeAgreementImplementationAct,Pub.L.No.108286,101(a)(2),118Stat.919,920(2004);United
StatesSingaporeFreeTradeAgreementImplementationAct,Pub.L.No.10878,101(a)(2),117Stat.948,949(2003);
UnitedStatesChileFreeTradeAgreementImplementationAct,Pub.L.No.10877,101(a)(2),117Stat.909,910(2003).
78Inmanycasesinvolvingonlinetransmissions,thesameactivitycanimplicatemorethanoneexclusiveright.See,e.g.,
Perfect10,Inc.v.Amazon.com,Inc.,508F.3d1146,1161(9thCir.2007)(NothingintheCopyrightActpreventsthe
variousrightsprotectedinsection106fromoverlapping.Indeed,undersomecircumstances,morethanonerightmust
beinfringedinorderforaninfringementclaimtoarise.).
18
U.S.CopyrightOffice
1. RightofDistribution
[T]he owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to
authorize any of the following:
....
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by
sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending . . . .
17 U.S.C. 106(3)
Itisgenerallysettledthattheexclusiverightofdistributiongivesacopyrightownerthe
righttocontrolthetransmissionofherworktothepublicintheformofdigitaldownloads.
Courtsconsideringtheissuehaveuniformlyagreedthatprovidingpublicaccesstodownloadable
copiesofacopyrightedworkwithoutauthorizationforexample,byuploadingafiletoa
publiclyaccessiblepeertopeernetworkmaygiverisetoliabilityunderSection106(3)incertain
circumstances.Nonetheless,thereissignificantdisagreementamongcourtsandcommentators
overtheevidentiaryshowingnecessarytoestablishaninfringementoftherightinthiscontext.
WeconsiderthatissueinPartIII.B.1.bbelow.First,however,weaddressathresholdissueraised
byafewparticipantsinthisstudy.
a. DigitalFilesasMaterialObjects
Asmallnumberofcommentersarguedthattherightofdistributiondoesnotcoverdigital
transmissionsatall,suchasdigitaldownloadsoruploads.Insupportofthatview,theynoted
thatSection106(3)speakstothedistributionofcopiesorphonorecords,whicharedefinedin
Section101asmaterialobjects...inwhichaworkisfixedbyanymethodnowknownorlater
developed,andfromwhichthe[work/sounds]canbeperceived,reproduced,orotherwise
communicated,eitherdirectlyorwiththeaidofamachineordevice.79Intheirview,the
transmissionofbitsovertheInternetdoesnotinvolvethedistributionofamaterialobject.80
Additionally,thesecommenterspointedtolanguageinSection106(3)limitingthescopeofthe
righttodistributionsmadebysaleorothertransferofownership,orbyrental,lease,or
lending,whichtheyinterprettorequireachangeinownershiporpossessionofamaterialobject
fromtransferortotransferee.Adigitaltransmissionfailstosatisfythatrequirement,theyargued,
17U.S.C.106(3),101(emphasisadded).SeePK&EFF,CommentsSubmittedinResponsetotheU.S.Copyright
OfficesJuly15,2014NoticeofInquiryat2(Sept.15,2014)(PKEFFJointAdditionalComments)(arguingthat
distributionsarenotcognizableundersection106unlesstheyareofcopiesorphonorecordsandtothepublic);
AndrewP.Bridges,CommentsSubmittedinResponsetoU.S.CopyrightOfficesFeb.25,2014NoticeofInquiryat4
(Apr.4,2014)(BridgesInitialComments);AndrewP.Bridges,CommentsSubmittedinResponsetoU.S.Copyright
OfficesJuly15,2014NoticeofInquiryat12(Sept.15,2014)(BridgesAdditionalComments);Tr.31:716(May5,
2014)(AndrewP.Bridges).
79
BridgesInitialCommentsat6;PKEFFJointAdditionalCommentsat67;RickSanders,CommentsSubmittedin
ResponsetoU.S.CopyrightOfficesJuly15,2014NoticeofInquiryat67(Sept.15,2014)(SandersAdditional
Comments).
80
19
U.S.CopyrightOffice
becauseitdoesnotdivestthesenderofhercopyoftherelevantfile;itmerelycreatesaduplicate
attherecipientslocation.81
Suchanarrowviewofthedistributionright,ofcourse,wouldwhollyupendprotections
forcopyrightownersonlineandthereforedefeattheverypurposeoftheWIPOInternet
Treatiesthatis,toconfirmexclusiverightsforcopyrightownersinthedigitalage.82And,we
areawareofnocourtintheUnitedStatesthathasadoptedthisextremeposition.Eachcourtto
haveconsideredthisissuehasconcludedthatdigitaltransmissionsarewithinthescopeof
Section106(3).83Asonecourtnoted,suchargumentsareunsupportedbylawandruncontrary
tothepoliciesunderlyingtheapplicationofcopyrightlawtointernetcommunications.84
SeeBridgesInitialCommentsat5(Internettransmissionssuchasemail,peertopeertransmissions,streaming,and
thelikedonotpassmaterialobjectsortheirownershipfromonepersontoanother.);PKEFFJointAdditional
Commentsat6([S]incethedistributionrightrequiresdistributionofcopiesorphonorecords,noinfringing
distributioncanoccurwithoutthetransferofpossessionofamaterialobject.);Tr.at43:57(AndrewP.Bridges)
([T]ransferofownershipmeans,whenPersonBgetsitfromPersonA,PersonAnolongerhasit.).
81
SeeGinsburgAdditionalCommentsat13(UnlessCongressthoroughlyrevisitsthedistributionandpublic
performancerights,thestatutoryrighttodistributecopiesorphonorecordsofthecopyrightedworkmustincludethe
actofcausingcopiestobemadeinmaterialobjectsincludingharddrivesandservers,lesttherebeagapintherights
comprisingtheU.S.implementationofthemakingavailableright.);MPAA&RIAA,CommentsSubmittedin
ResponsetoU.S.CopyrightOfficesJuly15,2014NoticeofInquiryat9(Sept.15,2014)(MPAARIAAJointAdditional
Comments)(statingthatapplicationofthedistributionrightinthedigitalrealmisrequiredfortheUnitedStates
implementationoftheWCTandWPPTtreaties,aprimarypurposeofwhichwasprotectingcopyrightedworks
specificallyagainstunauthorizedexploitationovertheInternet).
82
See,e.g.,BMGRightsMgmt.(US)LLCv.CoxCommcns,Inc.,No.1:14CV1611,2015WL7756130,at*26(E.D.Va.Dec.
1,2015)(Notonlycanelectronicfilesbematerialobjects,buttransferringfilesusingaBitTorrentprotocolsatisfiesthe
transactionalelementofdistribution.);CapitolRecords,LLCv.ReDigiInc.,934F.Supp.2d640,651(S.D.N.Y.2013)
(ReDigi)([T]hesaleofdigitalmusicfilesonReDigiswebsiteinfringesCapitolsexclusiverightofdistribution.);
AristaRecordsLLCv.Usenet.com,Inc.,633F.Supp.2d124,147(S.D.N.Y.2009)(Usenet.com)([T]hedeliveryofarticles
and/orcontenttodownloadattherequestofsubscriberscanbethebasisofdirectinfringementofthedistribution
right.);LondonSireRecords,Inc.v.Doe1,542F.Supp.2d153,173(D.Mass.2008)(Anelectronicfiletransferisplainly
withinthesortoftransactionthat106(3)wasintendedtoreach.);AristaRecords,LLCv.Butler,No.8:07cv3T23EAJ,
2007WL4557198,at*2n.6(M.D.Fla.Dec.21,2007)(Distributingcopyrightedsoundrecordingswithoutauthorization
throughapeertopeernetworksuchasKaZaAisdistributionprohibitedbythecopyrightact.);AristaRecordsLLCv.
Greubel,453F.Supp.2d961,968(N.D.Tex.2006)(Greubel)([C]ourtshavenothesitatedtofindcopyright
infringementbydistributionincasesoffilesharingorelectronictransmissionofcopyrightedworks.);seealsoPerfect
10,508F.3dat1162(TheSupremeCourthasindicatedthatintheelectroniccontext,copiesmaybedistributed
electronically.).NumerousothercourtshaveappliedSection106(3)tosuchtransmissionswithoutexpressly
addressingthestatutesapplicationinthedigitalcontext.See,e.g.,NewYorkTimesCo.v.Tasini,533U.S.483,498(2001)
(statingthatsellingcopiesofnewsarticlesfordownloadwasaviolationoftheplaintiffsdistributionright);Inre
AimsterCopyrightLitig.,334F.3d643,647(7thCir.2003)(stating,inadiscussionofsharingcopyrightedworksas
attachments,suchdistributionisaninfringementunlessauthorizedbytheownerofthecopyright.);A&MRecords,
Inc.v.Napster,Inc.,239F.3d1004,1014(9thCir.2001)(Napster)(statingthatuserswhouploadfilestoNapster
violatedrightsholdersdistributionrights);LionsGateFilmsInc.v.Does,No.2:14cv06033MMMAGRx,2014WL
3895240,at*3,*6(C.D.Cal.Aug.8,2014)(findingevidenceofplaintiffsmoviebeingsharedonaBitTorrentsite
sufficienttosupportaclaimofinfringementofthedistributionright);CalloftheWildMovie,LLCv.Does11,062,770F.
Supp.2d332,35152(D.D.C.2011)(statingthatclaimthatthedefendantsshared,viaaBitTorrentswarm,plaintiffs
copyrightedworkswassufficienttomakeoutprimafacieclaimsforreproductionanddistributions);CapitolRecords,Inc.
83
20
U.S.CopyrightOffice
TheDistrictofMassachusettssopinioninLondonSireRecords,Inc.v.Doe1providesa
particularlythoroughanalysis.85There,thecourtnotedasapreliminarymatterthatelectronic
filesarematerialobjectswithinthemeaningoftheCopyrightAct,explainingthatanyobject
inwhichasoundrecordingcanbefixedincludingtheappropriatesegmentof[a]hard
diskqualifiesassuch.86Thecourtthendetermined,basedonthedistributionrightsoverall
purposeofallow[ing]theauthortocontroltherateandtermsatwhichcopiesorphonorecords
oftheworkbecomeavailabletothepublic,thatelectronicfiletransfersaredistributionsunder
Section106(3).87Itnotedthatwhilethestatuterequiresthatdistributionbeofmaterialobjects,
thereisnoreasontolimitdistributiontoprocessesinwhichamaterialobjectexiststhroughout
theentiretransactionasopposedtoatransactioninwhichamaterialobjectiscreatedelsewhere
atitsfinish.88Finally,thecourtheldthatanelectronictransmissioncanconstituteatransferof
ownershipunderSection106(3),reasoningthatthestatuteisconcernedwiththeabilityofa
transferortocreateownershipinsomeoneelsenotthetransferorsabilitysimultaneouslyto
retainhisownownership.89
Inaddition,asseveralcommentersnoted,otherCopyrightActprovisionsindicatethat
Congressunderstooddigitalfiletransferstoimplicatethedistributionright.90Section115,which
establishesacompulsorylicenseformakinganddistributingphonorecordsofnondramatic
musicalworks,repeatedlyreferstodistributionbymeansofadigitalphonorecorddelivery,91
v.MP3tunes,LLC,No.07Civ.9931(WHP),2009WL3364036,at*910(S.D.N.Y.Oct.16,2009)(allowingcomplainttobe
amendedtoadddistributionclaimsfordigitalcopiesofCDcoverart);cf.MAISys.Corp.v.PeakComput.,Inc.,991F.2d
511,51920(9thCir.1993)(holdingthatthedefendantinfringedtheplaintiffsdistributionrightbyofferingits
copyrightedsoftwareforloan).
Atl.RecordingCorp.v.Serrano,No.07CV1824W(JMA),2007WL4612921,at*3(S.D.Cal.Dec.28,2007).
84
542F.Supp.2d153.
85
86Id.at171.Thecommenterswhoarguedthatthedistributionrightisinapplicabletodigitaltransmissionsdidnot
disputethisconclusion.SeeBridgesInitialCommentsat9(Itisawellacknowledgedprinciplethatdigitalfile
transfersresultinareproduction.).
LondonSireRecords,542F.Supp.2dat17374.
87
Id.at173.
88
Id.at174.
89
See,e.g.,Tr.at38:717(JaneC.Ginsburg,Colum.LawSch.)(arguingthattherepeateduseofthephrasedigital
phonorecorddelivery,definedasadigitaltransmission,usedtogetherwithreproduceanddistribute,indicatesthat
adigitalfiletransfercanbeadistribution);Tr.at39:1140:8,46:2147:10(GeorgeBorkowski,RIAA)(statingthatSection
115containsplainlanguageincludingdigitalphonorecorddeliveryasaformofdistributionandthat[i]fadigital
phonorecorddeliverywerenotadistribution,therewouldbenoneedtolimitthatrightthroughacompulsory
license);MPAARIAAAdditionalCommentsat12(Because...theCopyrightActgivessubstantivelythesame
definitiontophonorecordsandcopies,theSection115(c)(3)(A)compulsorylicensealsodemonstratestheexistenceof
adigitaldistributionrightforcopies.).
90
9117U.S.C.115(a)(1)(Apersonmayobtainacompulsorylicenseonlyifhisorherprimarypurposeinmaking
phonorecordsistodistributethemtothepublicforprivateuse,includingbymeansofadigitalphonorecord
delivery.),115(c)(3)(G)(i)(II)(digitalphonorecorddeliveryofsoundrecordingisactionableunlesspartyhasobtained
acompulsorylicense...orhasotherwisebeenauthorizedbythecopyrightownerofthemusicalworktodistributeor
21
U.S.CopyrightOffice
andgivesalicenseetherighttodistributeorauthorizethedistributionofaphonorecord...by
meansofadigitaltransmissionwhichconstitutesadigitalphonorecorddelivery.92Adigital
phonorecorddeliveryisdefinedtomeaneachindividualdeliveryofaphonorecordbydigital
transmissionofasoundrecordingwhichresultsinaspecificallyidentifiablereproductionbyor
foranytransmissionrecipientofaphonorecordofthatsoundrecording....93Thestatutethus
providesalimitationonthedistributionrightofcopyrightownersofmusicalworks,anddefines
thatrighttoincludethedeliveryofphonorecordsbydigitaltransmission.
Inlightofthisunbrokenlineofauthority,theOfficereadilyconcludesthatSection106(3)
extendstothedigitaltransferofcopiesorphonorecordsinelectronicformatsandisnotlimitedto
theconveyanceoftangibleobjects.94
b. EvidenceRequiredtoEstablishDistribution
Asecond,morewidespreadareaofdisagreementisthequestionofwhetherapartycan
infringethedistributionrightbyofferingacopyrightedworktothepublicfordownload,or
whetherevidenceofanactualdownloadisanessentialelementofsuchaviolation.95Todate,
neithertheU.S.SupremeCourtnoranyofthecircuitcourtshashadoccasiontodirectlyruleon
theissue,96andthedistrictcourtsthathaveconsideredthequestionhavecometodiffering
authorizethedistribution,bymeansofadigitalphonorecorddelivery,ofeachmusicalworkembodiedinthesound
recording).
Id.115(c)(3)(A).
92
Id.115(d).
93
94Thecommenterswhoarguedthatthedistributionrightdoesnotapplyinthiscontextfurthercontendedthattreating
digitaltransfersasdistributionsrequiresrecognitionofadigitalfirstsaledoctrine.Intheirview,ifanelectronicfile
transferconstitutesadistributionofcopies,thentherecipientlogicallyshouldbepermittedtotransmitthefileto
anotherpartywithoutthecopyrightownerspermission,justastheownerofacopyinaphysicalformat(e.g.,aused
book)maysellorgiveitaway.SeeBridgesInitialCommentsat67;PKEFFJointAdditionalCommentsat6;Tr.at
160:9161:10(JonathanBand,LibraryCopyrightAlliance(LCA)).TheOfficedoesnotfindthisconstruction
persuasivebecausethefirstsaledoctrineprotectsonlydistributionbytheownerofaparticularcopyorphonorecord.
..ofthatcopyorphonorecord.ReDigi,934F.Supp.2dat655(omissionandemphasesinoriginal)(quoting17U.S.C.
109(a)).Bycontrast,adigitalfiletransfercreatesanewcopyorphonorecordonthetransfereescomputer.Seeid.
SeeTheScopeofCopyrightProtection:HearingBeforetheSubcomm.onCourts,IntellectualProp.,&theInternetoftheH.
Comm.ontheJudiciary,113thCong.13(2014)(statementofDavidNimmer,ProfessorfromPractice,UCLASch.ofLaw,
OfCounsel,Irell&Manella,LLP,LosAngeles)(Bothsidesofthemakingavailableissuerecognizethatcopyright
ownersenjoytheexclusiverighttocontroldistributionoftheirworks;theironlypointofdisagreementconcernsthe
quantumofproofneededtodemonstratethatdistributiontookplace(simpleuploadingforproponentsoftheright,
uploadingplusprovendownloadingforitsopponents).).
95
Severalcourts,includingtheSecond,Fifth,andEighthCircuits,haveacknowledgedthedisagreementbuthave
declinedonthefactsbeforethemtodecidewhetherevidenceofanactualdownloadisrequired.See,e.g.,Capitol
Records,Inc.v.ThomasRasset,692F.3d899,906(8thCir.2012);AristaRecords,LLCv.Doe3,604F.3d110,122(2dCir.
2010);MaverickRecordingCo.v.Harper,598F.3d193,197(5thCir.2010);seealsoInterscopeRecordsv.Leadbetter,No.C05
1149MJPRSL,2007WL1217705,at*4(W.D.Wash.Apr.23,2007);MaverickRecordingCo.v.Goldshteyn,No.CV054523
(DGT),2006WL2166870,at*3(E.D.N.Y.July31,2006);Fonovisa,Inc.v.Alvarez,No.1:06CV011CECF,2006WL
5865272,at*23(N.D.Tex.July24,2006).TheNinthCircuit,whilenotdirectlyanalyzingtheissue,hasincorporated
96
22
U.S.CopyrightOffice
conclusions.Severalofthedistrictcourtstoconsidertheissuehavefound,atleastpreliminarily,
thatofferingcopyrightedmaterialonlinefordownload,withoutactualevidenceofthirdparty
downloads,maybesufficienttosupportaclaimforunauthorizeddistribution.97Incontrast,
otherdistrictcourtshaveheldthatevidenceofanactualdownloadisrequiredtosupporta
findingofinfringementoftherighttodistribute.98Amongthecourtsadoptingthislatterview,
somehaveconcludedthatplaintiffsneverthelessarenotrequiredtoofferdirectproofofa
downloadtoestablishdistribution,butmaydosothroughcircumstantialorinvestigatorevidence
fromwhichitreasonablycanbeinferredthatadownloadtookplace.99
Forthereasonsdiscussedbelow,theCopyrightOfficeadherestotheviewthatSection
106(3)isproperlyconstruedtocoverthemakingavailableofcopiesofworkstothepublicinthe
languageintoatleasttwopublishedopinionsthatappearstoendorsethepositionthatevidenceofadownloadisnot
required.SeeColumbiaPicturesIndus,Inc.v.Fung,710F.3d1020,1034(9thCir.2013)(Fung)(Bothuploadingand
downloadingcopyrightedmaterialareinfringingacts.Theformerviolatesthecopyrightholdersrighttodistribution,
thelattertherighttoreproduction.);Napster,239F.3dat1014(statingindictathatNapsteruserswhouploadfile
namestothesearchindexforotherstocopyviolateplaintiffsdistributionrights).
See,e.g.,Atl.RecordingCorp.v.Anderson,No.H063578,2008WL2316551,at*78(S.D.Tex.Mar.12,2008)(holding,
withoutanalysis,thatplacingtheCopyrightedRecordings,alongwithothersoundrecordings,intoasharedfolderon
hiscomputerwhilebeingconnectedtothemediadistributionsystemorpeertopeernetworkKaZaA....[and]
avail[ing]the558digitalmusicfiles(orsoundrecordings)inhissharedfolderatthattime,whichincludedthe
CopyrightedRecordings,fordistributiontothevastcommunityofpersonsalsoconnectedtoKaZaAviolated
plaintiffsrightofdistribution);MotownRecordCo.v.DePietro,No.04CV2246,2007WL576284,at*3(E.D.Pa.Feb.16,
2007)(stating,withoutanalysis,that[a]plaintiffclaiminginfringementoftheexclusivedistributionrightcanestablish
infringementbyproofofactualdistributionorbyproofofofferstodistribute,thatis,proofthatthedefendantmade
availablethecopyrightedwork);Greubel,453F.Supp.2dat96971(noting,onamotiontodismiss,thatthecourts
haverecognizedthatmakingcopyrightedworksavailabletoothersmayconstituteinfringementbydistributionin
certaincircumstances,andfindingthatplaintiffshadsufficientlyallegeddistributiontoproceed);UniversalCity
StudiosProds.LLLPv.Bigwood,441F.Supp.2d185,19091(D.Me.2006);WarnerBros.Records,Inc.v.Payne,No.W06
CA051,2006WL2844415,at*4(W.D.Tex.July17,2006);InterscopeRecordsv.Duty,No.05CV3744PHXFJM,2006WL
988086,at*2(D.Ariz.Apr.14,2006);seealsoAristaRecords,Inc.v.Mp3Board,Inc.,No.00CIV.4660(SHS),2002WL
1997918,at*4(S.D.N.Y.Aug.29,2002)(holdingthatacopyrightholdermaynotberequiredtoproveparticular
instancesofusebythepublicwhentheproofisimpossibletoproducebecausetheinfringerhasnotkeptrecordsof
publicuse,butfindingsuchexceptioninapplicabletothecurrentcase).
97
98See,e.g.,BMGRightsMgmt.,2015WL7756130,at*27([T]oestablishadirectinfringementofitsdistributionright,
BMGmustshowanactualdisseminationofacopyrightedwork.);Atl.RecordingCorp.v.Howell,554F.Supp.2d976,
981(D.Ariz.2008)(Howell)(Thegeneralrule,supportedbythegreatweightofauthority,isthatinfringementof
[thedistributionright]requiresanactualdisseminationofeithercopiesorphonorecords.)(alterationinoriginal);
CapitolRecordsInc.v.Thomas,579F.Supp.2d1210,121819(D.Minn.2008)(Thomas)([T]heplainmeaningofthe
termdistributiondoesnotincludemakingavailableand,instead,requiresactualdissemination.),vacatedonother
grounds,692F.3d899(8thCir.2012).InLondonSireRecords,thedistrictcourtrequiredanactualtransferofcopies,but
foundthattheplaintiffsneednotprofferevidenceofsuchdistributionatthepleadingstage,solongasitwas
sufficientlyalleged.542F.Supp.2dat169.
SeeBMGRightsMgmt.,2015WL7756130,at*21,*27;Thomas,579F.Supp.2dat1225;LondonSireRecords,542F.Supp.
2dat169,17677;seealsoHowell,554F.Supp.2dat98384([E]videncethatadefendantmadeacopyofawork
availabletothepublicmight,inconjunctionwithothercircumstantialevidence,supportaninferencethatthecopywas
likelytransferredtoamemberofthepublic.).SeegenerallyRobertKasunic,MakingCircumstantialProofofDistribution
Available,18FORDHAMINTELL.PROP.MEDIA&ENT.L.J.1145(2008).
99
23
U.S.CopyrightOffice
formofdownloads,regardlessofwhethertheplaintiffprovesthatanactualdownloadoccurred.
Whiletheissueisnotfreefromambiguity,weconcludethatthisconstructionproducesthemore
internallyconsistentreadingofTitle17andbestreflectscongressionalintent.Thestatutory
language,context,andlegislativehistoryallsupportthisconclusion.
i.
StatutoryLanguageandContext
Asnoted,Section106(3)givestheownerofacopyrighttheexclusiverighttodistribute
copiesorphonorecordsofthecopyrightedworktothepublicbysaleorothertransferof
ownership,orbyrental,lease,orlending.100Thetermdistributeisnotdefinedinthestatute,
anditsmeaninggeneratedlittlecaselawpriortotheemergenceofelectronictransmission
technologies.Duringthatperiod,fewplaintiffsallegedviolationofthedistributionrightapart
fromviolationofthereproductionrightunderSection106(1),since,inmostcases,copiesof
worksdistributedwithoutarightsholdersauthorizationwerealsomadewithoutauthorization.101
Thus,aplaintiffcouldestablishaprimafacieinfringementcasesimplythroughproofof
unauthorizedcopying,makingitunnecessaryforcourtstoconstruethescopeofthedistribution
right.102
Casesthatdidturnsolelyonthedistributionrighttypicallyinvolvedunusualscenarios,
suchasplacingacopyrightedworkinalibrarythatwasopentothepublic.103InHotalingv.
ChurchofJesusChristofLatterDaySaints,theFourthCircuitheldthatachurchdistributedcopies
ofaworkforpurposesofSection106(3)whenitmadethemavailabletothepublicatits
libraries.104Thecourtdidnotaddresstheordinarymeaningofdistribute,butitheldthatthe
copiesweredistributednotwithstandingthelackofrecordevidencethatthelibrarieshadinfact
loanedthemtomembersofthepublic.Thecourtexplained:
Whenapubliclibraryaddsaworktoitscollection,liststheworkinitsindexor
catalogsystem,andmakestheworkavailabletotheborrowingorbrowsing
public,ithascompletedallthestepsnecessaryfordistributiontothepublic.At
thatpoint,membersofthepubliccanvisitthelibraryandusethework.Were
thisnottobeconsidereddistributionwithinthemeaningof106(3),acopyright
holderwouldbeprejudicedbyalibrarythatdoesnotkeeprecordsofpublicuse,
andthelibrarywouldunjustlyprofitbyitsownomission.105
Thekeyelementforthecourt,then,wasnotthattherewasdirectproofthatsomeoneactually
17U.S.C.106(3).
100
2MELVILLEB.NIMMER&DAVIDNIMMER,NIMMERONCOPYRIGHT8.11[C][1](2015)(NIMMERONCOPYRIGHT).
101
Id.
102
TheScopeofCopyrightProtection,supranote95,at10(statementofDavidNimmer,ProfessorfromPractice,UCLA
Sch.ofLaw,OfCounsel,Irell&Manella,LLP,LosAngeles).
103
118F.3d199,201(4thCir.1997).
104
Id.at203.
105
24
U.S.CopyrightOffice
checkedoutlibrarycopies,butthatthelibraryhadofferedthecopiestothepublicandcompleted
allstepsnecessarytofulfillthatoffer.106
Morerecently,inDiverseyv.Schmidly,theTenthCircuitheldthatthedistributionrightis
infringedbytheunauthorizedlistingofaworkinalibrarycatalogforpubliclending.107Agreeing
withHotaling,thecourtconcludedthat[t]heessenceofdistributioninthelibrarylendingcontext
istheworksavailabilitytotheborrowingorbrowsingpublic.108LiketheFourthCircuit,the
Diverseycourtdidnotprovideadetailedanalysisofthestatutorytext.Nevertheless,bothcourts
determined,atleastimplicitly,thatthetermdistributecanencompassthemakingavailableof
copiesinsuchamannerthattheonlyactionnecessaryforatransfertooccuristhatofanofferee
inacquiringacopy.
Withthedevelopmentofdigitaltransmissiontechnologies,thequestionofwhatitmeans
todistributecopieshasattainedfargreatersalience,andtheresultinglitigationhasproduced
substantialdisagreementamongcourtsandcommentators.Inpeertopeerfilesharingcases,
somecourtshavedisagreedwithHotaling,oneconcludingthattheordinarydictionarymeaning
oftheworddistributenecessarilyentailsatransferofownershiporpossessionfromoneperson
toanother109andanotherstatingthat[m]erelybecausethedefendanthascompletedallthe
stepsnecessaryfordistributiondoesnotnecessarilymeanthatadistributionhasactually
occurred.110Inresponse,anumberofcommentatorshaveobservedthatnotalldictionary
definitionsofdistributerefertothereceiptofmaterialbyanotherperson,111arguingthat,inat
Seeid.
106
738F.3d1196(10thCir.2013).
107
Id.at1203(quotingHotaling,118F.3dat203).
108
Thomas,579F.Supp.2dat1217;seealsoHowell,554F.Supp.2dat981(Thestatutedoesnotdefinetheterm
distribute,socourtshaveinterpretedtheterminlightofthestatutesplainmeaningandlegislativehistory.The
generalrule,supportedbythegreatweightofauthority,isthatinfringementof[thedistributionright]requiresan
actualdisseminationofeithercopiesorphonorecords.)(alterationinoriginal)(quotingNatlCarRentalSys.v.Comput.
Assocs.Intl,Inc.,991F.2d426,434(8thCir.1993)).
109
110LondonSireRecords,542F.Supp.2dat168(citationomitted);seealsoHowell,554F.Supp.2dat98384(AsHotaling
seemstosuggest,evidencethatadefendantmadeacopyofaworkavailabletothepublicmight,inconjunctionwith
othercircumstantialevidence,supportaninferencethatthecopywaslikelytransferredtoamemberofthepublic.On
itsown,however,itdoesnotprovethatthecopychangedhands.Itonlyshowsthatthedefendantattemptedto
distributethecopy,andthereisnobasisforattemptliabilityinthestatute,nomatterhowdesirablesuchliabilitymay
beasamatterofpolicy.)(citationsomitted).
See,e.g.,2NIMMERONCOPYRIGHT,supranote101,8.11[D][3][b](Websterssecondandfourthentriesappearthe
mostrelevantdefinitionsinthecontextofcopyright:tospreadoutorscatterasindistributingmagazinesto
subscribersandtomarket(acommodity)underafranchiseinaparticulararea.)(quotingDistribute,WEBSTERSTHIRD
NEWINTERNATIONALDICTIONARYOFTHEENGLISHLANGUAGE,UNABRIDGED660(PhilipBabcockGoveed.)(1961and
1993));Carson,supranote40,at151(citingDistribute,CAMBRIDGEADVANCEDLEARNERSDICTIONARY362(3rded.2003)
andDistribute,WEBSTERSNEWCOLLEGIATEDICTIONARY333(1980));seealsoDistributeDefinition,CAMBRIDGE
DICTIONARIESONLINE,http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/businessenglish/distribute(definingtermtomean
tomakeacompanysgoodsavailabletothepublic,forexample,bytransporting,storing,andsellingthem).
111
25
U.S.CopyrightOffice
leastsomecontexts,thetermissufficientlybroadtoincludeprovidingcopiesforpeoplewho
wishtoacquirethem.112
Inanyevent,thedefinitionalissueisonlypartofthestatutoryconstructionequation.
Whenconstruingstatutorylanguage,courtsdonotexaminetherelevanttermsinisolation.
Rather,[i]tisafundamentalcanonofstatutoryconstructionthatthewordsofastatutemustbe
readintheircontextandwithaviewtotheirplaceintheoverallstatutoryscheme.Acourtmust
thereforeinterpretthestatuteasasymmetricalandcoherentregulatoryscheme,andfit,if
possible,allpartsintoanharmoniouswhole.113Here,twootherCopyrightActprovisions
addressingthescopeofthedistributionrightsuggestthatSection106(3)isproperlyconstruedto
coverofferstodistributecopyrightedworksviadownload.
First,acriminalcopyrightprovisioninSection506ofTitle17demonstratesCongresss
intentiontotreatthemakingavailableofworksonpubliclyaccessiblecomputernetworksasa
violationofthedistributionright.Section506(a)(1)(C)providesthatapersonmaycriminally
infringecopyrightbythedistributionofaworkbeingpreparedforcommercialdistribution,by
makingitavailableonacomputernetworkaccessibletomembersofthepublic,ifsuchperson
kneworshouldhaveknownthattheworkwasintendedforcommercialdistribution.114This
provision,whichwasaddedtotheCopyrightActbytheFamilyEntertainmentandCopyrightAct
of2005,115indicatesbothCongresssintenttoproscribemakingworksavailablefordownload
beforetheirauthorizedcommercialrelease,anditsunderstandingthattheexclusiveright
implicatedbysuchconductisthatofdistribution.116
ThedistrictcourtinInreNapster,Inc.CopyrightLitigationdiscountedthesignificanceof
thislegislationonthegroundthatitdidnotamendSection106(3)andthusdoesnotspeak
explicitlytothescopeofcivilliabilityunderthedistributionright.117Othercourtshavefound
thatthestatuteactuallyindicatesthatCongressdidnotintendtocoveroffersinthecivilcontext.
Intheirview,Section506(a)(1)(C)showsthatwhenCongressintendsdistributiontoencompass
makingavailableorofferingtotransfer,ithasdemonstratedthatitisquitecapableofexplicitly
providingthatdefinitionwithinthestatute.118Tobesure,Congresscouldhavecombinedthe
newcriminalprovisionwithlanguagedirectlyaddressingmakingavailableactivityinthecivil
context.TheOfficeisnotpersuaded,however,thattheabsenceofsuchaprovisioncarriesthe
Carson,supranote40,at151.
112
FDAv.Brown&WilliamsonTobaccoCorp.,529U.S.120,133(2000)(citationsomitted).
113
17U.S.C.506(a)(1)(C).
114
Pub.L.No.1099,103(a),119Stat.218,220(2005).
115
SeeCarson,supranote40,at160(Itishardtofathomhowthislanguagecanbereadasanythingotherthan
Congresstellingus,intheformofanamendmenttothecopyrightstatute,thatthedistributionrightincludestheactof
makingcopiesavailableoncomputernetworksaccessibletomembersofthepublic.).
116
377F.Supp.2d796,80405(N.D.Cal.2005).
117
Thomas,579F.Supp.2dat1218;accordBMGRightsMgmt.,2015WL7756130,at*25.
118
26
U.S.CopyrightOffice
significanceascribedtoitbysomecourts.Toreadthe2005amendmentaswhollyirrelevantto
civilclaims,ortotreatitasevidencethatoffersareexcludedinthatcontext,requiresinterpreting
thestatutetomeanthatthesameconductthatisacriminalinfringementunderSection
506(a)(1)(C)cannotbethesubjectofacivilinfringementclaim.Suchaconstructionseemshighly
implausible.Asnotedinoneanalysis,thereisnootherinstanceundertheCopyrightActin
whichanactthatgivesrisetocriminalliabilityforcopyrightinfringementcouldnotprovidethe
basisforcivilliability.119Moreover,thestatutorylanguagemakesclearthattheconduct
describedinSection506(a)(1)(C)isaninfringementofthecopyrightownersdistributionright:a
personwhoactswillfullyiscriminallyliableforinfring[ing]acopyright...iftheinfringement
wascommitted...bythedistributionofawork...bymakingitavailableonacomputer
networkaccessibletomembersofthepublic....120IntheCopyrightOfficesview,itismore
consistentwithasymmetricalandcoherentregulatoryscheme121toconstrueSection
506(a)(1)(C)asanextensionofcriminalsanctionstoaspecificsubsetofmakingavailable
conduct,thebroaderuniverseofwhichwasalreadycoveredbySection106(3).
ThesecondCopyrightActprovisionrelevanttotheconstructionofthedistributionrightis
Section602,whichconcernstheunauthorizedimportationofcopiesorphonorecords.Section
602(a)(1)providesthat[i]mportationintotheUnitedStates,withouttheauthorityoftheowner
ofcopyrightunderthistitle,ofcopiesorphonorecordsofaworkthathavebeenacquiredoutside
theUnitedStatesisaninfringementoftheexclusiverighttodistributecopiesorphonorecords
undersection106....122Thestatutedoesnotrequireevidencethatcopieswereactually
disseminatedtomembersofthepublictoestablishaviolation.Thelegislativehistoryconfirms
thatanyunauthorizedimporterofcopiesorphonorecordsacquiredabroad,couldbesuedfor
damagesandenjoinedfrommakinguseofthem,evenbeforeanypublicdistributioninthis
countryhastakenplace.123Therefore,asoneparticipantinthisstudyhasnoted,thisprovision
indicatesthatCongresswasinterestedinprotectingthecopyrightownersexclusiverightto
distributewithoutconcernfortechnicalrequirements.Someonewhoimportscopiesofawork
violatesthedistributionrightunlessthatpersonfitswithinoneofthespecificexceptions.124Nor
isthereanyindicationthatCongressintendedtoprovidealowerstandardofproofforviolations
ofthedistributionrightarisingoutofunauthorizedimportationsthanfordistributionviolations
generally.Indeed,ProfessorNimmerconcludesthatsuchaconstructionwouldbeentirely
fanciful,findingithighlyunlikelythatCongressintendednottorequireproofofactual
Carson,supranote40,at161.
119
17U.S.C.506(a)(1)(C);seeSydnorInitialCommentsat44n.163(Amendmentsto506(a)mustconsiderthescope
ofcivilliabilityforcopyrightinfringementbecauseinfringementisanexpressprerequisitetoanyviolationof
506(a).)(citationomitted).
120
Brown&Williamson,529U.S.at133(internalquotationmarksandcitationsomitted).
121
17U.S.C.602(a)(1).
122
H.R.REP.NO.941476,at16970(1976).
123
PeterS.Menell,InSearchofCopyrightsLostArk:InterpretingtheRighttoDistributeintheInternetAge,59J.COPYRIGHT
SOCYU.S.A.201,257(2011).
124
27
U.S.CopyrightOffice
disseminationforactivityataninternationalborder,...[but]harboredtheoppositeintention
withrespecttoentirelydomesticactivity.125TheOfficeagreesthatthebetterapproachisto
construeSection602(a)(1)andSection106(3)consistently,withtheformerprovidingclarification
thatinfringementofthedistributionrightdoesnotrequireevidenceofreceiptbyathirdparty.
Inlightofthisanalysis,theOfficerespectfullydisagreeswiththeconclusionreachedby
somecourtsthatthephrasebysaleorothertransferofownership,orbyrental,lease,or
lendinginSection106(3)indicatesthatthedistributionrightisimplicatedonlywhereacopyofa
workchangeshands.126Thatreadingmightbepersuasiveweretherelevantanalysisconfinedto
Section106(3)itself,butitisdifficulttoreconcilewithSections506and602,whichdemonstrate
thatinfringementofthedistributionrightdoesnotrequiresuchatransferinallcircumstances.
Ataminimum,theseprovisionswouldseemtocreateanambiguityinthestatute,making
considerationofitslegislativehistoryappropriate.Asdiscussedinthenextsection,thathistory
stronglyindicatesthatCongressintendedSection106(3)toencompassoffersofpublic
distribution.Furthermore,underthestatutoryconstructioncanondiscussedinPartIII.C.2,the
statuteshouldbeinterpretedconsistentlywithinternationalnormswherefairlypossible.Inthe
Officesview,itisreasonabletoreadthesaleorothertransferofownershiplanguagenotasa
requirementforactualdissemination,butsimplyasameansofdistinguishingthetypesof
communicationmethodscoveredbythedistributionrightfromthosecoveredbyotherexclusive
rights.Byreferringtodistributionbysaleorothertransferofownership,orbyrental,lease,or
lending,thestatutemakesclearthatthedistributionrightappliesonlytoactivitiesthatenablea
memberofthepublictoobtainpossessionofacopyofawork,asopposedtothosethatmerely
allowaworktobeperceived,whichgenerallyfallunderthepublicperformanceorpublicdisplay
rights.Basedonalloftheseconsiderations,theOfficeconcludesthatthisisthepreferable
interpretation.
NoristheOfficepersuadedthataprovisioninChapter9ofTitle17isindicativeof
congressionalintenttolimitthedistributionrighttocompletedtransfers.NotingthatSection901
expresslydefinesdistributetoincludeoffer[ing]tosell,lease,bail,orotherwisetransfer,127a
fewcommentersarguedandonecourthasconcluded128thatthislanguagedemonstratesthat
whenCongressintendstoincludeofferswithinthemeaningofdistribution,itiscapableof
makingthatintentionexplicitinthestatutorytext.129Section901,however,isaprovisionofthe
SemiconductorChipProtectionActof1984,which,althoughcodifiedinTitle17,neitheramends
theprecedingchaptersnorconstitutesanypartoftheCopyrightAct.130Itdoesnotspeaktothe
2NIMMERONCOPYRIGHT,supranote101,8.11[B][4][c].
125
SeeBMGRightsMgmt.,2015WL7756130,at*2425;Thomas,579F.Supp.2dat1217;Howell,554F.Supp.2dat983;see
alsoLunneyInitialCommentsat2.
126
17U.S.C.901(a)(4).
127
SeeThomas,579F.Supp.2dat121718.
128
CCIAInitialCommentsat6;PKEFFJointAdditionalCommentsat8&n.20;Tr.at114:611(MatthewSchruers,
CCIA).
129
2NIMMERONCOPYRIGHT,supranote101,8A.01.
130
28
U.S.CopyrightOffice
exclusiverightsofcopyrightownersbutinsteadcreatesasuigenerisformofprotectionlimitedto
maskworksfixedinsemiconductorchipproducts.131TheOfficeisnotconvincedthat
definitionallanguagefromthisseparatestatutewarrantssignificantweightintheconstructionof
theCopyrightActsdistributionright,particularlyinrelationtothestatutoryprovisions
discussedaboveexpresslyaddressingthatright.132
Insum,thereissubstantialsupportinthetextoftheActthattheexclusiverightof
distributionencompassesthemakingavailabletothepublicofcopiesofworksfordownload.
Thetermdistributeascommonlydefinedextendstomakingitemsavailableforpersonsto
acquire,asthetwofederalappellatecourtsinHotalingandDiverseyrecognizedinconstruing
Section106(3)intheanalogcontext.Totheextentthattheordinarymeaningofthetermdoesnot
fullyresolvetheissueinthedigitalrealm,readingSection106(3)inthecontextofrelated
statutoryprovisionssuggeststhatCongressdidnotintendtoconditionliabilityonproofofactual
dissemination.
Itshouldbenotedthatthestatutorytextalsoreflectsanimportantlimitationonthescope
ofofferingliabilityunderthedistributionright.UnderbothSections506(a)(1)(C)and602(a)(1),
itisclearthatthedefendantactuallymusthavepossessionoftherelevantworkforliabilityto
attach.ThislimitationlikewiseisembodiedintheHotalingformulation,whichlookstowhether
thedefendanthascompletedallthestepsnecessaryfordistributiontothepublic,133andthus
permitsafindingofinfringementonlywhereapartyhasacopyofaworkandmakesoneor
morecopiesavailableformembersofthepublictoobtain.134Accordingly,whileapersonwho
uploadsacopyrightedworktoasharefolderfordownloadingbythepublichasmadeanoffer
sufficienttoimplicateSection106(3),onewhosimplymakesastatementpurportingtooffer
copiesthatshedoesnotinfactpossesshasnotdoneso.
ii.
LegislativeHistory
SomehaveexpressedtheviewthattheCopyrightActisambiguouswithrespectto
whetherSection106(3)includesarightofmakingavailable.135Intheeventthatcourtsinfuture
See17U.S.C.902(a);2NIMMERONCOPYRIGHT,supranote101,8A.02.
131
Forthesamereason,theOfficeisunpersuadedbytheThomascourtsconclusionthataprovisionofthePatentActis
indicativeofCongresssintentregardingthescopeofthedistributionright.See579F.Supp.2dat121819.That
provision,moreover,referstoofferstosell,35U.S.C.271(a)(emphasisadded),nottodistribute,furtherlimitingits
interpretivevaluetoSection106(3).
132
Hotaling,118F.3dat203.
133
SeeSIIAInitialCommentsat31(Thecaselawandstatuteclearlyestablishthatthedistributionrightinsection
106(3)oftheU.S.CopyrightActcoversthemakingavailableofacopyrightedworkprovided:(i)thetransferorhas
completedallthenecessarystepsforapublicdistributionandtheonlystep(s)necessaryforatransferinownership
(asrequiredbythestatute)arethosethatmustbeundertakenbythetransfereeorotherthirdparty;and(ii)thealleged
infringermusthavethecapacitytotransferacopyofthecopyrightedworkbypossessingacopyofthecopyrighted
workallegedtobeinfringed.).
134
SeeMenell,supranote124,at257(GiventhetextualambiguityofSection106(3)...thereisgoodreasontoexamine
thelegislativehistorytounderstandthebroadercontextandoriginsofthedistributionright.);2NIMMERON
135
29
U.S.CopyrightOffice
casesreachthesameconclusion,theymaylooktolegislativehistoryforfurtherinsightinto
Congresssintenttoprovidesucharight.136Inparticular,thehistorysurroundingthe
relationshipbetweenthedistributionrightandcertainexclusiverightsundertheCopyrightAct
of1909reflectsCongresssunderstandingthatSection106(3)wouldencompassoffersto
distributecopiestothepublic.Mostcourtsthathaveconstruedtherighthavenothadthefull
benefitofthishistory,insteadrelyingonprioreditionsoftheNimmeronCopyrighttreatiseto
concludethatthestatuteislimitedtocompletedtransfers.Inlightofrecenthistorical
scholarship,however,thetreatisehasbeenupdatedtoconcludethatCongressintendedthe
distributionrighttoextendtooffersofaccess.
(a) RelationshiptoHistoricRightstoPublishandVend
Anexaminationofthedevelopmentofthe1976Actrevealscompellingevidencethatthe
distributionrightwasintendedtobroadenthescopeoftheexclusiverightstopublishandto
vendprovidedundertheCopyrightActof1909,whichhadlongbeenunderstoodto
encompassofferstodistributecopiestothepublic.
The1909Actdidnotincludeanexclusiverightofdistribution.Instead,Section1(a)of
thatlawprovidedthatacopyrightownerhadtheexclusiverighttoprint,reprint,publish,copy,
andvendthecopyrightedwork.137Inits1961ReportoftheRegisterofCopyrightsontheRevisionof
theU.S.CopyrightLaw,theCopyrightOfficeconcludedthat[t]hesevarioustermsareredundant.
Printingandreprintingaremodesofcopying,andvendingisamodeofpublishing....In
substance,asseveralcourtshaveobserved,therightembracedintherepetitivetermsofsection
1(a)isthetwofoldrighttomakeandtopublishcopies.138Afteraseriesofpublicmeetings,the
Officereleasedapreliminarydraftofarevisedcopyrightlawin1962.139Section5ofthedraft
reframedtheexclusiverightstomakeandpublishcopiesastherighttocopyorrecordandthe
righttodistributecopiesandsoundrecordings,respectively.140Thechangeinterminologywas
explainedinaFebruary1963CopyrightOfficehearingbyAbeGoldman,GeneralCounselofthe
Office:Subsection(b)[establishingthedistributionright],Ibelieve,wouldcovereverything
thatscoveredinsection1(a)ofthepresentlawbyreferencetothetermspublishandvend
COPYRIGHT,supranote101,8.11[D][3][b](concludingthatwhetherproofofviolationoftherighttodistribute
requiresactualreceiptisambiguous,notsusceptibletoresolutionthroughdictionarydefinitionsalone);Tr.at181:3
6(KeithKupferschmid,SIIA)(Wehavegotambiguitiesinourownlawintermsofwhatitmeanstodistribute
something,whattherightofdistributioncoversanddoesntcover.).
SeeMilnerv.DeptoftheNavy,562U.S.562,572(2011)(Thoseofuswhomakeuseoflegislativehistorybelievethat
clearevidenceofcongressionalintentmayilluminateambiguoustext.).
136
ActofMarch4,1909,Pub.L.No.60349,1(a),35Stat.1075(1909).
137
U.S.COPYRIGHTOFFICE,COPYRIGHTLAWREVISION:REPORTOFTHEREGISTEROFCOPYRIGHTSONTHEGENERALREVISIONOF
138
THEU.S.COPYRIGHTLAW,87THCONG.,2122(Comm.Print1961).
SeeMenell,supranote124,at241.
139
STAFFOFH.COMM.ONTHEJUDICIARY,88THCONG.,COPYRIGHTLAWREVISIONPART3:PRELIMINARYDRAFTFORREVISED
U.S.COPYRIGHTLAWANDDISCUSSIONSANDCOMMENTSONTHEDRAFT4(Comm.Print1964).
140
30
U.S.CopyrightOffice
broadened,Iwouldsay,toavoidanyquestionsastowhetherpublishorvendisusedinsucha
narrowsensethattheremightbeformsofdistributionnotcovered.141Caselawconstruingthe
1909Act(aswellaspriorversionsofthecopyrightlaw)hadconsistentlyinterpretedthe
publicationrighttoencompasstheofferingofcopyrightedworkstothepublic.142Infact,
accordingtooneanalysis,[n]ocourtrecognizedarequirementtoproveactualdistributionof
copies.143
Thedecisiontosubstitutedistributeforpublishinthenewlegislationappearstohave
beenmotivatedinpartbyadesiretoavoidconfusionthathadariseninthecaselawoverother
aspectsofthepublicationright.Underthe1909Act,thepublicationofaworkcouldcarrysevere
consequencesforcopyrightownersbecausetheactofpublicationforfeitedcommonlaw
copyrightprotectionfortheworkandimpropernotice[uponpublication]surrenderedstatutory
protection.144Asaresult,[j]uristsdevelopeddoctrinestoavoidsuchharsheffects,butthese
oftenresultedindubiousdistinctionsintheconceptofpublicationthatgeneratedconfusion
amonglitigantsandcriticismfromcommentators.145AttheFebruary1963CopyrightOffice
hearing,EdwardSargoy,representingtheAmericanBarAssociation,suggestedthattheuseofthe
termdistributeinplaceofpublishcouldhelptoremedythisconcern:
Iamheartilyinaccordwiththeomissionoftheuseofthewordspublishedor
publication.Ithinkthattheuseofthewordspublicationorpublished,in
hundredsofcommonlawandstatutorycases,dissertations,andotherwise,has
madethetermsarchaictodayinthelightofourrecenttechnologicalprogress.
Referencetosuchmaterialswherethewordderiveditsmeaningfromconditions
existinginthe18th,19th,andearlypartofthe20thcentury,willonlyleadto
confusion.Ithinkitisanexcellentideatousetheworddistributeand,justas
Id.at110.
141
Menell,supranote124,at238;seee.g.,Laddv.Oxnard,75F.703,730(C.C.D.Mass.1896)(Toconstitutepublication,it
isnecessarythattheworkshallbeexposedforsaleorofferedgratuitouslytothegeneralpublic....)(quotingWALTER
A.COPINGER,THELAWOFCOPYRIGHTINWORKSOFLITERATUREANDART119(1893));NatlGeographicSocyv.Classified
Geographic,Inc.,27F.Supp.655,659(D.Mass.1939)(Initsordinaryacceptation,thewordpublicationmeanstheact
ofpublishingathingormakingitpublic;offeringtopublicnotice;orrenderingitaccessibletopublicscrutiny.In
copyrightlaw,itistheactofmakingpublicabook;thatis,offeringorcommunicatingittothepublicbysaleor
distributionofcopies.)(quotingDOlev.KansasCityStarCo.,94F.840,842(C.C.W.D.Mo.1899));TiffanyProds.,Inc.v.
Dewing,50F.2d911,914(D.Md.1931)(Initsordinaryacceptationthewordpublicationmeanstomakepublic;to
makeknowntopeopleingeneral***tobringbeforethepublicasforsaleordistribution....Saleis,ofcourse,notan
essentialelement.)(citationomitted);WilliamA.MeierGlassCo.v.AnchorHockingGlassCorp.,95F.Supp.264,268
(W.D.Pa.1951)(Itwasofferedforsaleandconstitutedageneralpublicationwherebytheplaintiffabandonedand
surrenderedanycommonlawpropertyrightitmayhavehadinsaiddesign.).
142
Menell,supranote124,at238;seealsoThomasF.Cotter,TowardaFunctionalDefinitionofPublicationinCopyrightLaw,
92MINN.L.REV.1724,1776(2008)([I]tseemsreasonablyclearfromthe[1909Act]caselawthatoffersforsaletothe
generalpubliccountaspublications.).
143
1NIMMERONCOPYRIGHT,supranote101,4.02[B][2].
144
Menell,supranote124,at238.
145
31
U.S.CopyrightOffice
thedraftherehasdone,havedistributeexpresslyincludetherighttosell,
(whichisstrictlyoneoftherightsofpublication),orotherwisetransfer
ownershipof,rent,lease,orlendoneormorecopiesorsoundrecordingsofthe
work.146
Ultimately,thisproposedchangewasreflectedinlegislationintroducedinCongressin
1965,whichincludedunderSection106(a)(3)theexclusiverightofthecopyrightownerto
distributecopiesorphonorecordsofthecopyrightedworktothepublicbysaleorothertransfer
ofownership,orbyrental,lease,orlending....147Nosubsequentchangestothislanguage
weremade,andSection106(3)ofthecurrentactisidenticallyworded.Underscoringthe
intendedrelationshiptopublication,the1965SupplementaryReportoftheRegisterof
Copyrightsnotesthatthelanguageoftheproposedclausecontainingthedistributionrightis
virtuallyidenticalwiththatinthedefinitionofpublicationinsection101,butforthesakeof
claritywehaverestatedtheconcepthere.148
Perhapsevenmorerevealing,the1976reportsoftheHouseandSenateJudiciary
CommitteesonthelegislationthatultimatelybecamethecurrentCopyrightActrepeatedlyuse
thetermpublicationinplaceofdistributionwhendescribingtheexclusiverightsprovided.
Thereportsstate:Thefivefundamentalrightsthatthebillgivestocopyrightownersthe
exclusiverightsofreproduction,adaptation,publication,performance,anddisplayarestated
generallyinsection106.149UndertheheadingRightsofreproduction,adaptation,andpublication,
thereportsprovidethat[t]hefirstthreeclausesofsection106includeexclusiverightsthatcan
generallybecharacterizedasrightsofcopying,recording,adaptation,andpublishing.150The
Senatereportthenexplains:Clause(3)ofsection106establishestheexclusiverightof
publication:Therighttodistributecopiesorphonorecordsofthecopyrightedworktothepublic
bysaleorothertransferofownership,orbyrental,lease,orlending.151Readtogetherwiththe
earlierdraftinghistory,thesestatementsstronglysuggestthatCongressunderstooddistribute
toencompasspublishexplicatedthroughitslongestablishedmeaningandchosetheterm
146
U.S.COPYRIGHTOFFICE,COPYRIGHTLAWREVISIONPART6:SUPPLEMENTARYREP.OFTHEREGISTEROFCOPYRIGHTSONTHE
GENERALREVISIONOFTHEU.S.COPYRIGHTLAW:1965REVISIONBILL,89THCONG.,186(Comm.Print1965).
147
Id.at19.Moregenerally,theSupplementaryReportexpressedtheviewthattheauthorsrightsshouldbestatedin
thestatuteinbroadterms,inpartduetotheconcernthatthetransmissionofworksby...linkedcomputers,and
othernewmediaofcommunication,maysoonbeamongthemostimportantmeansofdisseminatingthem,andwillbe
capableofreachingvastaudiences.Id.at14.Evenwhenthesenewmediaarenotoperatedforprofit,the
SupplementaryReportnoted,theymaybeexpectedtodisplacethedemandforauthorsworksbyotherusersfrom
whomcopyrightownersderivecompensation.Id.
148
H.R.REP.NO.941476,at61(emphasisadded);S.REP.NO.94473,at57(1975)(emphasisadded).
149
H.R.REP.NO.941476,at61;S.REP.NO.94473,at57.
150
S.REP.NO.94473,at58.TheHousereportcontainstheidenticalstatement,exceptthatthefirstsentenceusesthe
pluralinreferringtotheright.SeeH.R.REP.NO.941476,at62(Clause(3)ofsection106establishestheexclusiveright
ofpublications....).
151
32
U.S.CopyrightOffice
distributetolimitanyconfusionthathademergedoverjudicialeffortstoavoidthesevere
consequencesofpublicationwithoutpropernotice.152
Somecourtshaverejectedthepropositionthatthedistributionrightfullyincorporates
publication.Theiranalysis,however,doesnottakeintoaccountthefulllegislativerecord,much
ofwhichdidnotreceivewidespreadattentionfromcopyrightstakeholdersuntilthepublication
ofanarticlebyProfessorPeterS.Menellin2011.153Instead,thesecourtshavefocusedprimarily
onthedefinitionofpublicationinSection101ofthecurrentAct,whichprovides:
Publicationisthedistributionofcopiesorphonorecordsofaworktothe
publicbysaleorothertransferofownership,orbyrental,lease,orlending.The
offeringtodistributecopiesorphonorecordstoagroupofpersonsforpurposes
offurtherdistribution,publicperformance,orpublicdisplay,constitutes
publication.Apublicperformanceordisplayofaworkdoesnotofitself
constitutepublication.154
Intheviewofthesecourts,thepresenceofthephrasetheofferingtodistributewithinthe
definitionsuggeststhatCongressintendeddistributionandpublicationtohavedifferent
meanings.InLondonSireRecords,forexample,thecourtreadthatlanguagetoindicatethatthe
statuteexplicitlycreatesanadditionalcategoryofpublicationsthatarenotthemselves
distributions.155Underthatconstruction,anoffertodistributecopiestoagroupofpersonsfor
purposesoffurtherdistribution,publicperformance,orpublicdisplaywouldconstitutea
publicationbutnotadistributionwithinthemeaningofSection106(3).
Yetwhilethestatutorytextmaypermitsuchareading,itdoesnotcompelit:thefactthat
Congresschosetoclarifythatcertainofferstodistributeweretobetreatedaspublicationsdoes
notnecessarilymeanthatitintendedtoexcludeoffersfromthescopeofthedistributionright.
Moreover,placingsuchweightonthatportionofthedefinitionseemsatoddswithcongressional
intent.Thesentencecontainingtheofferingtodistributelanguagewasaddedtothedraft
legislationbya1971Senatebill156that,accordingtotheHousereportaccompanyingthefinal
2NIMMERONCOPYRIGHT,supranote101,8.11[B][2][c];seealsoFordMotorCo.v.SummitMotorProds.,Inc.,930F.2d
277,299(3dCir.1991)(Publicationandtheexclusiverightprotectedbysection106(3)...areforallpractical
purposes,synonymous.Therefore,anyclarificationofwhatismeantbypublicationwouldalsoclarifywhatismeant
bysection106(3)....);ElektraEntmtGrp.,Inc.v.Barker,551F.Supp.2d234,241(S.D.N.Y.2008)([T]heHouseand
SenateoftheNinetyFourthCongressconsideredthetermsdistributeandpublicationtobesynonymous.);Inre
Napster,Inc.CopyrightLitig.,377F.Supp.2dat803([T]he[Supreme]Courtobservedthatthelegislativehistoryofthe
1976Actequates[distribution]withtherightofpublication....)(citingHarper&Row,Publishers,Inc.v.Nation
Enters.,471U.S.539,552(1985)).
152
Menell,supranote124,at23051;seealsoGREENPAPER,supranote3,at16(notingthatcasesconstruingthe
distributionrightpredatetherecentacademicscholarship...reviewingpreviouslyunanalyzedlegislativehistory).
153
17U.S.C.101.
154
LondonSireRecords,542F.Supp.2dat169;accordBMGRightsMgmt.,2015WL7756130,at*24;Thomas,579F.Supp.
2dat1220;Howell,554F.Supp.2dat98485.
155
S.644,92dCong.sec.101,101(Publication)(1971).
156
33
U.S.CopyrightOffice
legislationin1976,providedonlyminoramendmentstothepreviousversionoftheproposed
Act.157Indeed,asProfessorNimmernotes,thereisnoaccompanyingcommentaryforthe1971
bill.158HadCongressintendedtorejectthewellestablishedviewthatthedistributionright
wouldcovereverythingencompassedbythepriorrightstopublishandvend159and,inso
doing,tonarrowtherightslongaffordedcopyrightownersunderexistinglawitseemshighly
unlikelythatitwouldhavedonesothroughaminordefinitionalamendmentandwithout
comment.160TheOfficeaccordinglyisnotpersuadedthatthislanguagecontradictstheextensive
andconsistentevidenceofcongressionalintenttopreservethoseprotectionsunderthe
distributionright.161
(b) RoleofNimmeronCopyrightTreatise
PriortothepublicationofProfessorMenellsarticle,theacademicsourcemostfrequently
reliedonbycourtsconstruingthedistributionrightwastheNimmeronCopyrighttreatise.
Numerouscourtscitedastatementinpreviouseditionsofthetreatisethatinfringementof[the
distributionright]requiresanactualdisseminationofeithercopiesorphonorecordsinsupport
oftheirconclusionthatthestatutedoesnotcoveroffersofaccess.162Forexample,thetreatisewas
thesoleauthoritycitedbytheEighthCircuitinNationalCarRentalSystem,Inc.v.Computer
AssociatesInternational,Inc.,insupportofitsstatementthatSection106(3)requiresanactual
H.R.REP.NO.941476,at48.
157
1NIMMERONCOPYRIGHT,supranote101,4.03[A]n.25.
158
159
SeeSydnorInitialCommentsat48(Thatbelatedandhumbleoriginshowsthatthissentencewasaminor
clarificationandforeclosesseriousclaimsthatthissentencecouldhavebeenintendedtoretractapublicationright.).
160
AsProfessorsMenellandNimmernote,thelegislativehistoryoftheSoundRecordingAmendmentsActof1971
(SRAA)mayprovidefurtherindicationthatCongressintendedtheexclusiverightofdistributiontocoveroffersto
distribute.TheSRRAwaspassedshortlybeforetheconclusionoftheConventionfortheProtectionofProducersof
PhonogramsAgainstUnauthorizedDuplicationoftheirPhonograms,Oct.29,1971,25U.S.T.309(GenevaPhonogram
Convention).TheSRRAamendedSection1oftheCopyrightActof1909toaddanewexclusiverighttoreproduce
anddistributetothepublicbysaleorothertransferofownership,orbyrental,lease,orlending,reproductionsofthe
copyrightedworkifitbeasoundrecording.ActofOct.15,1971,Pub.L.No.92140,1(a),85Stat391.Saveforthe
explicitreferencetosoundrecordings,thistextisnearlyidenticaltothatofSection106(3)ofthecurrentCopyrightAct.
ThelegislativehistoryindicatesthatthelanguageultimatelyenactedintheSRRAwasintendedtocorrespondtothe
textandpurposeoftheGenevaPhonogramConvention,whichdefinesdistributiontothepublicasanyactby
whichduplicatesofaphonogramareoffered,directlyorindirectly,tothegeneralpublicoranysectionthereof.
GenevaPhonogramConventionart.1(d);seeMenell,supranote124,at25051,25960;2NIMMERONCOPYRIGHT,supra
note101,8.11[B][4][b].Thus,boththeSRRAandthenearlyidenticallanguageofSection106(3)ofthecurrentAct
shouldbeconstruedtocoverofferstodistribute.
161
Seee.g.,ShannonsRainbowLLCv.SupernovaMedia,Inc.,No.2:08CV880TS,2011WL320905,*4n.34(D.UtahJan.31,
2011)(citing2MELVILLEB.NIMMER&DAVIDNIMMER,NIMMERONCOPYRIGHT8.11[A](2007));Howell,554F.Supp.2dat
981(same);Leadbetter,2007WL1217705,at*3(citing2MELVILLEB.NIMMER&DAVIDNIMMER,NIMMERONCOPYRIGHT
8.11[A](2005);Perfect10v.Google,Inc.,416F.Supp.2d828,841,844(C.D.Cal.2006)(same).
162
34
U.S.CopyrightOffice
distributionofcopies.163SeveralcourtshaveinturnreliedonNationalCarRentalforthe
propositionthatSection106(3)doesnotprovideamakingavailableright.164
AfterreviewingProfessorMenellslegislativehistoryscholarship,however,Professor
NimmerremovedthestatementfromthetreatiseandinvitedProfessorMenelltocoauthora
revisedsectionontheoriginsandscopeofthedistributionright.165Basedinpartonthenewly
examinedlegislativehistory,thecurrenteditionconcludesthat[n]oconsummatedactofactual
distributionneedbedemonstratedinordertoimplicatethecopyrightownersdistributionright,
andthattheactofmakingavailablesoundrecordingsfordownloadingbythepublicthrough
filesharingnetworkssufficestoshowactionablecopyrightinfringement.166Moreover,the
currenteditionclarifiesthatitsearlieroffhandstatementregardingactualdisseminationwas
merelyintendedtocontrasttheconceptofdistributionwiththatofperformance.167
ThefirstcourtofappealscasetointerpretSection106(3)followingthepublicationofthe
revisionwastheTenthCircuitsDiverseydecisionnotedabove.ThecourtcitedbothProfessor
Menellsresearchandtheupdatedtreatiseinsupportofitsconclusionthat,atleastinthelibrary
See991F.2d426,434(8thCir.1993).Asseveralcommentersnoted,however,relianceonNationalCarRentalis
misplacedincopyrightdistributioncasesinvolvingmakingavailableactivity.See,e.g.,MPAARIAAJointInitial
Commentsat1315;SIIAInitialCommentsat14,26;Tr.at206:6207:11(KeithKupferschmid,SIIA).Thatcaseinvolved
asoftwarelicensepermittingNationalCarRentalanditsvendortousecomputerprogramssolelytoprocessdataof
[National]andinnoeventfortheprocessingofdata...ofanythirdparty.NatlCarRental,991F.2dat428(omission
inoriginal)(citationsomitted).TheownerofthesoftwareallegedthatNationalbreachedthelicensebyusingthe
programstoprocessthedataofthirdparties.Id.TheissuewaswhetherthatclaimwaspreemptedbytheCopyright
Act.Thecourtheldthatitwasnot,holdingthatthepleadingscouldnotbereadtoallegeadistributionunderSection
106(3)becausetheydidnotallegeusebythethirdparties,butonlythatNationalanditsvendorhadusedthe
programsforthebenefitofthoseparties.Id.at430.TherewasnoallegationthatNationalhadofferedtodistribute
copies,andthereforetheavailabilityofsuchaclaimwasnotbeforethecourt.SeeCarson,supranote40,at154
(NothingresemblingadistributionoramakingavailabletookplaceintheNationalCarRentalcase.).
163
See,e.g.,Thomas,579F.Supp.2dat1225(NationalCarRental,notHotaling,isbindinguponthisCourt.);Howell,554
F.Supp.2dat981(Thegeneralrule,supportedbythegreatweightofauthority,isthatinfringementof[the
distributionright]requiresanactualdisseminationofeithercopiesorphonorecords.)(alterationinoriginal)(quoting
NatlCarRental,991F.2dat434);LondonSireRecords,542F.Supp.2dat167(citingNatlCarRentaltoillustratethesplit
amongcourtsoverthevalidreadingofSection106(3));InreNapster,Inc.CopyrightLitig.,377F.Supp.2dat802([A]
numberofcourts,includingtheEighthCircuit,haveheldthatinfringementofthedistributionrightrequiresanactual
disseminationofeithercopiesorphonorecords.)(quotingNatlCarRental,991F.2dat434).
164
165SeeTheScopeofCopyrightProtection,supranote95,at114(statementofDavidNimmer,ProfessorfromPractice,
UCLASch.ofLaw,OfCounsel,Irell&Manella,LLP,LosAngeles)([ProfessorMenells]findingsweresoimportant
thatIinvitedhimtocoauthorthenexttreatiserevision,inordertoincludethecomprehensiveanalysisoftheproper
interpretationofcopyrightlawsdistributionright,assetforthinthatlandmarkarticle.).
2NIMMERONCOPYRIGHT,supranote101,8.11[B][4][d],[D][4][c];seealsoTheScopeofCopyrightProtection,supranote
95,at2(statementofRep.HowardCoble,Chairman,Subcomm.onCourts,IntellectualProp.,&theInternet)(Iam
pleasedtolearnthatoneofourwitnesses,Mr.Nimmer,hasupdatedhiscopyrighttreatiseandmadeitperfectlyclear
thatmakingavailablecopyrightedworksforothersisinfringement.).
166
2NIMMERONCOPYRIGHT,supranote101,8.11[C][1][a]&n.116(notingthatactualdisseminationlanguagesimply
statedthatthereisnoviolationofthedistributionrightwhenthesubstanceofthecopyrightedworkhasbeenintangibly
dispersed,viaperformance;toviolatethedistributionright,instead,tangiblecopiesmustbeatissue).
167
35
U.S.CopyrightOffice
lendingcontext,makingaworkavailabletothepublicissufficienttoimplicatethedistribution
right.168
***
Inlightofalloftheforegoingevidence,theCopyrightOfficeconcludesthatapersonwho
hascompletedallthestepsnecessaryfordistributiontothepublic,169suchthatmembersofthe
publicmayaccessdownloadablecopiesofaworkondemand,hasengagedinadistribution
withinthemeaningofSection106(3).ThetextandlegislativehistoryoftheActindicatethat
Congressintendedtoaffordcopyrightownerstheexclusiverighttocontrolnotonlytheactual
disseminationofcopiesoftheirworks,butalsothemakingavailableofcopiestothepublic.Our
conclusioninthisregardisfurthersupportedbytheneed,discussedbelow,toconstruethe
statuteconsistentlywithourinternationalobligationswherefairlypossible.170
2. RightofPublicPerformance
....
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works,
pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the
copyrighted work publicly;
....
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by
means of a digital audio transmission.
17 U.S.C. 106(4), (6)
Inadditiontodigitaldownloads,theWIPOInternetTreatiessoughttoaddressotheracts
ofmakingcopyrightedworksavailableonline,includingthestreamingofcopyrightedcontent.171
Diversey,738F.3dat1202&n.7.
168
Hotaling,118F.3dat203.
169
SeePartIII.C.2,infra.Asonecommenternoted,Itwouldbeawkward,tosaytheleast,werecrabbedjudicial
interpretationsofthescopeoftherightof...distribution[]toresultinincompletecompliancewiththeinternational
normstheU.S.purportsnotonlytorespectbuteventodemandthatothernationsenforce.GinsburgInitial
Commentsat7.
170
Forpurposesofthepresentanalysis,wedefinestreamingtoincludetwotypesoftransmissions:(i)realtime
multicaststreaming,whereaserversendsoutonestreamtoalluserssimultaneouslyinamannersimilartotraditional
aerialbroadcasting(oftenusedforsimultaneousInternettransmissionbyterrestrialradiostations);and(2)unicast
streaming,whereasessionbasedonetooneconnectionisestablishedbetweenacustomerandtheserverthatisused
totransmitavideoorsoundrecordingovertheInternetinresponsetoanindividualusersrequest.SeeDaniel
Brenner,GentlyDowntheStream:WhenisanOnlinePerformancePublicUnderCopyright?,28BERKELEYTECH.L.J.1167,
117577(2013).
171
36
U.S.CopyrightOffice
Asnotedabove,actsofInternetstreamingprimarilyimplicatetherightofpublicperformance,
sincesuchtransmissionsoftendonotresultinthecreationofapermanentfileontheusers
computer(andthusmaynotbecompletelycoveredbythereproductionordistributionrights).
UnderSection101oftheCopyrightAct,toperformaworkmeanstorecite,render,
play,dance,oractit,eitherdirectlyorbymeansofanydeviceorprocessor,inthecaseofa
motionpictureorotheraudiovisualwork,toshowitsimagesinanysequenceortomakethe
soundsaccompanyingitaudible.172Thedefinitionofwhatconstitutesapublicperformance
encompassestwotypesofactivities:performancesordisplaysthatoccurinapublicsettingor
beforeapublicgroup,173andperformancesordisplaysthatoccurviaadeviceorprocessthat
transmitstheperformancetothepublicortoapublicplace.Thelattercategoryisdefinedby
Section101sTransmitClause:
Toperformordisplayaworkpubliclymeans
....
(2)totransmitorotherwisecommunicateaperformanceordisplayofthework
...tothepublic,bymeansofanydeviceorprocess,whetherthemembersofthe
publiccapableofreceivingtheperformanceordisplayreceiveitinthesame
placeorinseparateplacesandatthesametimeoratdifferenttimes.174
Asdiscussed,mostauthoritiesinterpretthemakingavailablerightundertheTreatiesto
covertheofferingofaccesstoaworktothepublicondemand.175Thus,forpurposesof
evaluatingU.S.implementationwithrespecttostreaming,thekeyconsiderationsarewhetherthe
TransmitClauseencompasses(1)offerstostream,ratherthanjustcompletedtransmissions,and
(2)ondemandcommunicationsi.e.,thosethatindividualmembersofthepubliccanreceiveata
timeandplaceoftheirchoosing.Thefirstissuehasnotbeensquarelyresolvedbycourts,butthe
Officeconcludesthatthestatuteisproperlyconstruedtoreachsuchoffers.Astothesecond
issue,theSupremeCourthasconfirmedthattheTransmitClausedoesinfactreachperformances
communicatedinindividualizedstreams.
a. OfferstoStream
ThroughtheTransmitClause,Congressintendedtofocusontheactofengaginginpublic
performanceorpublicdisplay,withoutregardtowhetherornotthepublicactuallyreceivedthe
performanceordisplay.Totransmitaperformanceordisplayisdefinedtomeanto
17U.S.C.101.
172
Id.(Toperformordisplayaworkpubliclymeans(1)toperformordisplayitataplaceopentothepublicorat
anyplacewhereasubstantialnumberofpersonsoutsideofanormalcircleofafamilyanditssocialacquaintancesis
gathered....).
173
Id.
174
Seesupranotes5759andaccompanyingtext.
175
37
U.S.CopyrightOffice
communicateitbyanydeviceorprocesswherebyimagesorsoundsarereceivedbeyondthe
placefromwhichtheyaresent.176TheHousereportaccompanyingthe1976Actmakesclear
thatCongressintendedthatdefinitiontoturnontheaccessibilityofaperformanceordisplayto
thepublic,notonitsactualreceiptbyanyindividual:
Eachandeverymethodbywhichtheimagesorsoundscomprisinga
performanceordisplayarepickedupandconveyedisatransmission,andifthe
transmissionreachesthepublicinmy[sic]form,thecasecomeswithinthescope
ofclauses(4)or(5)ofsection106.
Underthebill,asunderthepresentlaw,aperformancemadeavailableby
transmissiontothepublicatlargeispubliceventhoughtherecipientsarenot
gatheredinasingleplace,andevenifthereisnoproofthatanyofthepotential
recipientswasoperatinghisreceivingapparatusatthetimeofthe
transmission.177
ThereportalsonotesthatCongressintendedtogivethestatutesufficientflexibilityto
accommodatechangesintechnology:Thedefinitionoftransmit...isbroadenoughtoinclude
allconceivableformsandcombinationsofwiredorwirelesscommunicationsmedia,including
butbynomeanslimitedtoradioandtelevisionbroadcastingasweknowthem.178
Outsidethestreamingcontext,courtshavelookedtothislegislativehistorytoconclude
thatinfringementofthepublicperformancerightdoesnotrequireashowingthatanyusers
actuallyreceivedthetransmittedperformances.Forexample,inacaseinvolvingretransmission
ofbroadcastsignals,theDistrictofMainenotedthatforpurposesofdemonstratingtransmission
tothepublic,[aplaintiff]neednotprovethatasubstantialnumberofpeopleactuallyviewed
thechallengedtransmission.179Instead,theplaintiffneededtoprovethatdespiterestrictions
imposedby[thedefendant]onviewership,thechallengedtransmissionwascapableofbeing
viewedbyasubstantialnumberofpeople.180Likewise,inacaseinvolvingavideosystem
designedtotransmitfilmsfromacentralbankofvideocassetteplayerstopotentialviewershotel
rooms,theNorthernDistrictofCaliforniadeterminedthatwhetherthenumberofhotelguests
viewinganOnCommandtransmissionisoneoronehundred...thetransmissionisstillapublic
performancesinceitgoestomembersofthepublic.181
17U.S.C.101.
176
H.R.REP.NO.941476,at6465;seealsoH.R.REP.NO.9083,at29(1967)([A]performancemadeavailableby
transmissiontothepublicatlargeispublic...wherethetransmissioniscapableofreachingdifferentrecipientsat
differenttimes,asinthecaseofsoundsorimagesstoredinaninformationsystemandcapableofbeingperformedor
displayedattheinitiativeofindividualmembersofthepublic.).
177
H.R.REP.NO.941476,at64.
178
Cmty.Broad.Serv.v.TimeWarnerCable,LLC,No.07139BW,2008WL3200661,at*9(D.Me.Aug.7,2008).
179
Id.at*10(emphasisadded).
180
OnCommandVideoCorp.v.ColumbiaPicturesIndus.,777F.Supp.787,790(N.D.Cal.1991).
181
38
U.S.CopyrightOffice
Ofcourse,ondemandstreamingdiffersfromtraditionalbroadcastingandcablesystems
inthatthelattertypicallytransmit[]constantly,andthesignals,inasense,lurk[]behindthe
screen,readytoemergewhenthesubscriberturn[s]theknob.182Inastreamingservice,by
contrast,thecontentisavailabletousers,butatransmissionbeginsonlyafterauserselectsthe
desiredworkthroughanonlineinterface.Fewcourtshaveaddressedwhethertheofferingof
worksforstreamingisenoughtoimplicatethepublicperformancerightabsentsucha
transmission.Somecourtshaveavoidedresolutionoftheissuebyallowingplaintiffstoestablish
claimsbasedonevidenceotherthandirectevidenceofstreamingtothirdparties.Forexample,in
CapitolRecords,Inc.v.MP3tunes,LLC,thecourtnotedthatthejuryheardevidencefromwhichit
couldinferthatSideload.comsfeatures,includingtheplaybackfeature,encouragednewusersto
signupatMP3tunes.com,andthusthejurycouldconcludereasonablythatpotentialusershad
likelytakenadvantageofthisfeature.183Similarly,inChinaCentralTelevisionv.CreateNew
Technology(HK)Ltd.,thecourtheldthatplaintiffswerelikelytosucceedonapublicperformance
claimbasedonevidencethattheplaintiffsandtheirinvestigatorsobservedandrecordedportions
ofcopyrightedtelevisionepisodesstreamedthroughthedefendantspeertopeerstreaming
service.184Meanwhile,theSeventhCircuithasdiscussedtheissuewithoutdecidingit,observing
thataconstructionthatcoversofferswouldbebetteratgivingmeaningtopublicinpublic
performancebutworseatgivingmeaningtoperformance.185
Whileacknowledgingthelackofdirectjudicialauthority,theOfficeconcludesthat
readingthestatutoryprovisionsinlightofthepurposesarticulatedbyCongressindicatesthatthe
publicperformancerightencompassesofferstostream.186Tobeginwith,excludingsuchoffers
wouldrequirereadingthetextinamannerthatisinconsistentwithCongresssclearintentionto
makeaperformancesaccessibility,notitsactualreceipt,thedeterminingfactorunderthe
TransmitClause.Asonecommenterobserved,ifthephrasetransmit...tothepublicistobe
readliterally,itwouldfollowthereisnotransmissiontothepubliciftheservicedoesnotin
factcommunicatetheperformanceoftheworktoasubstantialnumberofpeople.187Indeed,
Am.Broad.Cos.v.Aereo,Inc.,134S.Ct.2498,2507(2014)(AereoIII).
182
CapitolRecords,Inc.v.MP3tunes,LLC,48F.Supp.3d703,71920(S.D.N.Y.2014)(MP3tunes).
183
No.CV1501869MMM(MRWx),2015WL3649187(C.D.Cal.June11,2015).
184
FlavaWorks,Inc.v.Gunter,689F.3d754,761(7thCir.2012).
185
Cf.AereoIII,134S.Ct.at2504(Consideredalone,thelanguageoftheActdoesnotclearlyindicatewhenanentity
perform[s]....Butwhenreadinlightofitspurpose,theActisunmistakable:Anentitythatengagesinactivitieslike
Aereosperforms.).
186
GinsburgAdditionalCommentsat8.AsProfessorGinsburgfurtherexplained:
187
[I]fperformancesofaworkareofferedtothepublic,forexample,onapayperviewbasis,the
characterizationoftheperformancesastothepublicshouldnotturnonhowmanymembersof
thepublicaccepttheofferandinfactrequestatransmissionoftheperformance.Ifonewereto
understandthe[Aereo]Courtsstatementasmeaningactual,ratherthanoffered,transmissions,
thenthepublicnatureofaperformancecouldnotbeascertainedwithoutposthochead
counting.Notonlydoessuchaninterpretationintroduceuncertaintyforcopyrightownersand
39
U.S.CopyrightOffice
[t]heAct...suggeststhatthepublicconsistsofalargegroupofpeopleoutsideofafamilyand
friends.188But,asshown,whatmatters,indeterminingwhethertheaudiencefora
transmissionisthepublic,iscapacitybymembersofthepublictoreceivethetransmission,not
actualreceipt.189
Furthermore,thenarrowconstructionseemsinconsistentwithcongressionalintentgiven
thefunctionalequivalencybetweentraditionalcommunicationssystemsandondemand
streaming.AlthoughthelegislativehistoryoftheTransmitClausedescribesthecovered
activitiesintermsofactualtransmissions(unsurprisinglygiventhenexistingtechnologies),it
stronglysuggeststhatthecriticalinquiryiswhethertheperformanceordisplayhasbeenmade
availableinsuchamannerthatmembersofthepublicneedonlyactivateareceivingapparatusin
ordertoaccessit:[A]performancemadeavailablebytransmissiontothepublicatlargeis
publiceventhoughtherecipientsarenotgatheredinasingleplace,andevenifthereisnoproof
thatanyofthepotentialrecipientswasoperatinghisreceivingapparatusatthetimeofthe
transmission.190Thelackofanactualtransmissioninthestreamingcontextwouldnotseemto
makeasubstantivedifferencesince,astheSupremeCourtrecentlyrecognized,thedistinctionin
deliverymechanismsmeansnothingtothe[streamingservice]subscriber.Itmeansnothingto
thebroadcasterorothercopyrightowner.191Underbothcommunicationmethods,allthatis
requiredforanoffereetoreceivetheperformanceordisplayisforhertoactivatetherelevant
receptiondevice.Inthecaseofstreaming,thatactiontodaysturnoftheknobisassimple
asaclickonawebsite.192WebelieveitunlikelythatCongresswouldhaveintendedtoexclude
suchservices,particularlyinlightofitsstateddesirenottolimitthestatutescoverageto
technologiesexistingin1976.193
b. IndividualizedStreams
Caselawinvolvingtheapplicationofthepublicperformancerighttoondemand
streaminghasfocusedlargelyontwoissuestodate.First,severalcourtshaveconsidered
whetherstreamsdeliveredseparatelytoindividualrecipientscanqualifyaspublic
performances.Untilrecently,conflictinglowercourtdecisionsonthatissuewereintensionwith
theTreatiesondemandaccessrequirement,buttheSupremeCourtsrecentdecisioninAmerican
exploitersalike,butitpromotesthekindsofbaroquecopyrightavoidingbusinessmodelsthe
Courtdiscredited.
Id.
AereoIII,134S.Ct.at2510(citing17U.S.C.101(publicly)).
188
GinsburgAdditionalCommentsat8.
189
H.R.REP.NO.941476,at6465.
190
AereoIII,134S.Ct.at2507.
191
Id.
192
Cf.id.at2509(Congresswouldasmuchhaveintendedtoprotectacopyrightholderfromtheunlicensedactivities
ofAereoasfromthoseofcablecompanies.).
193
40
U.S.CopyrightOffice
BroadcastingCos.v.Aereo,Inc.194confirmedthatU.S.lawcoverssuchtransmissions.Second,
courtshavedisagreedoverwhether,ortowhatextent,astreamingservicemustexercise
volitionalconducttoinfringethepublicperformanceright.
i.
StreamsasPublicPerformances
BeforetheSupremeCourtresolvedtheissue,courtsweredividedoverwhetherthepublic
performancerightcouldencompassthedeliveryofaperformanceinindividualizedstreams.Ina
pairofcases,theSecondCircuitinterpretedtheTransmitClausetolimitthepublicperformance
righttotransmissionsforwhichmultipleindividualswerecapableofviewingasinglestream,
effectivelyexemptingfromthepublicdisplayandperformancerightsallformsofunicast
streaming,195aswellasanytechnologiesthatcreateseparatecopiesofaworkformultipleusers.
InCartoonNetworkLP,LLLPv.CSCHoldings,Inc.(Cablevision),thecourtnotedthattheTransmit
Clauseusesthewordscapableofreceivingtheperformanceinsteadofcapableofreceivingthe
transmission,andreasonedthatatransmissionofaperformanceisitselfaperformancefor
purposesofdeterminingwhethertheperformancewastothepublic.196Extrapolatingfrom
this,thecourtconcludedthataworkispubliclyperformedwithinthemeaningoftheTransmit
ClauseandSection106(4)onlywhenmultipleindividualsarecapableofreceivingthesame
transmission.ThecourtthenappliedthisconstructiontoCablevisionssystem,whichalloweda
singlesubscribertodirectaservermaintainedbyCablevisiontorecordacopyofatelevision
program,andthentolatertransmitavideostreamofthefiletothesubscriber.Thecourtheld
thatthislatertransmissiondidnotconstituteapublicperformanceunderSection106(4),because
onlythesubscriberwhodirectedthemakingofthecopycouldreceivethelatertransmissionof
thatcopy.Significantly,theSecondCircuitrejectedthedistrictcourtsholdingthat,because
multiplecustomerswouldreceivethesameunderlyingwork,Section106(4)wasimplicatedeven
ifeachtransmissionoriginatedfromadistinctcopy.197
TheSecondCircuitexpandeditsCablevisionholdingtofindthattheAereoInternet
broadcasttelevisionstreamingservicedidnotengageinapublicperformanceinWNETv.Aereo,
Inc.198Whenanindividualuserloggedintotheservice,Aereowoulddedicateanindividual
dimesizedantennatothatuser,whocouldthenselectfromalistoflocalprogrammingcurrently
beingaired.Aereowouldcapturethebroadcastsignalusingthededicatedantenna,andwiththe
assistanceofatranscoder,translatethebroadcastsignalsintodataandsaveacopytoanAereo
harddriveinadirectoryreservedforthatuser.Oncesixorsevensecondsofprogramminghad
beensaved,thesystemwouldbeginstreamingtheprogramtotheuserfromthatcopy.Theuser
couldthenwatchtheprogramonanInternetconnecteddevice,delayedjustslightlybehindthe
Id.at2498.
194
Seesupranote171.
195
CartoonNetworkLPv.CSCHoldings,Inc.,536F.3d121,134(2dCir.2008)(Cablevision).
196
SeeTwentiethCenturyFoxFilmCorp.v.CablevisionSys.Corp.,478F.Supp.2d607,622623(S.D.N.Y.2007).
197
712F.3d676,68694(2dCir.2013)(AereoII).
198
41
U.S.CopyrightOffice
originalnetworkbroadcast.ConsistentwithitsCablevisionholding,theSecondCircuit
interpretedthewordperformanceintheTransmitClause(capableofreceivingthe
performance)tomeantheindividualtransmission,ratherthantheunderlyingperformanceof
thecopyrightedwork.Theconsequenceofthiswasthatifonlyasinglepersonwereableto
receiveanyindividualtransmission,thentheperformancewouldnotbepublic.TheSecond
Circuitfurtherheldthatprivatetransmissionsthatisthosenotcapableofbeingreceivedbythe
publicshouldnotbeaggregated.199Thus,ifonlyonepersonwouldbecapableofreceiving
eachindividualtransmissionofthework,thecourtreasoned,thattransmissionwouldnot
constituteapublicperformancewithinthemeaningofSection106(4),evenifseveralpeople
receivedidenticalperformancesoftheworkthroughseveraltransmissions.
AftertheSecondCircuitsCablevisionandAereodecisions,adivideamongthecourtson
thisissuebegantoemerge.CourtsintheSecondandFirstCircuitsappliedCablevisiontolimitthe
publicdisplayandperformancerighttocaseswherethestreamorfilebeingtransmittedwasa
masterfile,excludingfromliabilityanytechnologythatcreatedseparatecopiesofaworkfor
itsusers.200Courtselsewhere,however,rejectedthemasterfiletest,findingliabilitywherea
defendanttransmittedaworktomultipleusers,eveniftheworkwasembodiedinmultiple
copies.201
TheSupremeCourttookupthequestionofthepropercontoursofthepublicperformance
rightontheInternetwhenitgrantedcertiorariinAereo.InreachingitsconclusionthattheAereo
technologyinfringedtheplaintiffsrightofpublicperformance,theSupremeCourtaddressed
twoquestions:wasAereotheentitythatperformedtheworks,anddidAereoperformtheworks
publicly?Onthefirstquestion,theCourtheldthatAereoperformedwithinthemeaningof
Section106(4).RejectingAereosargumentthatitmerelyprovidedtheequipmentforusersto
performplaintiffsworksthemselves,themajorityfocusedonthelegislativeintentbehindthe
1976Act,notingAereosoverwhelminglikenesstothecablecompaniestargetedbythe1976
amendments.202
Id.at689.
199
See,e.g.,MP3tunes,48F.Supp.3dat720(Becausetherewasnomastercopyofthecoverart,MP3tunescannotbe
directlyliableforapublicdisplayofcoverart.);HearstStationsInc.v.Aereo,Inc.,977F.Supp.2d32,3839(D.Mass.
2013)(applyingCablevisiontoholdthattransmissionofuniquecopiesofaworkdidnotconstituteapublic
performance);Am.Broad.Cos.v.Aereo,Inc.,874F.Supp.2d373,388(S.D.N.Y.2012)(AereoI)(findingdispositivethe
defendantsuseofuniquecopies,accessibleonlytotheuserswhorequestedthem,andtransmittedonlytothose
users);ASCAP,627F.3dat75(Thatsamedistinctionapplieshere.JustasinCablevision,theInternetCompanies
transmitacopyoftheworktotheuser,whothenplayshisuniquecopyofthesongwheneverhewantstohearit;
becausetheperformanceismadebyauniquereproductionofthesongthatwassoldtotheuser,theultimate
performanceofthesongisnottothepublic.).
200
201Cmty.TelevisionofUtah,LLCv.Aereo,Inc.,997F.Supp.2d1191,1200(D.Utah2014);FoxTelevisionStations,Inc.v.
FilmOnXLLC,966F.Supp.2d30,48(D.D.C.2013);FoxTelevisionStations,Inc.v.BarryDrillerContentSys.,915F.Supp.
2d1138,1144(C.D.Cal.2012).
202
42
U.S.CopyrightOffice
Onthesecondquestion,theCourtheldthatAereoperformedpublicly,notwithstanding
thatittransmittedtoindividualsubscribersfrompersonalcopies.LookingagaintotheActs
purposes,theCourtconcludedthatAereosuseofdedicatedcopiesdidnotrenderAereos
commercialobjectiveanydifferentfromthatofcablecompaniesorsignificantlyalterthe
viewingexperienceofAereossubscribers.203Inaddition,itreadtheTransmitClausetomean
thatanentitymaytransmitaperformancethroughoneorseveraltransmissions,wherethe
performanceisofthesamework,204andthus,incontrasttotheSecondCircuitsinterpretation,
theperformanceatissueisnottheindividualtransmission,buttheunderlyingperformanceof
thecopyrightedworkitself.TheCourtexplained,bywayofillustration,that[o]necansinga
songtohisfamily,whetherhesingsthesamesongoneononeorinfrontofalltogether....By
thesameprinciple,anentitymaytransmitaperformancethroughoneorseveraltransmissions,
wheretheperformanceisofthesamework.205
Thisinterpretation,theCourtheld,iscompelledbythelanguageintheTransmitClause
providingthataperformancemaybepublicwhetherthemembersofthepubliccapableof
receivingtheperformance...receiveit...atthesametimeoratdifferenttimes.206Werethe
wordstotransmit...aperformancelimitedtoasingleactofcommunication,theCourt
reasoned,membersofthepubliccouldnotreceivetheperformancecommunicatedatdifferent
times.207TheCourtthusconcludedthatwhenanentitycommunicatesthesame
contemporaneouslyperceptibleimagesandsoundstomultiplepeople,ittransmitsaperformance
tothemregardlessofthenumberofdiscretecommunicationsitmakes.208
TheCourtsdecisionaccordinglyaddressesconcernsexpressedbysomecommenters
regardingU.S.treatyimplementation.209TheCourtsrulingmakesclearthatthepublic
performancerightextendstostreamsaccessiblefromaplaceandatatimeindividuallychosen
bymembersofthepublic.210
Id.at2508.
203
Id.at2509.
204
Id.
205
17U.S.C.101(publicly).
206
207
Id.;seealsoFoxTelevisionStations,Inc.v.FilmOnXLLC,No.CV13758(RMC),2015WL7761052,at*2223(D.D.C.
Dec.2,2015)(applyingAereotoholdthataserviceallowinguserstorecordovertheairtelevisionprogrammingand
watchthecontentatalatertimeperformedpublicly).TheCourtinAereocautionedthatitsrulingwaslimitedto
activitieslikeAereosanddidnotextendtoothertechnologiessuchascloudcomputingandremotestorageDVRs.
Notingthatthoseservicesinvolvecontentthatconsumershavealreadylawfullyacquired,theCourtstatedthatit
hadnotconsideredwhetherthepublicperformancerightisinfringedwhentheuserofaservicepaysprimarilyfor
somethingotherthanthetransmissionofcopyrightedworks,suchastheremotestorageofcontent.134S.Ct.at2511
(quotingAmicusBriefofUnitedStatesat31).
208
See,e.g.,GinsburgAdditionalCommentsat3.
209
WCT,supranote1,art.8;WPPT,supranote1,arts.10,14.
210
43
U.S.CopyrightOffice
ii.
VolitionalConductRequirement
TheSecondCircuitsdecisioninCablevisionanda2007decisionbytheNinthCircuit,
Perfect10,Inc.v.Amazon.com,Inc.,211havebeeninterpretedbysomecourtsasimposinga
volitionalconductrequirementinpublicperformanceandpublicdisplaycasesinvolvingthe
Internet.Atitsmostbasic,thevolitionalconductdoctrinerequiresashowingofactive
participationbythedefendantintheinfringingactivitiesinordertosupportaclaimfordirect
infringement.212Onecommenterexpressedconcernthatsucharequirementtakentoan
extremeforexample,requiringthatthedefendantselecteverycopyrightedworktransmittedto
userscouldeffectivelybardirectinfringementclaimsagainstondemandservices,thereby
substantiallyunderminingcopyrightownersmakingavailablerights.213
Perfect10hasbeencitedforthepropositionthattherecanbenoclaimfordirectcopyright
infringementwheresoftwareorhardwareschemesautomaticallyproducecopiesofthe
allegedlyinfringingimagesandthedefendantsdonotactivelyparticipateinsuchactivity.214
OthercourtshavereachedasimilarconclusionbasedonaportionoftheCablevisiondecisionin
whichthecourtheldthatcopiesoftelevisionprogrammingrecordedusingaremotestorageDVR
systemweremadebyindividualcustomers,notbythecompanyofferingtheservice.215Courts
Perfect10,508F.3d1146.
211
SeeFoxBroad.Co.v.DishNetwork,LLC,No.CV1204529DMG(SHx),2015WL1137593,at*12(C.D.Cal.Jan.20,
2015)(DishNetwork).
212
SeeGinsburgAdditionalCommentsat11([A]Cablevisionstylevolitionpredicatethatrequiresspecificagencyasto
eachworktransmittedmayeffectivelyevisceratethemakingavailableright....);seealsoASCAP,BMI,SGA,SESAC
&NMPA,CommentsSubmittedinResponsetoU.S.CopyrightOfficesJuly15,2014NoticeofInquiryat8(Sept.15,
2014)(MusicalWorksOrganizationsJointAdditionalComments)(Clearly,avolitionalconducttestisincompatible
withapublicperformingrightthatisbroadlyapplicabletoondemand,interactiveentertainmenttechnologies.
Inventivetechniciansandsoftwareprogrammerscanalwaysengineertransmissionsystemstohavetheuserinitiatethe
transmission.).
213
Milo&Gabby,LLCv.Amazon.com,Inc.,No.C131932RSM,2015WL4394673,at*5(W.D.Wash.July16,2015).
214
Cablevision,536F.3dat133.TheCablevisioncourtadoptedatestforinfringementofthereproductionrightthatwas
basedonalineofcasesbeginningwithapreDMCAopinionfromtheNorthernDistrictofCalifornia,lookingtothe
volitionalconductthatcausesthecopytobemadetodeterminewhetherthedefendantshouldbeheldliablefordirect
copyrightinfringement.Id.at13031(citingReligiousTech.Ctr.v.NetcomOnLineComms.Servs.,907F.Supp.1361(N.D.
Cal.1995)(Netcom)).ThecourtsthathaveappliedtheCablevisionvolitionalactivitytesttogoverntheoutcomein
publicdisplayandperformancecaseshavedonesodespitetheSecondCircuitswarningthatourconclusioninPartII
thatthecustomer,notCablevision,doesthecopyingdoesnotdictateaparallelconclusionthatthecustomer,andnot
Cablevision,performsthecopyrightedwork,since[t]hedefinitionsthatdelineatethecontoursofthereproduction
andpublicperformancerightsvaryinsignificantways.536F.3dat134.Aleadingtreatisewriterhasarguedthat
continuedrelianceontheNetcomanalysisfollowingpassageoftheDMCAismisplaced,andthatvolitionalactivity
shouldnotbeusedasathresholdtestfordirectcopyrightinfringementliabilityoutsideoftheDMCAsafeharbors.See
4NIMMERONCOPYRIGHT,supranote101,12B.06[B][2][c][ii](LookingtoNetcomratherthanthe1998amendmentsto
theCopyrightAct,theGooglerulingsignorethetextandlegislativehistoryofthosesafeharbors....Toelevate[the
automatictechnologicalprocess]factortodecisivestatusfundamentallycontradictsthelegislativechoicesthat
CongressembodiedintoSection512.AslongastheOnlineCopyrightInfringementLiabilityLimitationActremains
partandparceloftheCopyrightAct,courtscannotsimplyapplyNetcomsvolitionalruleasthegoverningstandard.).
ButseeCoStarGrp.,Inc.v.LoopNet,Inc.,373F.3d544,552(4thCir.2004)(Giventhatthestatutedeclaresitsintentnotto
215
44
U.S.CopyrightOffice
havereliedonthatholdingtoexpandthevolitionalconductdoctrinetobarliabilityfor
defendantsthatprovideaservicethatperformsfortheuseractionstheusercouldlawfully
performforthemselves.216Suchaformulationhasbeenrejectedbyothercourts,includingdistrict
courtsintheNinthCircuit.217
InAereo,themajoritywassilentonwhethervolitionalconductisessentialforfindingthat
adefendantpubliclyperformedcopyrightedworks.HavingconcludedthatAereoisnotsimply
anequipmentprovider,218theCourtemphasizedthatAereoactivelyparticipatesinthe
transmissionandanalogizedAereotothetypesoftraditionalcablecompaniesthatCongress
intendedtobringwithinthereachofcopyrightlawviathe1976Act.219Indoingso,themajority
didnotdirectlyaddressthedissentsdiscussionofavolitionalconductrequirementas
necessarytoseparatingdirectinfringementliabilityfromsecondaryliability.220Yet,themajority
notedthat[i]nothercasesinvolvingdifferentkindsofserviceortechnologyproviders,ausers
involvementintheoperationoftheprovidersequipmentandselectionofthecontenttransmitted
maywellbearonwhethertheproviderperformswithinthemeaningoftheAct.221
SomecourtshavecontinuedtoapplythevolitionalconductdoctrinepostAereo.For
example,theCentralDistrictofCaliforniarejectedtheargumentthatAereohadeliminatedthe
doctrine,insteadapplyingittoholdthattheDISHAnywhereservicedidnotinfringeFox
Broadcastingsrightofpublicperformance.222Inanalyzingtheservice,thecourtidentifiedthree
factorsrelieduponbytheSupremeCourttofindtheAereosystemsimilartotraditionalcable
providers,andthusfindAereowastheentityengaginginthepublicperformance:(1)thefact
thatAereosoldaservicethatallowedsubscriberstowatchtelevisionprogramsalmostasthey
werebeingbroadcast;(2)thefactthatAereouseditsownequipment,housedinacentralized
warehouse,outsideofitsusershomes;and(3)thefactthatAereossystemreceivedprograms
bearadverselyuponanyoftheISPsdefensesunderlaw,includingthedefensethattheplaintiffhasnotmadeouta
primafaciecaseforinfringement,itisdifficulttoargue,asCoStardoes,thatthestatuteinfactprecludesISPsfrom
relyingonanentirestrainofcaselawholdingthatdirectinfringementmustinvolveconducthavingavolitionalor
causalaspect.).
See,e.g.,AereoI,874F.Supp.2dat38687(TotheextentthattheSecondCircuitsholdinginCablevisionwas
premisedonaninabilitytodistinguishCablevisionssystemfromotherwiselawfulactivities,Aereossystemdeserves
thesameconsideration.).
216
See,e.g.,AristaRecordsLLCv.MyxerInc.,No.CV0803935GAF(JCx),2011WL11660773,at*14(C.D.Cal.Apr.1,
2011)([I]nlightofthefactthatcopyrightinfringementisastrictliabilityoffense,theCourtisnotinclinedtoadopta
volitionalconductrequirementwithoutclearinstructionfromtheNinthCircuit,andsodeclinestoapplythesocalled
volitionalconductrequirementadvocatedby[Defendant].);WarnerBros.EntmtInc.v.WTVSys.,Inc.,824F.Supp.2d
1003,1011n.7(C.D.Cal.2011)(decliningtoadopttheCablevisionvolitionalconductrequirement).
217
218
Id.at250407.
219
Seeid.at251214(Scalia,J.,dissenting).
220
Id.at2507.
221
DishNetwork,2015WL1137593,at*911.
222
45
U.S.CopyrightOffice
thathadbeenreleasedtothepublicandcarriedthembyprivatechannelstotheadditional
viewers.223InrejectingtheclaimthatDISHdirectlyinfringedFoxspublicperformanceright,
thecourtfounddispositivethefactthatDISH,unlikeAereo,hadalicensefortheinitial
retransmissionoftheprogrammingtousersviasatellite,andthustheDISHAnywheresystem
couldonlybeusedbyasubscribertogainaccesstoherownhomeSTB/DVRandtheauthorized
recordedcontentonthatbox.224Thus,thecourtreasoned,theoperativetransmissionistheone
thatoccurswhentherecordedprogrammingisstreamedtoaconnecteddevice,afterthe
programminghasbeenrecorded.Suchtransmission,thecourtfound,occursastheresultofthe
subscribersactions,notDISHs.225
Inanotherrecentcase,however,thecourtrejectedtheargumentthataDVRlikeservice
allowinguserstorecordbroadcasttelevisionprogrammingandwatchitatalatertimelacked
sufficientvolitiontoperform.226ThecourtheldthatthecasewascontrolledbyAereo,noting
thattheSupremeCourtdidnotfinditnecessarytoaddressthevolitionalconductrequirement
...toholdthatbothAereoanditssubscribersperformwithinthemeaningoftheTransmit
Clause.227
Asthesecasessuggest,thecontinuedapplicabilityofthevolitionalconductdoctrineinthe
wakeofAereoisamatterofdispute,andcommentersweredividedonthequestion.228Ata
Id.at*11.
223
Id.
224
Id.at*12.ThecourtfurtherfoundDISHcouldnotbesecondarilyliable,sinceDISHssubscribersdidnottransmit
theworkstothepublic,statingthat[w]henanindividualDISHsubscribertransmitsprogrammingrightfullyinher
possessiontoanotherdevice,thattransmissiondoesnottraveltoalargenumberofpeoplewhoareunknowntoeach
other.Id.at*13.
225
FilmOnX,2015WL7761052,at*23.
226
Id.
227
CompareMusicalWorksOrganizationsJointAdditionalCommentsat8(arguingthatavolitionalconducttestis
incompatiblewiththepublicperformingrightandpredictingthatlowercourtswillfocusonotherfactors,suchas
commercialpurpose,insteadofrelyingonanincompleteandinconsistenttestsuchasthevolitionalconducttest);
MPAARIAAAdditionalCommentsat3(UnderU.S.copyrightlawasproperlyinterpreted,proofofvolitional
conductisnotrequiredtoestablishadefendantsliabilityfordirectinfringementinthecontextofinteractive
transmissionsofcontentovertheInternet.),withCablevisionSys.Corp.,CommentsSubmittedinResponsetoU.S.
CopyrightOfficesJuly15,2014NoticeofInquiryat13(Sept.15,2014)(CablevisionAdditionalComments)
(projectingthat,afterAereo,courtswillnodoubtcontinuetoapplyvolitionalconductstandardsinothercontexts);
CCIA,CommentsSubmittedinResponsetoU.S.CopyrightOfficesJuly15,2014NoticeofInquiryat3(Sept.15,2014)
(CCIAAdditionalComments)(Thevolitionalactdoctrineremainsvalidlaw;multiplecircuitshaveanalyzedthe
issueandhavesoheld,andAereosnarrowholdinghasnotchangedthis.);DISHNetworkCorp.,Comments
SubmittedinResponsetoU.S.CopyrightOfficesJuly15,2014NoticeofInquiryat4(Sept.15,2014)(DISHAdditional
Comments)(NothingtheCourtsaidunderminesthevirtualunanimityamongtheCourtsofAppealsthatvolitional
conductprinciplesareessentialtothecopyrightbalance.);InternetAssnAdditionalCommentsat3(InAereo,the
Courtavoidedtheissueentirely,deemingavolitionalanalysisnotcriticalwhenaplatformresemblesacablesystem.
ThisindicatesthattheCourtdoesnotintendtodisturbthelineofprecedentthathasexploredhowtodetermine
volitionwhentechnologiesfacilitatecopyingordisseminatingprotectedworks.);InternetCommerceCoal.,
CommentsSubmittedinResponsetoU.S.CopyrightOfficesJuly15,2014NoticeofInquiryat4(undated)(Internet
228
46
U.S.CopyrightOffice
minimum,however,Aereoestablishesthattheperformancerightdoesnotrequirevolitionat
thelevelofindividuallyselectingtheworkstobetransmitted.229Asonescholarexplained,the
decisionmakesclearthat,inthecaseofondemandandcablelikeservices,[t]heendusermay
bechoosingwhatcopyrightedworktovieworhear,andwhenandwheretoreceiveit,butthe
entitythatofferstheuserthosechoicesisperformingtheworks,evenwhenitmerelyresponds
automaticallytotheenduserschoice.230Acontraryinterpretationmighthaveraisedconcerns
inthatitwouldhavelimitedtheabilityofcopyrightownerstobringdirectinfringementclaims
againstservicesengagedinunauthorizedstreamingofcopyrightedworks.
3. RightofPublicDisplay
....
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works,
pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual
images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted
work publicly . . . .
17 U.S.C. 106(5)
AsdefinedintheCopyrightAct,todisplayaworkmeanstoshowacopyofit,either
directlyorbymeansofafilm,slide,televisionimage,oranyotherdeviceorprocessor,inthe
caseofamotionpictureorotheraudiovisualwork,toshowindividualimagesnon
sequentially.231Itiswellestablishedthatthisrightprotectsagainsttheunauthorizeduploading
ofacopyrightedimagefordisplaytothepubliconline.WhiletheInternetserviceprovidersafe
harborscontainedintheDMCAlimitthesituationsinwhichwebsiteownerscanbeheld
secondarilyliableforcontentuploadedbyusers,232courtsconsistentlyhavefoundviolationsof
CommerceCoal.AdditionalComments)([T]heCourtsdecisionmustnotbereadasalteringtherequirementsto
establishcopyrightinfringement,suchasvolitionalconduct....);PKEFFAdditionalCommentsat34(arguingthat
Aereosreachisnarrowandhaslittleeffectonthevolitionalconductrequirementoutsideofthecontextofcable
systems).
SeeGinsburgAdditionalCommentsat10.
229
Id.at9.
230
23117U.S.C.101.TheCopyrightActslegislativehistoryshowsthatthedraftersintendedthedisplayrighttoinclude
[e]achandeverymethodbywhichtheimages...comprisinga...displayarepickedupandconveyed,including
theprojectionofanimageonascreenorothersurfacebyanymethod,thetransmissionofanimagebyelectronicor
othermeans,andtheshowingofanimageonacathoderaytube,orsimilarviewingapparatusconnectedwithanysort
ofinformationstorageandretrievalsystem.H.R.REP.NO.941476,at64.
232See,e.g.,CapitolRecords,LLCv.Vimeo,LLC,972F.Supp.2d500(S.D.N.Y.2013)(findingthedefendantentitledto
DMCAsafeharborprotectionforcertaincopyrightedvideosuploadedbyusers);IoGrp.,Inc.v.VeohNetworks,Inc.,586
F.Supp.2d1132,115455(N.D.Cal.2008)(findingthedefendantentitledtoDMCAsafeharborprotectionfor
copyrightedvideosuploadedbyusers);CorbisCorp.v.Amazon.com,Inc.,351F.Supp.2d1090,111011(W.D.Wash.
47
U.S.CopyrightOffice
thepublicdisplayrightwherethedefendant(itselforthroughanagent)uploadsacopyofa
copyrightedworktoapubliclyaccessiblewebsite.233Moreover,becausetheTransmitClause
appliestothetransmissionofdisplaysaswellasperformances,234Aereosconstructionofthe
Clauseestablishesthatthedisplayrightextendstothedeliveryofacopyrightedimagetothe
publicinindividualizedcommunications.And,basedontheaboveanalysisoftheClause,the
CopyrightOfficeconcludesthattherightisproperlyconstruedtoencompasstheofferingto
transmitsuchanimage.Thus,consistentwiththemakingavailableobligation,Section106(5)
providesanexclusiverighttoofferthepublicaccesstoimagesondemand.
Somecasesinvolvingthedisplayrighthavebeeninterpretedtobarinfringementclaims
wheretheworkisperceptibleonthedefendantswebsiteorservice,buttheactualcopyofthe
workrestsonathirdpartyserverapplyingthesocalledservertest.Theleadingcasefrom
whichtheservertestderivesistheNinthCircuitsdecisioninPerfect10,Inc.v.Amazon.com,Inc.235
Inresponsetosearchqueries,GooglesImageSearchprovidedlowresolutionthumbnailsof
imagesthatithadindexedfromthirdpartywebsites.Whenauserclickedonathumbnailimage,
theusersbrowserwouldconnecttothewebsitewheretheimagewaslocated,downloadafull
sizeversion,anddisplaythatversioninawindowontheusersscreen,framedbyinformation
fromGoogleswebpage.Thistechniqueinwhichanimage,audiofile,orvideoseemstobepart
ofthewebpagebeingviewed,eventhoughitisactuallylocatedonadifferentserverisknown
asinlinelinking.236Framing,meanwhile,referstotheprocessbywhichinformationfrom
onecomputerappearstoframeandannotatetheinlinelinkedcontentfromanother
computer.237Thecourtwasaskedtoconsiderwhetherboththecommunicationofthelow
2004)(findingthedefendantentitledtoDMCAsafeharborprotectionforcopyrightedimagesuploadedbythirdparty
sellers).
See,e.g.,SocyoftheHolyTransfigurationMonastery,Inc.v.Gregory,689F.3d29,57(1stCir.2012)(holdingthata
pictureuploadedtodefendantswebsiteimplicatedplaintiffspublicdisplayright);BWPMediaUSAInc.v.Uropa
Media,Inc.,No.13Civ.7871(JSR)(JCF),2014WL2011775,at*1(S.D.N.Y.May16,2014)(BypostingBWPscopyrighted
photographsonitswebsite,UropadirectlyinfringedBWPs[publicdisplay]rights.);PlayboyEnters.,Inc.v.Webbworld,
Inc.,991F.Supp.543(N.D.Tex.1997)(findingthatdefendantviolatedplaintiffspublicdisplayrightwhenitallowed
itspayingsubscriberstoviewPEIscopyrightedworksontheircomputermonitorswhileonlinethroughdefendants
website).
233
See17U.S.C.101(publicly).AfterAereo,onedistrictcourtappliedthemastercopytestfromtheSecond
CircuitsCablevisioncasetofindnodirectinfringementofthepublicdisplayrightwherethedefendantssoftware
copiedcoverartfromAmazonandsavedacopytoausersindividuallocker,notingthat[o]nlyoneuserwascapable
ofreceivingeachcopy.MP3tunes,48F.Supp.3dat720.ThecourtconcludedthatAereosholdingwasexplicitly
limitedtotechnologiessubstantiallysimilartotheonebeforetheSupremeCourt.Id.at72021(citingAereoIII,134S.
Ct.at2506,251011).
234
508F.3d1146(9thCir.2007).
235
See23DCOMPUTERLAW3D.09[2][g](2014);EmanuelaArezzo,HyperlinksandMakingAvailableRightintheEuropean
UnionWhatFuturefortheInternetAfterSvensson?,45INTLREV.INTELL.PROP.&COMPETITIONL.524,526(2015).
236
237Perfect10,508F.3dat1156.Forthepurposesofthisreport,wehavefoundusefulProfessorEmanuelaArezzos
groupingofdifferenttypesofhyperlinksintofourdistinctcategories:(1)surfacelinksdirectausertoanotherwebsites
homepage;(2)deeplinksleadauserpastthehomepageoftheotherwebsitedirectlytoapagewithinit;(3)framinglinks
enableausertoseethecontentofthelinkedpageframedbythelinkingwebsite;and(4)inlinelinking,orembedding,
48
U.S.CopyrightOffice
resolutionthumbnailimagestousersandtheframingoftheinlinelinkedimagesfromathird
partyswebsiteconstitutedviolationsoftheplaintiffspublicdisplayright.
Applyingtheservertest,thecourtheldthatGooglesuseofthumbnailswasaprimafacie
infringementoftheplaintiffsdisplayrightbecauseGooglestoredthoseimagesonitsserversand
communicatedcopiestousers.238Itheld,however,thatGooglesuseofinlinelinkingand
framingwasnotadirectinfringementbecauseGoogledidnotstorethefullsizeimagesonits
ownservers,butinsteadprovidedHTMLinstructionsthatdirectedtheusersbrowsertoaccess
anotherwebsite.NotingthatSection101definesdisplayastoshowacopyof[awork],the
courtconcludedthatGoogledidnothaveacopyoftheimagesforpurposesoftheCopyright
Actandthus[couldnot]communicateacopy.239ProvidingtheseHTMLinstructions,the
courtconcluded,isnotequivalenttoshowingacopy.240TheNinthCircuitsreasoninginPerfect
10hasbeenreliedontobardirectinfringementclaimsforinstancesofinlinelinkingand
framing.241
Agroupofseveralvisualartstradeassociationssubmittedcommentsarguingthatthe
servertestisinconsistentwiththemakingavailableobligation.Intheirview,thetesteviscerates
visualartists[makingavailable]rightbyallowingawebsiteoperatortoavoidtheneedfor
licensesfortheuseofcopyrightedimageshostedonthirdpartyservers,notwithstandingthatthe
imagesmayappeartouserstobepartoftheoperatorsownsite.242
displaysdigitalcontentwithinthelinkingwebsitebyservingitupfromtheoriginalserver,givingtheimpressionthat
thecontentbelongstothelinkingwebsite.SeeArezzo,supranote236,at526.
ThecourtultimatelyconcludedthatGooglesuseofthethumbnailsconstitutedfairuse.Perfect10,508F.3dat1168.
238
Id.at116061(quoting17U.S.C.101).
239
Id.at1161.
240
See,e.g.,Leveyfilm,Inc.v.FoxSportsInteractiveMedia,LLC,No.13C4664,2014WL3368893,at*5(N.D.Ill.July8,
2014)(Furthermore,LeveyfilmhasnotsubmittedanyevidencethatWysockisarticleortheDVDcoverphotowere
eversavedonYardbarkersservers.Withoutsuchevidence,Leveyfilmcannotshowthatthereisagenuinequestionof
factregardingwhetherYardbarkerandbyextension,Foxcopiedordisplayedthephoto.).Somecourts,however,
haveappliedthedoctrinesofcontributoryandvicariousliabilitytoallowaplaintifftorecoveragainstadefendant
engaginginsuchactivity.Forexample,inCapitolRecords,Inc.v.MP3tunes,LLC,thedefendantranawebsitethat
alloweduserstolocateand,throughaprovidedbrowserplugin,playtrackshostedbythirdpartywebsitesthrough
theusersbrowser.48F.Supp.3dat711,718.Thedistrictcourtupheldthejurysfindingthatthedefendantwas
liableforcontributoryandvicariouscopyrightinfringementbasedonthepublicperformanceofplaintiffssongsbythe
thirdpartywebsites.Id.at71819.
241
PACA,DigitalMediaLicensingAssn,Inc.(PACA),NatlPressPhotographersAssn(NPPA),Am.Socyof
MediaPhotographers(ASMP),andGraphicArtistsGuild(GAG),CommentsSubmittedinResponsetoU.S.
CopyrightOfficesJuly15,2014NoticeofInquiryat4(capitalizationaltered)(VisualArtsOrganizationsJoint
AdditionalComments);seealsoTr.at108:1421(NancyWolff,PACA)([I]fyouuseclevertechnologydevices,youcan
essentiallycutandpasteanimageanddoinlinelinkingorframing.Sothattheenduser,theonewhoisviewingthe
communicationjustseesnowevenalargehighresimagewhichdoesntevennowrelatebacktotheoriginalsitewhere
itcamefrom.);id.at118:47(JaneC.Ginsburg,Colum.LawSch.)([I]tisnotclearthatthedisplayright,whichispart
ofthemakingavailableright,isfullycoveredbyvirtueofdecisionslikePerfect10.).Othershavenotedadditional
concernswiththepractice(alsoknownashotlinking).See,e.g.,AbbyOhlheiser,TheHeroicWayOneCartoonist
242
49
U.S.CopyrightOffice
TheseissuescametotheforeinarecentcaseinwhichGettyImagescontendedthatits
displayrightswereinfringedbyanimageembeddingtoolofferedbyMicrosoft.Microsoft
marketeditsBingImageWidgettowebsitepublishersasameanstoenhancetheirsitesby
incorporatingimagesretrievedusingtheBingsearchengine.243TheImageWidgetconsistedofa
snippetofcomputercodedisplayedonaBingwebsite.Thesitealsoprovidedaboxinwhich
webpublisherscouldentersearchterms.Publisherswereinvitedtocopythesnippetandpasteit
intothesourcecodeoftheirownwebpages.Thiswouldcausethepublisherspagetodisplaya
panelinwhichimagesresponsivetothesearchquerywouldappear.Thepublishercouldchoose
tohavetheimagesappeareitherinacollageformat,whichwouldfillthepanelwitha
collectionofthumbnailsizedimages,oraslideshowformat,whichwouldshowlargerimages
onebyoneatintervalsofafewseconds.Theimagesweredeliveredusingmethodssimilarto
thoseinPerfect10:thethumbnailsdisplayedinthecollageformatweregeneratedfromcopies
storedonMicrosoftsservers,whilethelargerimagesintheslideshowformatwere
communicateddirectlyfromthirdpartywebsitesviainlinelinking.
Amongotherdisputedissues,thepartiesdisagreedovertheapplicabilityoftheservertest
tothelatterimages.GettycontendedthatPerfect10hadbeensupersededbyAereo,whichit
arguedhadrejectedtheverysortoftechnicaldistinctionsthatunderpinnedtheservertest.244
ItfurtherarguedthatMicrosoftsuseofinlinelinkswasmateriallydifferentfromthatatissuein
Perfect10inthattheBingImageWidget[was]neitherfunctioningnorpromotedasasearch
engine,butinsteadwasameansofprovidingcontentforthepurposeofencouragingusersto
remainonagivenwebsiteand,ultimately,toenter[Microsofts]ownuniverseofwebsites.245
MicrosoftrespondedthatAereosholdingwaslimitedtothetechnologiesbeforetheCourtand
hadnobearingontheservertest.246RelyingonPerfect10,itcontendedthatitdidnotdisplay
copieswithinthemeaningoftheActbecausetheWidgetmerelyprovide[d]alocationaddress
orpointer,notacopyoftheimageitself.247
Ultimately,thepartiessettledthecasepriortothecourtsreachingadecisiononthese
issues.Asaresult,itremainsuncertainwhetheracourtmightdeemcertainformsofinline
RespondedWhentheHuffingtonPostSwipedHisArt,WASH.POST(Oct.28,2015),
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/theintersect/wp/2015/10/28/theheroicwayonecartoonistrespondedwhen
thehuffingtonpostswipedhisart(reportingthatinlinelinkingeatsupthebandwidthofthesiteyoutook[the
image]from,withoutgivingthemanyofthebenefitsofactualWebsitetraffic).
243Thebackgroundsummarizedhereisdrawnfromthecomplaint.SeeFirstAmendedComplaintforInjunctiveRelief
andDamagesat612,GettyImages(US),Inc.v.MicrosoftCorp.,No.1:14CV07114DLC(S.D.N.Y.Sept.24,2014),ECF
No.33.
PlaintiffsMemorandumofLawinSupportofOrdertoShowCauseat13,GettyImages(US),Inc.v.MicrosoftCorp.,
No.1:14CV07114DLC(S.D.N.Y.Sept.5,2014),ECFNo.6.
244
Id.at14.
245
MicrosoftCorp.sMemorandumofLawinOppositiontoPlaintiffsMotionforPreliminaryInjunctionat16,Getty
Images(US),Inc.v.MicrosoftCorp.,No.1:14CV07114DLC(S.D.N.Y.Sept.11,2014),ECFNo.11.
246
Id.at15.
247
50
U.S.CopyrightOffice
linkingorframingdistinguishablefromthetechnologyinPerfect10forpurposesoftheserver
test.Aswillbediscussedfurtherbelow,applicationofthemakingavailablerighttoactivities
suchastheseraisescomplexissuesthatrequireconsiderationofanumberofimportantfactors.248
Whilesomeoftheseissueshavebeenaddressedpreliminarily,U.S.courtshavenotmade
definitiverulingsastohowtheservertestmightapplytoactivitiespotentiallyraisinggreater
concernsforvisualartistsabilitytoexploittheirworksonlinethanhavebeenaddressedsofar.249
Conclusiveresolutionoftheseissueswillrequirefurtherguidancefromthecourts.250
4. RightofReproduction
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords . . . .
17 U.S.C. 106(1)
Thefinalstickinthebundleofexclusiverightsconstitutingthemakingavailablerightin
theUnitedStatesistherightofreproductionunderSection106(1).OfteninInternetstreaming
andfilesharingcases,thesameactivitycangiverisetoliabilityforviolationsofmorethanone
exclusiveright.Forexample,iftheprocessofmakingaworkavailabletothepublicinvolvesthe
creationofanunauthorizedcopysuchasbyuploadingafiletoapeertopeernetworkthen
theuploadersconductmayimplicatethereproductionrightinadditiontothedistribution,
performance,ordisplayrights.251Andifanotherpartythendownloadsacopy,thatseparate
CompareInternetAssnAdditionalCommentsat5(Commenterswarnthatamakingavailableright...would
evenquestionthelegalityofonlinefunctionssuchaslinkingandembedding.),withVisualArtsOrganizationsJoint
AdditionalCommentsat4(Usingtechnologysuchasinlinelinkingorframing,awebsitecaneasilydisplayhigh
resolutionimageswithoutalicenseandwithoutrunningafoulofcopyrightlaw....Withthislegalbackdrop,websites
havenoincentivetolicenseimagesfromcopyrightowners,andvisualartistshavenoincentivetocreate.),and
PerformanceImpressionsLLC,CommentsSubmittedinResponsetoU.S.CopyrightOfficesFeb.25,2014Noticeof
Inquiryat1(Mar.17,2014)(Inlinelinking(hotlinking)ofcopyrightedworksshouldbeproscribedsothatthirdparty
websitescannotmakeavailablecopyrightedcontentwithoutalicensefromthecreators/holdersofsuchworks.).
248
Seesupranote242.
249
Asdiscussedbelow,foreigncourtshaveissuedanumberofdecisionsconcerningtheapplicationofthemaking
availablerightinthiscontext.SeePartIV.D,infra.
250
Whilesomeplaintiffshaveassertedclaimsagainstusersoffilesharingservicesforviolationofthereproduction
right,oftensuchclaimsaretreatedbythecourtsassecondarytoclaimsforviolationofthedistributionright,orare
resolvedinsummaryfashion.See,e.g.,CalloftheWildMovie,770F.Supp.2dat35152(jointdiscussionofreproduction
anddistributionrights);UMGRecordings,Inc.v.Alburger,No.073705,2009WL3152153,at*4(E.D.Pa.Sept.29,2009)
(devotingminimaldiscussiontoreproductionright);LondonSireRecords,542F.Supp.2dat16574(plaintiffsclaimed
infringementofthereproductionanddistributionrights,butmajorityofthecourtsdiscussionrelatestodistribution
claim);UMGRecordings,Inc.v.Stewart,461F.Supp.2d837,842(S.D.Ill.2006)(recitationoffactsandconclusions
relatedtoviolationofrightofreproductionwithoutanalysis);CapitolRecords,Inc.v.Mattingley,461F.Supp.2d846,850
(S.D.Ill.2006)(same).ButseeWarnerBros.Records,Inc.v.Walker,704F.Supp.2d460,46567(W.D.Pa.2010)(containing
alongerdiscussionoftheclaimforviolationoftherightofreproduction).
251
51
U.S.CopyrightOffice
reproductionmayprovideabasisforadirectinfringementclaimagainstthedownloader,aswell
asaclaimagainsttheserviceproviderunderatheoryofsecondaryliability.252Finally,the
reproductionrightalsomaybeimplicatedinonlinestreamingcasesasaresultofthecreationofa
temporarycopyofawork,orportionofit,inacomputersrandomaccessmemory(RAM)
duringthedeliveryofcontenttotheultimateuser.253
Somestudyparticipantssuggestedthattheavailabilityofthesetypesofclaimsmaymake
itunnecessarytoconstruethedistribution,performance,ordisplayrightsinrelationtothe
makingavailableright.254TheCopyrightOfficeisnotpersuaded,however,thatthereproduction
rightcansatisfytheobligationindependentlyofthoserights.Withrespecttodirectinfringement
claimsagainstpersonswhomakecopiesavailabletothepubliconline,itislikelytruethatin
manycasesareproductionclaimwillbeavailablebecausethefilebeingofferedwillitselfhave
beencreatedwithoutthecopyrightownersauthorization.255Thatneednotalwaysbecase,
however.Whileearlierformsoffilesharingrequiredtheuploadingofafiletoacentralized
location,andthusthemakingofacopy,filesharingservicestodaytypicallyenableuserstoshare
materialdirectlyfromtheirownharddrives,includingfilesthatwerelawfullyacquired(e.g.,files
storedinaniTunesfolder).Insuchcircumstances,areproductionclaimagainsttheoffering
partymaynotbeavailable.256
Aserviceprovidersliability,however,maybesignificantlylimitedbyitscompliancewiththerelevantsafeharbor
provisionsunderSection512.
252
In2001,thisOfficeundertookastudyregardingthecopyrightimplicationsofsuchtransientcopies,and
determinedthatsuchfilesarebothcopiesandfixedasdefinedinSection101,andthereforearepotentially
actionableunderSection106(1).SeeU.S.COPYRIGHTOFFICE,DMCASECTION104REPORT10912(2001),
http://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/sec104reportvol1.pdf.Sincethen,themajorityofcourtshave
agreedthat,absentanapplicableaffirmativedefense,thecreationoftemporarycopiesinRAMconstitutesinfringement
ofthereproductionright.See,e.g.,Leveyv.BrownstoneInv.Grp.,LLC,590Fed.Appx132,13536(3dCir.2014);
QuantumSys.Integrators,Inc.v.SprintNextelCorp.,338Fed.Appx329,33637(4thCir.2009);StorageTech.Corp.v.
CustomHardwareEngg&Consulting,Inc.,421F.3d1307,1311(Fed.Cir.2005).Afewcourts,however,havequestioned
theapplicabilityofthereproductionrighttothetypesofbuffercopiescreatedaspartofthestreamingprocess.For
example,inCablevision,theSecondCircuitheldthatbuffercopiescreatedbyaremoteDVRsystemwerenotactionable
copiesunderSection101,wherethedataresidedinthebufferforafleeting1.2secondsbeforebeingoverwrittenby
newdata.Cablevision,536F.3dat12930.
253
See,e.g.,BridgesInitialCommentsat9(arguingthatapplicationofthedistributionrighttodigitalfilesharingis
unnecessarybecause[a]personwhodownloadsafiletohisownstoragemediathroughapeertopeernetworkmay
...violatethereproductionright...andthesponsororuploaderofthatfilemaybearsecondaryliabilityforthe
downloadersreproduction);Tr.at208:22209:13(JonathanBand,LCA)([I]tseemstome...thatinthekindsofcases
thattherightsholdersseemtobeconcernedabout,thatthereproductionrightonitsfacewouldtakecareofthe
problem....Andwhetherwegettothesameresultbyprinciplesofsecondaryliability...orreproductionright,or
whatever,itreallydoesntmatter...aslongasthereisawaytoenforceonesrights.);Tr.at59:59(MatthewSchruers,
CCIA)([O]urbroadandoftenexpandingsecondaryliabilitydoctrineshereintheUnitedStatesarepartofour...
internationaltreatycompliance.).
254
SeeCarson,supranote40,at138.
255
Seeid.(IfIamengaginginfilesharingofmusicthatIpurchasedoniTunes,Imaybeacopyrightinfringer,butnot
byinfringingthereproductionrightinmakingtheoriginalcopyonmycomputer.).
256
52
U.S.CopyrightOffice
NordoestheOfficebelievethatrelyingonsecondaryliabilitywouldbeadequatetofill
anypurportedgapsinU.S.implementationinthisarea.Throughsecondaryliabilitytheories,257a
copyrightownermaybeabletoestablishanindirectinfringementclaimagainsttheoperatorof
anonlineserviceforfacilitatingorotherwisecontributingtoanunauthorizedreproductionbyan
enduser.258Secondaryliability,however,requiresashowingofdirectinfringementbyathird
party.Therefore,tobringaclaimagainstaserviceforcontributingtoadownloaders
unauthorizedreproduction,aplaintiffstillwouldhavetoprovethatadownloadinfactoccurred.
Thus,secondaryliabilitywouldnotallowthecopyrightownertobringaclaimagainsttheservice
basedsolelyonthegroundthatithasofferedaccesstotheworktothepublic.
Thisisnottodiscounttheimportanceofsecondaryliabilitytocopyrightownersinthe
digitalcontext.Asonemusicindustryrepresentativenotedduringtheroundtable,youhaveto
goafterthefacilitators....Anditisthesedoctrinesofsecondaryliabilitywhichareextremely
importantanddoallowustogoafterthosewhoarereallycreatingtheproblemofcopyright
infringementontheinternet.259Because,however,itdoesnotpermitanindependentcauseof
actionfortheunauthorizedofferingofaccesstoaworktothepublic,secondaryliabilityaloneis
notsufficienttoguaranteeU.S.implementationofthataspectofthemakingavailable
obligation.260
Therearethreebasesforsecondaryliabilitygenerallyrecognizedbythecourts:contributoryinfringement,vicarious
liability,andinducementofinfringement.Theelementsofcontributoryinfringementaregenerallythatthedefendant
(i)haveknowledgeofthedirectinfringementbyothers(definedasknow[ing]orhav[ing]reasontoknow),and(ii)
induce[],cause[],ormateriallycontribute[]totheinfringingconduct.Napster,239F.3dat101920(citationsomitted).
Theelementsofvicariousliabilityforcopyrightinfringementarethatthedefendanthastherightandabilityto
supervisetheinfringingactivityandalsohasadirectfinancialinterestinsuchactivities.Id.at1022(citationsomitted).
TheSupremeCourtimportedthedoctrineofinducementofinfringementfromthepatentlawsinMetroGoldwynMayer
StudiosInc.v.Grokster,Ltd.,holdingthatonewhodistributesadevicewiththeobjectofpromotingitsusetoinfringe
copyright,asshownbyclearexpressionorotheraffirmativestepstakentofosterinfringement,isliablefortheresulting
actsofinfringementbythirdparties.545U.S.913,93637(2005).
257
See,e.g.,Fung,710F.3d1020(affirminggrantofsummaryjudgmentonclaimsofinducementofinfringementagainst
providerofaBitTorrentbasedpeertopeerfilesharingnetwork);CapitolRecords,LLCv.EscapeMediaGrp.,Inc.,No.12
CV6646(AJN),2015WL1402049(S.D.N.Y.Mar.25,2015)(grantingsummaryjudgementonclaimsofcontributory
infringementandvicariousliabilityagainstGroovesharkmusicstreamingservice);AristaRecordsLLCv.LimeGrp.LLC,
784F.Supp.2d398(S.D.N.Y.2011)(grantingsummaryjudgmentonclaimsofinducementofinfringementagainst
Gnutellabasedpeertopeerfilesharingnetwork,butdenyingsummaryjudgementonclaimsforcontributory
infringementandvicariousliability);Usenet.com,633F.Supp.2d124(grantingsummaryjudgmentonclaimsof
inducement,contributoryinfringement,andvicariousliabilityagainstwebsitethatgrantedaccesstoandallowed
digitaldownloadsfromUsenetboards);cf.UMGRecording,Inc.v.EscapeMediaGrp.,Inc.,No.11Civ.8407,2014WL
5089743(S.D.N.Y.Sept.29,2014)(holdingforplaintiffsonclaimsofinducementofinfringement,contributory
infringement,andvicariousliabilityviolationbasedonemployeeuploadsofcopyrightedmusictotheGrooveshark
musicstreamingservice);ReDigi,934F.Supp.2d640(grantingsummaryjudgmentforplaintiffsonclaimsof
contributoryinfringementandvicariousliabilityagainstdefendantdigitalmusicresalemarketplace).
258
Tr.79:121(May5,2014)(GeorgeM.Borkowski,RIAA).
259
See,e.g.,PKEFFJointAdditionalCommentsat5(Secondarytheoriesofcopyrightliabilitydonotdirectlyimpact
therelationshipbetweenthesection106rightsandtherequirementsofprotectingtherightsofmakingavailableand
communicationtothepublic.);GIPC,CommentsSubmittedinResponsetoU.S.CopyrightOfficesJuly15,2014
260
53
U.S.CopyrightOffice
C. FactorsRelevanttoAllExclusiveRights
Inadditiontotheforegoinganalysisoftheindividualexclusiverights,twoconsiderations
relevanttotheinterpretationofSection106asawholelendsubstantialsupportforconstruingit
toprovidethesubstanceofamakingavailableright,includingtherighttoofferaccessto
copyrightedworkstothepublic.
1. LegislativeHistoryofTreatyImplementation
First,thelegislativehistorysurroundingtheUnitedStatesimplementationoftheWIPO
InternetTreatiesreflectsCongresssreasoneddeterminationthatU.S.lawalreadysatisfiedall
treatyobligationsimplicatingtheexclusiverightsofcopyrightowners.Asnoted,during
CongresssdeliberationsonimplementationoftheTreatiesin1997and1998,boththeRegisterof
CopyrightsandtheCommissionerofPatentsandTrademarkstestifiedthatimplementation
wouldnotrequirechangestotheexclusiverightsunderTitle17.TheRegisternotedthat
existingprotections[were]adequatetofulfill...thesubstantivetreatyobligationspertainingto
exclusiverights,andthatthereaccordinglywasnoneedtoalterthenatureandscopeofthe
copyrightsandexception[]s,orchangethesubstantivebalanceofrightsembodiedinthe
CopyrightAct.261TheCommissioner,wholedtheU.S.delegationtoWIPO,statedthatnothing
intheseTreaties...affectstheissueofliabilityforparticularactsofcopyrightinfringement.262
TheHouseJudiciaryCommitteereportaccompanyingtheimplementinglegislationendorsedthis
view.263
Furthermore,theSenatesresolutiononratificationoftheTreatiesrequiredthat[t]he
UnitedStatesshallnotdeposittheinstrumentsofratificationfortheseTreatiesuntilsuchtimeas
thePresidentsignsintolawabillthatimplementstheTreaties,264anditisclearthatCongress
believedthattheDMCAconstitutedsuchlegislation.TitleIoftheDMCAisentitledtheWIPO
CopyrightandPerformancesandPhonogramsTreatiesImplementationActof1998,265andthe
ConferenceCommitteeReportconfirmsthatitimplementstwonewintellectualproperty
treaties,theWIPOCopyrightTreatyandtheWIPOPerformancesandPhonogramsTreaty,signed
NoticeofInquiryat4(Sept.15,2014)(Itiswellestablishedthatinorderforsecondaryliabilitytoarise,theremustbe
anunderlyingdirectinfringement.Thus,secondaryliabilityaddsnothingtotheanalysis,whichremainsproperly
focusedontheissueofdirectliability.);TheScopeofCopyrightProtection,supranote95,at18(statementofDavid
Nimmer,ProfessorfromPractice,UCLASch.ofLaw,OfCounsel,Irell&Manella,LLP,LosAngeles)(Thestandards
adoptedformakingavailableare...distinctfrom[indirectliability]doctrines,whichremainunaffectedbyany
clarificationthatthecopyrightownersdistributionrightextendstotheunauthorizeduploadingofprotectedworks.).
HearingonH.R.2281andH.R.2180,supranote17,at43(statementofMarybethPeters,RegisterofCopyrights).
261
Id.at37(statementofBruceA.Lehman,AssistantSecyofCommerceandCommrofPatentsandTrademarks).
262
H.R.REP.NO.105551,pt.1,at910(1998)(Thetreatiesdonotrequireanychangeinthesubstanceofcopyright
rightsorexceptionsinU.S.law.Theydo,however,requiretwotechnologicaladjunctstothecopyrightlaw,intended
toensureathrivingelectronicmarketplaceforcopyrightedworksontheInternet.).
263
105CONG.REC.S12,985(dailyed.Nov.12,1998).
264
DMCA,Pub.L.No.105304,101,112Stat.2860,2861(1998).
265
54
U.S.CopyrightOffice
inGeneva,SwitzerlandinDecember1996.266AllofthisevidencedemonstratesthatCongress
wasfullycognizantoftheobligationsimposedbytheTreatieswhenitdraftedtheDMCAand
thatitmadeaconsideredjudgmentthatthatlegislationwassufficienttoimplementthem.
TheSupremeCourthasrecognizedthatonceanagencysstatutoryconstructionhasbeen
fullybroughttotheattentionofthepublicandtheCongress,andthelatterhasnotsoughtto
alterthatinterpretationalthoughithasamendedthestatuteinotherrespects,thenpresumably
thelegislativeintenthasbeencorrectlydiscerned.267InthecaseoftheDMCA,twoexpert
agenciesformallyadvisedCongressoftheirviewthattreatyimplementationwouldrequire
certainadditionstoTitle17(relatingtocopyrightprotectionsystemsandcopyrightmanagement
information),butwouldnotrequirechangestotheexclusiverightsunderSection106.Congress
enactedimplementinglegislationreflectingthatinterpretation.Accordingly,thetotal
combinationofwhatCongressdidanddidnotdoinamendingTitle17throughtheDMCAis
probativeofitsunderstandingofthecomplianceoftheunamendedportionswithtreaty
norms.268
2. TheCharmingBetsyCanon
TheconclusionthatU.S.lawincludesarightofmakingavailableisfurthersupportedby
theCharmingBetsycanonalongstandingprincipleofstatutoryinterpretationdirectingthatan
actofCongressoughtnevertobeconstruedtoviolatethelawofnationsifanyotherpossible
constructionremains.269Thus,acourtshouldinterpretafederalstatuteconsistentlywith
internationallaworwithaninternationalagreementoftheUnitedStateswheresucha
constructionisfairlypossible.270
Asnotedabove,theUnitedStatesisobligatedtoprovideamakingavailablerightnotonly
undertheWIPOInternetTreaties,butalsoundernofewerthantwelvefreetradeagreements,all
ofwhichhavebeenapprovedbyCongress,themostrecentin2011.271Thereisnoindicationthat
H.R.REP.NO.105796,105thCong.,at63(1998).
266
UnitedStatesv.Rutherford,442U.S.544,554n.10(1979)(quotingApexHosieryv.Leader,310U.S.469,48889(1940)).
267
JaneC.Ginsburg,RecentDevelopmentsinUSCopyrightLawPartII,Caselaw:ExclusiveRightsontheEbb?39(Colum.
Pub.L.&LegalTheoryWorkingPapers,WorkingPaperNo.08158,2008),
http://lsr.nellco.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1050&context=columbia_pllt;seealsoTheScopeofCopyrightProtection,
supranote95,at2(statementofRep.JohnConyers,RankingMember,Subcomm.onCourts,IntellectualProp.,&the
Internet)(Congresshasrepeatedlydemonstrated,byratifyingtheseagreements,thattheUnitedStateslawalready
includesthisrightandnochangeisnecessary.).
268
Murrayv.SchoonerCharmingBetsy,6U.S.64,118(1804).
269
RESTATEMENT(THIRD)OFFOREIGNRELATIONSLAWOFUNITEDSTATES114(AM.LAWINST.1987).Otherformulationsof
thetesthaveindicatedthatcourtsshouldinterpretstatutesinamannerconsistentwithinternationalobligations
wheneversuchinterpretationisreasonable.SeeCurtisA.Bradley,TheCharmingBetsyCanonandSeparationofPowers:
RethinkingtheInterpretiveRoleofInternationalLaw,86GEO.L.J.479,490(1997)(citingUnitedStatesv.Yunis,924F.2d1086,
1091(D.C.Cir.1991);UnitedStatesv.Georgescu,723F.Supp.912,921(E.D.N.Y.1989);Am.BaptistChurchesintheU.S.A.
v.Meese,712F.Supp.756,771(N.D.Cal.1989)).
270
Seesupranotes71,73,and77andaccompanyingtext.
271
55
U.S.CopyrightOffice
Congresshashadanyintentiontodepartfromtheseobligations.Tothecontrary,asjust
discussed,itisclearthatCongressintendedtofullyimplementtheInternetTreatiesthroughthe
DMCAandconcludedthatnosubstantivechangestoexistingexclusiverightswerenecessaryto
doso.Moreover,CongressgavespecificapprovaltomultipleExecutiveBranchdeterminations
thatnostatutorychangewouldberequiredtoimplementFTAchapterscontainingamaking
availableobligation.272ThequestionthusiswhetherinterpretingtheCopyrightActtoprovidea
makingavailablerightinsubstanceisfairlypossible.Forallthereasonsnotedabove,theOffice
concludesthatsuchaconstructionisnotonlypossiblebutisthereadingmostconsistentwiththe
textofthestatuteasawholeandtheclearlyexpressedpurposesofboththe1976Actandthe
DMCA.Therefore,CharmingBetsycounselsthatcourtsshouldadoptthatinterpretation.
ThedistrictcourtinCapitolRecords,Inc.v.Thomasreachedadifferentconclusionastothe
canonsapplicabilityinthiscontext.273WhilethecourtacknowledgedthattheCharmingBetsy
doctrinedirectstheCourttoadoptthereasonableconstructionthatisconsistentwiththeUnited
StatesinternationalobligationsandthatpastPresidents,Congresses,andtheRegisterof
CopyrightshaveindicatedtheirbeliefthattheCopyrightActimplementsWIPOsmakeavailable
right,itconcludedthatinterpretingtherightofdistributiontocoverpeertopeerfilesharing
activityintheabsenceofevidenceofdownloadingissimplynotreasonable.274Thisholding
wasinturncitedwithapprovalintheEasternDistrictofVirginiasrecentdecisioninBMGRights
Management(US)v.CoxCommunications,Inc.,whichalsodeclinedtoapplythecanontoSection
106.275ThecourtinThomas,however,baseditsstatutoryinterpretationinpartontheEighth
CircuitsNationalCardecision(whichitdeemedbindingauthority)andonthepriorversionof
theNimmertreatise,bothofwhich,asnotedabove,arenowoflimitedanalyticalvalueonthis
issue.276Viewingthestatuteinitsfullcontext,theOfficeconcludesthatconstruingtheCopyright
Acttoincludeamakingavailablerightis,attheveryminimum,areasonableinterpretation.The
CharmingBetsycanonaccordinglyprovidesanadditionalbasisforrecognizingsucharight.277
272
579F.Supp.2d1210.
273
Id.at1226.
274
2015WL7756130,at*25.
275
SeeThomas,579F.Supp.2dat1217,122325.
276
PlaintiffsinseveralcaseshaveadvancedanadditionalargumentbasedonlanguageinSection106providingthata
copyrightownerhastheexclusiverighttoauthorizetheexerciseoftheenumeratedrights.See17U.S.C.106([T]he
ownerofcopyrightunderthistitlehastheexclusiverightstodoandtoauthorizeanyofthefollowing....)(emphasis
added).Intheirview,thisprovisiongivescopyrightownersanindependentcauseofactionagainstpersonswho
authorizeinfringingactivity,includingthosewhomakeaworkavailablefordistribution,performance,display,or
reproductionwithoutpermission.Thisargument,however,hasbeennotbeenembracedbythecourts,whichhave
referredtothelegislativehistorytointerpretthephrasetoauthorizeasonlyprovidingacauseofactionfor
secondaryliability,meaningtheremustbedirectinfringementbyathirdpartyforliabilitytoattachtothe
authorizingparty.SeeLatinAm.MusicCo.v.ArchdioceseofSanJuanofRomanCatholic&ApostolicChurch,499F.3d32,
46(1stCir.2007);VenegasHernndezv.AsociacindeCompositoresyEditoresdeMsicaLatinoamericana,424F.3d50,5758
(1stCir.2005);Subafilms,Ltd.v.MGMPatheCommcnsCo.,24F.3d1088,1093(9thCir.1994)(enbanc);Howell,554F.
277
56
U.S.CopyrightOffice
***
Foralloftheforegoingreasons,theCopyrightOfficeadherestothelongstandingU.S.
governmentviewthattheexclusiverightsunderSection106collectivelyprovidethesubstanceof
themakingavailablerightintheWIPOInternetTreaties.Inreachingthisconclusion,we
recognizethatthereareanumberofonlinecontextsinwhichU.S.courtshaveyettofullyaddress
whether,ortowhatextent,particularexclusiverightsmaybeimplicated.Asnoted,theOffice
doesnotattempttoresolvesuchquestionshere.Someoftheseissues,however,havegenerated
significantlitigationinotherWIPOmemberstatesinthecontextofthosecountriesnationallaws.
WebrieflyreviewthosecasesinthediscussionofEmergingIssuesinthenextPart.
IV. MAKINGAVAILABLEIMPLEMENTATIONBYOTHERTREATYPARTNERS
Aspartofthisstudy,theOfficewasaskedtoassesswhetheralternativeimplementation
approachesmaybebeneficialintheUnitedStates.278TheOfficeidentifiedthestatutorylanguage
othercountrieshaveusedtoincorporatethemakingavailablerightintonationallawandsorted
themintothreegroups:(i)countriesthatadoptedtheWIPOInternetTreatieslanguagenear
verbatimtoimplementthemakingavailableright,(ii)countriesthatadoptedalternativelanguage
toimplementtheright,and(iii)countriesthat,liketheUnitedStates,havenotadoptedexplicit
makingavailablelanguage,butinsteadhaveimplementedtherightthroughanexistingrightor
rights.
TheOfficethenconsideredhowthecourtsineachofthesecategorieshaveinterpretedthe
makingavailablerightasitrelatestothetwoissuesthathavearisenintheUnitedStatesthatform
thesinequanonofthemakingavailableright:thetreatmentofonetoonetransmissions,which
securestocopyrightownerstherighttocontroldeliveryoftheirworkstomembersofthepublic
individuallyinseparateplacesandtimes,andthetreatmentofoffersofcopyrightedworks,
whichsecurestocopyrightownerstherighttocontrolaccesstotheircontent.Attheendofthe
section,webrieflydiscussathirdareaoflawthathasreceivedsignificantattentioninforeign
jurisdictions(althoughthejurisprudenceregardingthisissueislessdevelopedintheUnited
Supp.2dat987;Thomas,579F.Supp.2dat122023;ElektraEntmtGrp.,551F.Supp.2dat24547;LondonSireRecords,
542F.Supp.2dat166.
ThelegislativehistoryreliedonforthisconstructionappearsintheHouseReportaccompanyingthebillthat
becamethe1976Act:
Useofthephrasetoauthorizeisintendedtoavoidanyquestionsastotheliabilityofcontributory
infringers.Forexample,apersonwholawfullyacquiresanauthorizedcopyofamotionpicture
wouldbeaninfringerifheorsheengagesinthebusinessofrentingittoothersforpurposesof
unauthorizedpublicperformance.
H.R.REP.NO.941476,at61.TheFirstCircuit,however,hasnotedthatwhiletheinterpretationadoptedbycourts
appearsfromlegislativehistorytobeclosertocongressionalintent,thebetterbarelanguagereadingwouldallow
theclaimsinquestion.VenegasHernndez,424F.3dat58.
SeeLetterfromRep.MelvinL.Watt,supranote10,at2(askingtheCopyrightOfficetoreviewandassesshow
foreignlawshaveinterpretedandimplementedtherelevantprovisionsoftheWIPOInternetTreaties).
278
57
U.S.CopyrightOffice
States),namelythetreatmentofofferingaccesstocontenthostedelsewhereontheInternet
(typicallythroughsomeformofhyperlinking).279
Thethreecategoriesintowhichwegroupedthelegislativeapproachesadoptedbyother
treatysignatoriesare:
(1)InternetTreatiesLanguage
Underthisapproach,implementing
legislationadoptedamakingavailableright
usinglanguagethattracksthatofWCTArticle
8,eitheridenticallyorwithnonsubstantive
differences.Itmaybecouchedaspartofa
broadercommunicationtothepublicrightorit
maybeaseparatelyenumeratedright.280
ImplementationModel
InternetTreatiesLanguage
AlternativeLanguage
StatutorySilence
14
(2)AlternativeLanguage
Underthisapproach,anew,explicit
makingavailablerightwasadopted,butthe
statutorytextdoesnotdirectlytrackthe
languagefromtheWIPOInternetTreaties.The
newrightmaybeincludedaspartofabroad
communicationtothepublicrightoritmaybe
astandaloneright.281
49
31
(3)StatutorySilence
Thisapproachcoverstheactofmakingavailablethroughapreexistingrightorrights,
withoutadoptingaspecificreferencetothemakingavailableright.
Thecasesdiscussedhereinareillustrativeoftheforeignimplementationexperiences,butarenotexhaustive.The
Officesurveyedthecopyrightlawsofthe94contractingpartiesthathaveimplementedtheWCT,andthenlookedat
theavailablejurisprudencefoundthroughourownresearchandareviewofthecommentsandroundtablediscussions
receivedaspartofthisstudy.Keychallengesfacedincompilingthisreview,however,includedapaucityofreported
decisionsinsomejurisdictions,aswellasthelimitedavailabilityofauthoritativeEnglishtranslationsofdecisionsin
certaincountries.Further,becauseprotectionundertheUnitedStatesisbasedonauthorsandtheirworks(andnoton
relatedrights,asusedinsomeinternationaltreatiesandforeignjurisdictions),welimitedourreviewtocasesinvolving
therightsofauthorsunderthecommunicationtothepublicconstructasfoundinWCTArticle8.
279
Forinclusioninthiscategory,theforeignstatutecontainstheWCTphrase(orsomeclosevariationthereof):
includingthemakingavailabletothepublicoftheirworksinsuchawaythatmembersofthepublicmayaccessthese
worksfromaplaceandatatimeindividuallychosenbythem.WCT,supranote1,art.8.
280
InsomeAlternativeLanguageModelcountries,thestatutorylanguageappearstocloselytracktheWCTlanguage
butincludesadditionalwordsorphrasessuchastelecommunicationorinformationnetworkthatincorporateinto
therightseparatestatutoryandregulatoryschemes.InotherAlternativeLanguageModelcountries,thelanguageused
toprovideforanexplicitcommunicationtothepublicormakingavailablerightdeviatesmoresignificantlyfromthe
WIPOInternetTreatieslanguage.
281
58
U.S.CopyrightOffice
A. InternetTreatiesModel
Themostcommonapproachto
Member States shall provide authors with the
implementationofthemakingavailablerighthas
exclusive right to authorise or prohibit any
communication to the public of their works, by
beenforaforeignjurisdictiontoadoptthe
wire or wireless means, including the making
languageoftheWIPOInternetTreatiesinits
available to the public of their works in such a
copyrightstatute.Thismodelhasbeenadopted
way that members of the public may access them
byroughly49ofthe94contractingpartiesthat
from a place and at a time individually chosen by
haveratifiedtheWCT.282Althoughanumberof
them.
countrieshavetakenthisapproach,the
EU InfoSoc Directive Art. 3(1)
overwhelmingmajorityofrelatedcourtdecisions
theOfficehasbeenabletoidentifyhavecome
fromEurope,283alongwithafewfromSingapore.Despitenearlyidenticalimplementation
language,thecourtsinSingaporeandtheEUhavecometodifferentconclusionsonseveral
questionsregardingthescopeofthemakingavailableright.Someofthisinconsistencymaybe
tracedtothetreatylanguageitself.AsmultipledecisionsoftheCourtofJusticeoftheEuropean
Union(CJEU)havenoted,whiletheInfoSocDirectivetextincorporatestheWCTlanguage,
neithertheDirectivenortheWCTdefinestherightofcommunicationtothepublic.284
1. OnetoOneTransmissions
TheWIPOInternetTreatiessoughttoanticipatethecontinuedevolutionofthetechnology
usedtodelivercopyrightedworksdigitally,definingthemakingavailablerightbroadlyas
encompassingdeliverythroughinteractive,ondemandwirelesstransmissions.285Nonetheless,
282
SeeAppendixE.
TheWIPOInternetTreatiesweresignedin1996bytheEuropeanCommunity,thepredecessortotheEuropean
Union.In2001,theEUadoptedtheInformationSociety(InfoSoc)Directive,whichincludeslanguageidenticalto
Article8oftheWCT,requiringmemberstatestoprotecttherightofcommunicationtothepublic,includingthe
makingavailabletothepublicof[authors]worksinsuchawaythatmembersofthepublicmayaccessthemfroma
placeandatatimeindividuallychosenbythem.Directive2001/29/EC,oftheEuropeanParliamentandoftheCouncil
of22May2001ontheHarmonisationofCertainAspectsofCopyrightandRelatedRightsintheInformationSociety,
art.3(1),2001O.J.(L167)10,16.InadditiontoadoptingthelanguageofArticle8oftheWCT,Recital(23)oftheInfoSoc
Directivepreamblestatesthattherightshouldbeunderstoodinabroadsensecoveringallcommunicationtothe
publicnotpresentattheplacewherethecommunicationoriginates.Id.,recital23,12.Finalimplementationofthe
makingavailablerightwaslefttoindividualEUmemberstates,though20ofthe28haveadoptedtheInternetTreaties
languageBulgaria,Cyprus,theCzechRepublic,Denmark,Germany,Greece,Ireland,Italy,Latvia,Lithuania,
Luxembourg,Malta,Poland,Portugal,Romania,Slovakia,Slovenia,Spain,Sweden,andtheUnitedKingdom.See
AppendixE.
283
See,e.g.,JoinedCasesC403/08&C429/08,FootballAssnPremierLeagueLtd.v.QCLeisure,2011E.C.R.I09083,
2011EURLexCELEX62008CJ0403,para.184(Oct.4,2011)(ItshouldbenotedattheoutsetthatArticle3(1)ofthe
CopyrightDirectivedoesnotdefinetheconceptofcommunicationtothepublic.)(citingRafaelHoteles,2006EURLex
CELEX62005CJ0306,para.33).
284
[A]uthorsofliteraryandartisticworksshallenjoytheexclusiverightofauthorizinganycommunicationtothe
publicoftheirworks,bywireorwirelessmeans,includingthemakingavailabletothepublicoftheirworksinsuchawaythat
285
59
U.S.CopyrightOffice
changestothetechnologiesusedtostreamcopyrightedworkshaveposedchallengesforcourts
interpretingthemakingavailablerightinthosecountriesthatincorporatetherightwithina
broaderrightofcommunicationtothepublic.Withtheadventoftechnologythatcreates
individualstreamstotransmitcopyrightedworkstoeachuser,courtshavestruggledwithhowto
handlesuchactivity.Aresuchtransmissionsdirectedatthepublic,thusimplicatingtherightof
communicationtothepublic?Ordoestheuseofsuchtechnologyrendereachtransmissiona
nonpubliccommunicationthatisnotsubjecttoanyoftheexclusiverightsofthecopyright
owner?286CourtsincountriesthathaveadoptedtheInternetTreatiesLanguageapproachhave
reacheddifferentconclusionsonthisissue.WhilecourtsintheEuropeanUnionhavefocused
theiranalysisontheavailabilitytothepublicofsuchonetoonetransmissions,courtsin
Singaporehavefocusedtheiranalysisonwhetheraparticulartransmissionconstituteda
communicationtothepublic.
Incasespresentingthequestionofonetoonetransmissions,theCJEU287hasconcluded
thatthecumulativeeffectofmakingtheworksavailabletopotentialrecipientsshouldbetaken
intoaccount,findingthatthetransmissionofaterrestrialtelevisionbroadcastovertheInternet
toindividualsubscribersprivateviewingdevicesimplicatedthecopyrightownersrightof
communicationtothepublicinthe2013caseofITVv.TVCatchup.288Inreachingthisconclusion,
theCJEUreasonedthatitisirrelevantwhetherthepotentialrecipientsaccessthecommunicated
worksthroughaonetooneconnectionbecausedoingsodoesnotpreventalargenumberof
personshavingaccesstothesameworkatthesametime.289Similarly,theCJEUdeterminedin
SGAEv.RafaelHotelesthatbroadcastsignalsreceivedbyahotelandprovidedtocustomers
throughindividualtransmissionstoinroomtelevisionsetsconstitutedacommunicationtothe
public.290
membersofthepublicmayaccesstheseworksfromaplaceandatatimeindividuallychosenbythem.WCT,supranote1,art.8
(emphasisadded).
ThisissueissimilartothequestionsraisedbytheAereotechnologyintheUnitedStates,whichwasthesubjectofthe
SupremeCourtsdecisiononthepublicperformancerightinAereoIII,134S.Ct.2498,discussedinPartIII.B.2.b.i,supra.
286
TheCJEUhasjurisdictiontogivepreliminaryrulingsconcerningthevalidityandinterpretationofactsofthe
institutions,bodies,officesoragenciesoftheUnion.SeeConsolidatedVersionoftheTreatyontheFunctioningofthe
EuropeanUnionart.267,Oct.26,2012,2012O.J.(C326)47,164.Whereaquestionisraisedbeforeanymemberstate
courtortribunal,thecourtortribunalmayrequestaCJEUrulingonthatquestionifitconsidersthatadecisiononthe
questionisnecessarytoenableittogivejudgment.Id.WheretheCJEUrendersapreliminaryruling,itonly
interpretsEUlaworrulesonitsvalidity.TheCJEUdoesnotapplythatlawtotheunderlyingfactualsituation.See
Recommendations:CourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanUnion,paragraph7,2012O.J.(C338)1,2.Ajudgmentinwhichthe
CJEUgivesapreliminaryrulingontheinterpretationorvalidityofanactofanEUinstitutionconclusivelydetermines
aquestionorquestionsof[EU]lawandisbindingonthenationalcourtforthepurposesofthedecisiontobegivenby
itinthemainproceedings.Case69/85,WnscheHandelsgesellschaftGmbH&Co.v.Fed.RepublicofGermany,1986
E.C.R.948,1986EURLexCELEX61985CO0069,para.13(Mar.5,1986).
287
CaseC607/11,ITVBroad.Ltd.v.TVCatchup,2013EURLexCELEX62011CJ0607,para.33(Mar.7,2013).
288
Id.atpara.34.
289
RafaelHoteles,2006EURLexCELEX62005CJ0306.Thecourtreaffirmedthatcommunicationtothepublicrequiresa
communicationtoanindeterminatebutlargenumberofpeople.Yet,significantly,thecourtconcludedthatthis
290
60
U.S.CopyrightOffice
Incontrast,anappellatecourtinSingaporedeclinedtofindinfringementbyaservicethat
providedindividualizedtransmissionsoftelevisedprogrammingthatwasrequestedbyauser
andonlyaccessiblebythatuser.291Thecase,RecordTVv.MediaCorpTV,involvedanInternet
basedDVRservice,RecordTV.AusercouldselectafreetoairMediaCorpshowbroadcastin
Singaporetorecord,afterwhichtheDVRwouldcapturetheshowonatelevisiontuner,recordit
onRecordTVsonsitecomputers,andthenstreamtherecordingtotheuserscomputeroverthe
Internet.292ThelowercourtheldthattherecordinginfringedMediaCorpsrightof
communicationtothepublic,butdidnotinfringeitsreproductionrightbecausetherecordings
merelyenableduserstotimeshift.293TheCourtofAppealreversedontherightof
communicationtothepublic,holdingthatanycommunicationsmadebyRecordTVto
RegisteredUsers...weremadeprivatelyandindividually.294Thecourtstatedthattherelevant
questionwasnotwhetherRecordTVsiDVRservicewasavailabletothepublic,butinstead
shouldhavebeenwhetheraparticular...showhadbeentransmittedtothepublic.295Framed
inthismanner,thecourtdeterminedthattheoperativecommunicationdidnotoccuruntila
showwasdownloadedtotheusersplaylistandthusavailableforviewingbythatuser.296Since
theusercontrolledthecontentoftheplaylist,thecourtconcludedthattheuserwasthe
numbermayincludeboththoseviewerswhoviewthecontentatthesametimeandthosewhoviewitsuccessively,
evenifthosewhohaveaccesstothecommunicationareindifferentlocations.Id.atparas.3738.Thenumber
constitutingthepublicalsomayincludepotentialviewers;thecourtconcludedthatfortheretobecommunication
tothepublicitissufficientthattheworkismadeavailabletothepublicinsuchawaythatthepersonsformingthat
publicmayaccessit.Id.atpara.43.
Singaporescopyrightlawincludesanexclusiverighttocommunicate[a]worktothepublic,anddefines
communicatetoincludethemakingavailableofaworkorothersubjectmatter(onanetworkorotherwise)insuch
awaythattheworkorsubjectmattermaybeaccessedbyanypersonfromaplaceandatatimechosenbyhim.
CopyrightAct(Cap.63,2006Rev.Ed.),lastamendedbyAct22of2014,ss7,26(Sing.).RecordTVofferedregistered
usersafreeremoteDVRtorecordMediaCorpsfreetoairbroadcastsinSingapore.Aregistereduserloggedinto
RecordTVsDVRserviceknownasiDVRusingausernameandpassword,andwouldselectfromthisdatabasethe
MediaCorpshowswhichhewantedtohaverecordedandentertheselectedshowsintoaplaylistandthenwould
sendarequestfortheiDVRtorecordthoseshows;aprograminRecordTVsrecordingcomputerswouldmonitorfor
theserequestsandtheninstructtheiDVRtorecordtheshow.RecordTVPteLtd.v.MediaCorpTVSingaporePteLtd.
[2010]SGCA43at[6](RecordTV),availableathttp://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/lawsofsingapore/caselaw/free
law/courtofappealjudgments/14385recordtvpteltdvmediacorptvsingaporepteltdandothers2010sgca43.
RecordTVoperatedantennasforeachtelevisionchannelfromwhichitrecordedprograms,andwouldrecordeither
oneormultiplecopiesandstorethemonRecordTVscomputers,fromwhichtheregistereduserwhorequestedagiven
programcouldplayitback.Id.at[7].Therecordingwouldthenbestreamedtotheregistereduser.Id.at[8].
291
RecordTV,[2010]SGCA43,at[5][9];seealsoGinsburgInitialComments,at6.
292
RecordTV,[2010]SGCA43,at[11].
293
Id.at[26].Theappellatecourtfocusedparticularlyonthefactthatanyusercouldonlyaccessandviewtime
shiftedrecordingsofspecificshowsrequestedbythatuser.
294
Id.at[28].
295
Id.at[36].
296
61
U.S.CopyrightOffice
communicatorforpurposesoftheCopyrightAct,297notRecordTV.298Consequently,thecourt
foundthatRecordTVdidnotinfringeMediaCorpsrightofcommunicationtothepublic.299In
reachingthisconclusion,thecourtbroadlyfollowedthepreAereoU.S.decisioninCablevision,
whichitextensivelycitedearlyintheopinion.300Itisdifficulttoascertainthefullimplicationof
thiscaseontheinterpretationoftheinteractiveelementofthemakingavailablerightin
Singapore,beyondthefactsofthisparticularcase.
Asonecommenterinourstudynoted,suchdisagreementsregardingthestatusofoneto
onetransmissions,byfocusingontheactofreceiptofthecommunicationbyanindividualrather
thantheofferofthecommunicationtothepublic,appeartobeoutofstepwiththeintentbehind
theWCTmakingavailableright.ProfessorJaneGinsburgexpressedtheviewthat[t]heactthat
triggersthemakingavailablerightistheoffertocommunicatetheworktothepubliconanon
demandbasis;whileactualindividualizedcommunicationstomembersofthepublicareof
coursecoveredaswell,theinnovationoftheWIPOTreatieswastoenableauthorstolicense,orto
seekredressfrom,personsorentitieswhoholdworksouttothepublicasavailableforaccessby
streamingordownload.301Yet,despiteacknowledgingthattheSingaporeCopyrightActhad
incorporatedtheWCTArticle8languagealmostverbatim,theSingaporeappellatecourtdevoted
mostofitsanalysistoparsingthephrasecommunicationtothepublic,nottheinteractive
elementofthatdefinition.Incomparison,thecourtsintheEUdecisionsdiscussedabovefocused
theirinterpretationonthephrasemakingavailable,thusfindingonetoonetransmissions
offeredtothepublictobesubjecttotheexclusiveright.
TheSingaporeCopyrightActdefinesacommunicationotherthanabroadcastashavingbeenmadebythe
personresponsiblefordeterminingthecontentofthecommunicationatthetimethecommunicationismade.
CopyrightAct(Cap.63,2006Rev.Ed.),lastamendedbyAct22of2014,s16(6).
297
298
Id.at[71].Inreachingthisconclusion,thecourtappearstohavebeenmotivatedbyadesiretoavoidconstrainingthe
developmentofwhatitviewedassociallyusefultechnologies.Id.at[2](Thisappealraisesanimportantpolicyissue
astohowthecourtsshouldinterpretcopyrightlegislationinthelightoftechnologicaladvanceswhichhaveclear
legitimateandbeneficialusesforthepublic,butwhichmaybecircumscribedorstymiedbyexpansiveclaimsof
existingcopyrightowners....Ifthelawisnotclearastowhethertheuseofimprovedtechnologywhichisbeneficialto
societyconstitutesabreachofcopyright,shouldthecourtsinterpretlegislativeprovisionstofavourtheprivaterightsof
thecopyrightownerorthepublicswiderinterests?).
299
Id.at[16][19].SeealsoGinsburgInitialCommentsat6n.12(statingthattheappellatecourtappearstohave
followedeachstepoftheCablevisionreasoning);Tr.at327:18328:06(JaneC.Ginsburg,Colum.LawSch.)(notingthat
SingaporeistheonlycountrythathasfoundthataCablevision/Aereotypesituationengagesnorightunder
copyright.);Tr.at324:20325:09(GlynnLunney,Tul.U.Sch.ofLaw)(So,ontheCablevisioncase,forexample,where
theSecondCircuitheldthattobenotcopyrightinfringement,wehavethecourtinSingaporesayingitisnotcopyright
infringement.).
300
GinsburgInitialCommentsat3;seealsoVONLEWINSKI,supranote32,17.73,at45657([T]hecoveredactalready
startspriortotheactualtransmission,namelywiththeofferingormakingavailableworksandphonograms.).
301
62
U.S.CopyrightOffice
2. Offers
Asnotedabove,intheUnitedStates,themostcontestedquestionwithrespecttothe
scopeofthemakingavailablerighthasbeenwhetherofferingtodistributeacopyrightedwork
online,withoutevidenceofacompleteddownload,mayconstituteaninfringement.302In
contrast,ourreviewdidnotrevealanycasesintheInternetTreatiesModelcountriesthathave
focusedonwhetheramereoffertocommunicateviolatesthemakingavailableright.Thismaybe
becausetheiradoptionofexplicitmakingavailablelanguagerenderstheanswertothequestion
obvious.303Indeed,languagefromvariousCJEUopinionsindicatesthatthecourtconsidersita
settledmatteroflawthatArticle3(1)oftheInfoSocDirectivecoversoffers.Forexample,inRafael
Hoteles,theCJEUstatedthatitissufficientthattheworkismadeavailabletothepublicinsucha
waythatthepersonsformingthatpublicmayaccessit.304Regardlessofwhetherhotelcustomers
everturnedontheirtelevisions,theyhadaccesstotheworks,andthat,thecourtsaid,was
enoughtoimplicatethemakingavailablerightinArticle3(1).305Similarly,inasubsequentcase
thecourtassertedthatitisapparentfromArticle3(1)ofDirective2001/29,[that]fortheretobe
anactofcommunication,itissufficient,inparticular,thataworkismadeavailabletoapublic
insuchawaythatthepersonsformingthatpublicmayaccessit,irrespectiveofwhetherthey
availthemselvesofthatopportunity.306AcademicsandothersreviewingEUlawagreethatmere
offersarecoveredbyArticle3(1).307Asonegroupofcommentersnoted,the[InfoSoc]Directive
appliestoalltypesoftransmissions,sothemeansoftransmissionisirrelevant.Thefocusison
accesstotheworks....Inshort,merelyuploadingaworkforpotentialreceiptisanactof
communicationfallingwithinthecopyrightownersexclusiveright.308
SeePartIII.B.1.b,supra.
302
SeeTr.at326:1922(JaneC.Ginsburg,Colum.LawSch.)([T]he[phrase]mayaccessmakesclearthat[theArt.3(1)
communicationtothepublicright]coversnotonlyacompletedcommunication,buttheprospectofacommunication,
theofferofacommunication.).
303
RafaelHoteles,2006EURLexCELEX62005CJ0306,para.43.
304
Id.
305
Svensson,2014EURLexCELEX62012CJ0466,para.19(citingRafaelHoteles,2006EURLexCELEX62005CJ0306,para.
43).
306
307Seee.g.,GinsburgInitialCommentsat3(citingSvenssonforthepropositionthatthemakingavailablerightcovers
potentialaswellascompletedaccesstoworksofauthorship....Theactthattriggersthemakingavailablerightisthe
offertocommunicatetheworktothepubliconanondemandbasis.);FICSOR,supranote33,C8.23,at508([Under
Article8oftheWCTandArticle3(1)oftheInformationSocietyDirective,theconceptofmakingavailableincludes
boththeelementofmakingondemandtransmissionpossibleandtheactualondemandtransmissioncarriedoutonthe
basisofthispossibility....Infact,alsounder[theseprovisions],theactofcommunicationtothepublicintheformof
makingavailableiscompletedbymerelymakingaworkavailableforondemandtransmission.);RebeccaGiblin&
JaneC.Ginsburg,We(Still)NeedtoTalkAboutAereo:NewControversiesandUnresolvedQuestionsAftertheSupreme
CourtsDecision,38COLUM.J.L.&ARTS109,121(2015)(InEurope,inconstruingtheEUInformationSocietyDirectives
identicallanguage,theCourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanUnionhasruledthatthepubliccharacterofthemaking
availablerightturnsonwhetherthedefendanthasofferedtheworktoalargenumberofpersonsnotwhetherithas
infactbeenreceived.)(emphasisinoriginal).
MusicalWorksOrganizationsJointInitialCommentsat1718.
308
63
U.S.CopyrightOffice
B. AlternativeLanguageModel
Manycountrieshaveoptedforadifferent
[C]ommunicate means make available online or
statutoryimplementationapproach,using
electronically transmit (whether over a path, or a
languagetocodifyamakingavailablerightthat
combination of paths, provided by a material
differsfromtheWIPOInternetTreatieslanguage,
substance or otherwise) a work or other subjectalthougheachofthesecountrieshasadoptedan
matter, including a performance or live
performance within the meaning of this Act.
explicitmakingavailablerightaspartofa
communicationtothepublicrightorasa
Copyright Act, Law No. 63 of 1968,
standaloneright.Asnotedpreviously,insomeof
as amended by Act No. 80 of 2015,
thesecountries,thestatutorylanguageappearsto
Article 10 (Australia)
closelytrackthelanguagefromWCTArt.8but
includesphrasessuchastelecommunicationorinformationnetworkthatincorporateintothe
rightseparatestatutoryandregulatoryschemes,whileinothercountriesthelanguagedeviates
moresignificantlyfromtheWIPOInternetTreatieslanguage.Amongthecountriesthatchose
thismodel,relevantcaselawhasdevelopedaroundthescopeofthemakingavailablerightin
Australia,Canada,China,andJapan.
1. OnetoOneTransmissions
ThreeofthefourAlternateLanguageModelcountriesweexaminedhaveaddressedthe
makingavailablerightinthecontextofonetoonetransmissions.Whileseveraloftheopinions
predatethosecountriesamendmentstoimplementtheWIPOInternetTreaties,itappearsthat
eachofthemwouldconsideronetoonetransmissionstoimplicatetherightofcommunicationto
thepublic,andthusthemakingavailableright.
Australiaprovidescopyrightownersarighttocommunicatetothepublic,anddefines
communicateastomakeavailableonlineorelectronicallytransmit(whetheroverapath,ora
combinationofpaths,providedbyamaterialsubstanceorotherwise)aworkorothersubject
matter.309BeforethisstatutorylanguagewasaddedviatheCopyrightAmendment(Digital
Agenda)Act2000,theAustralianHighCourtalreadyhadconcludedthatprivate,onetoone
transmissionscouldbetothepublic.310Thisconclusionappearsunchangedafteradoptionof
CopyrightAct1968(Cth)s10(Austl.).Notethatthetermmakingavailableisalsofoundinthedefinitionof
electronicrightsmanagementinformationinsection10,aselectronicinformationthatappearsinconnectionwitha
communication,orthemakingavailable,oftheworkorsubjectmatter.
309
SeeTelstraCorp.LtdvAustralasianPerformingRightsAssnLtd(1997)191CLR140(Austl.),availableat
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1997/41.html(Thetransmissionmaybetoindividualsinprivate
circumstancesbutneverthelessbetothepublic....Lyingbehindtheconceptofthecopyrightownerspublicis
recognitionofthefactthatwhereaworkisperformedinacommercialsetting,theoccasionisunlikelytobeprivateor
domesticandtheaudienceismoreappropriatelytobeseenasasectionofthepublic.).Australiahashadoccasionto
considertechnologysimilartothatatissueinCablevision.UnlikeCablevision,however,theHighCourtsdecisionin
NationalRugbyLeaguevSingtelOptusinvolvedtheexclusiverighttomakeacopy,ratherthanthepublic
communicationright.SeeNationalRugbyLeagueInvestmentsPtyLtdvSingtelOptusPtyLtd[2012]FCAFC59(Austl.),
availableathttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2012/59.html.ThetechnologyatissueinOptusallowed
Optussubscriberstocaptureandrecordovertheairtransmissionsthatthesubscribercouldthenaccessondemand,
310
64
U.S.CopyrightOffice
theDigitalAgendaamendmentsin2000toincorporateanexplicitmakingavailableright.
Similarly,Canadiancopyrightlawprovidesarightinthecaseofanyliterary,dramatic,musical
orartisticworktocommunicatetheworktothepublicbytelecommunication,311whichwas
amendedbytheCopyrightModernizationActof2012toincorporateanexplicitrightofmakinga
workavailableonline.312Applyingthispre2012communicationtothepublicright,the
CanadianSupremeCourtsimilarlyheldthatonetoonecommunicationsaretothepublicwhen,
forexample,musicfilesarestreamedtousersaccessingtheworksindifferentlocationsandat
differenttimes.313Itisprematuretoknowhowthisnewstatutorydefinitionmaybeappliedin
futureCanadiancases.
Finally,JapanamendeditsCopyrightActin1997to,amongotherthings,addapublic
transmissionright314thatencompassesalargerangeofactscontributingtotransmissionsto
membersofthepublicviavariousmedia.315Thisright,readinconjunctionwithvarious
definitionsinthelaw,entitlescopyrightownerstocontroltheInternettransmissionofworks,
viaanInternetconnecteddevice.MuchoftheHighCourtsdecisionisdevotedtothequestionofwhethertheinitial
copyingoftheovertheairprogramswasmadebythesubscriberalone,orbyeitherOptusorOptusandthesubscriber
together.TheHighCourtoverturnedthelowercourtsfindingthatthecopyhadbeenmadebythesubscriberalone,
andaccordinglyruledthatOptuswasnotentitledtorelyonthetimeshiftingdefensesetoutinAustraliancopyright
law.Id.at[66][79].OneissueruledonbythelowercourtthatwasnotaddressedbytheHighCourt,however,was
thequestionofwhetherthecopies,oncemade,werecommunicatedtothepublicwhenviewedbythesubscriber.The
lowercourthadfoundthatthelaterplaybackwasaprivatecommunication,andthusdidnotimplicatethe
communicationtothepublicright.SingtelOptusPtyLtdvNationalRugbyLeagueInvestmentsPtyLtd[No.2][2012]FCA
34[105](Austl.).
CopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,cC42,s3(1)(f)(Can.).TheActdefinestelecommunicationasanytransmissionofsigns,
signals,writing,imagesorsoundsorintelligenceofanynaturebywire,radio,visual,opticalorotherelectromagnetic
system.CopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985cC42,s2(Can.).
311
CopyrightModernizationAct,S.C.2012,c20,s3(Can.),availableathttp://laws
lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/annualstatutes/2012_20/FullText.html.TheActamendedthedefinitionofcommunicationtothe
publicbytelecommunicationtoincludemakingitavailabletothepublicbytelecommunicationinawaythatallows
amemberofthepublictohaveaccesstoitfromaplaceandatatimeindividuallychosenbythatmemberofthe
public.CopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,cC42,s2.4(1.1)(Can.).MostoftheprovisionsoftheActenteredintoeffecton
November7,2012.
312
RogersCommcnsInc.v.SocyofComposers,Authors&MusicPublishersofCanada(SOCAN),[2012]2S.C.R.
283,para.34(Can.);seealsoCCHCanadaLtd.v.LawSocyofUpperCanada,[2004]1S.C.R.339,para.78(Can.)(noting
thatwhileasinglefaxtransmissiontoasingleindividualwouldnotbeacommunicationtothepublic,repeated
transmissionstonumerousrecipientscouldbe);JeremydeBeer,YsoldeGendreau&DavidVaver,Canada,in
INTERNATIONALCOPYRIGHTLAWANDPRACTICECAN79,8[1][b][v]&n.55(PaulEdwardGeller&LionelBentlyeds.,
2015).
313
ChosakukenH[CopyrightLaw],LawNo.48of1970,asamendeduptoLawNo.35of2014,art.23(1)(Japan),
translatedathttp://www.cric.or.jp/english/clj/doc/20151001_October,2015_Copyright_Law_of_Japan.pdf(unofficial
translation)(Theauthorshallhavetheexclusiverighttomakethepublictransmissionofhiswork(includingthe
makingtransmittableofthisworkinthecaseoftheinteractivetransmission).).
314
TatsuhiroUeno&TeruoDoi,Japan,inINTERNATIONALCOPYRIGHTLAWANDPRACTICEJAP55,8[1][b][v](Paul
EdwardGeller&LionelBentlyeds.,2015).
315
65
U.S.CopyrightOffice
includinguploadingthemintoaserver.316Japanesecaselawseemstoindicatethatthisrightis
alsoimplicatedwhenservicesmakepersonalized,oronetoone,transmissionstoprivateusers.317
The2011ManekiTVcasedealtwiththequestionofwhetherManekiTVsLocationFreedevice,
whichconvertedterrestrialbroadcasttelevisionprogramsintodigitalformatsandtransmittedthe
digitallyconvertedbroadcaststousersonrequestviatheInternet,infringedthebroadcasters
transmissionrights.318ReversingtheIntellectualPropertyHighCourt,319theSupremeCourtof
Japanfoundthateventhoughthedevicetechnicallytransmittedonlytoasingleapparatus
designatedinadvance,thetransmissionsweretothepublicbecausetheyweretounspecified
persons.320Additionally,thecourtheldthatthepartywhocreatesaconditioninwhich[a]
devicecanautomaticallytransmitinformationuponrequestistheonewhoperformsthe
transmission.321Itfurthernotedthat[w]heresuchdeviceisconnectedwitha
telecommunicationslineprovidedforusebythepublicandinformationiscontinuouslyinput
intosaiddevice,itisappropriatetoconsiderthepersonwhoinputsinformationintosaiddevice
tobethepartywhoperformstransmission.322ThecourtfoundthatManekiTVenabledeach
transmission.Thus,eventhougheachtransmissionwasmadeattherequestofauser,thecourt
foundthatManekiTV,nottheuser,wastheinfringer.323
Id.
316
SeeSaikSaibansho[Sup.Ct.]Jan.18,2011,Hei21(ju)no.653,65SAIKSAIBANSHOMINJIHANREISH[MINSH]121at
[5](Japan)(ManekiTV),provisionaltranslationavailableathttp://www.courts.go.jp/app/hanrei_en/detail?id=1090;
MusicalWorksOrganizationsJointInitialCommentsat22(citingManekiTVforthepremisethatthestreamingofone
toonetransmissionstoindividualswerepublictransmissionsinfringingtransmissionrights);Ueno&Doi,supranote
315,8[1][b][v]&n.29(notingthatManekiTVsservicewasoneexampleofanactionthatviolatedtherightsholders
publictransmissionrights).
317
ManekiTV,65SAIKSAIBANSHOMINJIHANREISH[MINSH]121.AtissuewerethebroadcastersArticle23(1)public
transmissionrightsaswellastheirArticle99bisrighttomaketransmittable.Botharticlesaffordrightsholdersthe
powertotransmittheirworksorbroadcaststothepublic.ThebroadcastersallegedviolationoftheirArticle23(1)
rightswithregardtothebroadcastprogramstheyproducedandviolationoftheirArticle99bisrightwithregardtothe
broadcaststheyprovided.
318
Id.at[6].Specifically,theIntellectualPropertyHighCourthadfoundthattheLocationFreeservicetransmittedeach
digitizedbroadcastonlytoaspecificcomputer,andthusthetransmissionwasnottothepublic.Id.
319
Id.at[5].
320
Id.
321
Id.SeealsoNaoyaIsoda,CopyrightInfringementLiabilityofPlaceshiftingServicesintheUnitedStatesandJapan,7WASH.
J.L.TECH.&ARTS149,187(2011)(discussingtheSupremeCourtsstatement).
322
ManekiTV,65SAIKSAIBANSHOMINJIHANREISH[MINSH]121,at[5].Cf.SaikSaibansho[Sup.Ct.]Jan.20,2011,
Hei21(ju)no.788,65SAIKSAIBANSHOMINJIHANREISH[MINSH]399(Japan)(RokurakuII),summaryavailableat
http://www.courts.go.jp/app/hanrei_en/detail?id=1091.The2011caseofRokurakuIIfocusedontheexclusiverightof
reproductioninsteadofthepublictransmissionright,butitsoutcomewasanalogoustoManekiTV.SimilartoManeki
TV,theRokurakuIIserviceprovidermanufacturedandsoldaproductthatreceivedterrestrialbroadcasts,converted
themtodigitaldata,andtransmittedthedigitizedbroadcastsviatheInternetattherequestofauser.TheSupreme
CourtofJapanfoundtheserviceproviderliableforinfringingtherightsholdersreproductionrightinthebroadcasts
because,althoughthecopiesweremadeattheusersrequest,theactofreproductionwasundertheserviceproviders
managementandcontrol.Withouttheservicesinvolvement,itwouldhavebeenimpossibleforuserstomake
323
66
U.S.CopyrightOffice
2. Offers
WewereunabletolocatemuchcaselawontheissueofoffersintheAlternateLanguage
Modelcountries.Thefewcaseswedidfind,however,holdthatunauthorizedoffersboth
implicateandviolatethemakingavailablerightunderthecircumstancesathand.
OneAustraliancasesuggeststhatmereoffersimplicatethemakingavailablerightthere.
InRoadshowFilmsPtyLtd.viiNetLtd.,324theFederalCourtheldthatpeertopeerfilesharersmade
filmsavailableonline,andtherebycommunicatedthemtothepublic,eachtimetheusers
connectedtheircomputerstotheInternetwithmovieintheirBitTorrentfolders.325Thecourt
concludedexplicitlythat[t]heactofcommunicationbymakingavailableonlinedoesnotrequire
thattherebeanyactualcommunicationintheordinarysenseofthatword.Apersonwhousesa
computertomakeafilmavailableonlinecommunicatesitforthepurposeofs86(c)whetheror
notitistransmittedtooraccessedbyanyotherperson.326Thus,therightofmakingavailableto
thepublicdoesnotappeartorequireproofofanactualtransmission.
Chineselawincludesarightofcommunicationthroughinformationnetwork.327Like
courtsinAustralia,Chinesecourtshavefoundthatmereofferscanviolatethisright.Chinese
courtshaveconstruedthetermmakingavailablebroadly.Forexample,ajudicial
interpretationissuedin2012bytheSupremePeoplesCourtontherightofcommunication
reproductions.Id.at[4].WhilethepublictransmissionrightwasnotatissueinRokurakuII,thecourtstillfoundthe
serviceproviderliableforenablingtheinfringement.ThisresultcontrastswiththeSecondCircuitsfindingsin
Cablevisionthatexaminedasimilartechnologycriticizedbyonecommenterinourstudyasoverengineered
secondarytransmissionsoroffersofvideoondemand,GinsburgInitialCommentsat6andfoundthattheuseof
individualtransmissionsrenderedCablevisionnotliableforviolationoftherightsholderspublicperformancerights.
Seeid.at56&n.11(pointingtoManekiTVasanexample,amongotherinternationalcases,ofthemakingavailable
rightcorrectlyreachingondemandtransmissions).
RoadshowFilmsPtyLtdviiNetLtd[2011]FCAFC23(Austl.)(RoadshowFilmsI),availableat
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2011/23.html.NotethatthiswasappealedtotheHighCourtonissues
ofsecondary(authorization)liability.RoadshowFilmsPtyLtdviiNetLtd[2012]HCA16(Austl.),availableat
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2012/16.html.
324
RoadshowFilmsI,[2011]FCAFC23[669][670].Whiletherespondentsconcededthatinfringementswerecommitted
byiiNetusers,disputeremainedastothenumberofinfringementsandhowtheyweretobeassessed.SeeBrad
Sherman&JamesLahore,Australia,inINTERNATIONALCOPYRIGHTLAWANDPRACTICEAUS79,8[1][b][i][D](Paul
EdwardGeller&LionelBentlyeds.,2015).
325
RoadshowFilmsI,[2011]FCAFC23[661].
326
Therightofcommunicationthroughinformationnetworkisdefinedastherighttomakeaworkavailabletothe
publicbywireorbywirelessmeans,sothatpeoplemayhaveaccesstotheworkfromaplaceandatatimeindividually
chosenbythem.ZhonghuaRinminGongheguoZhuzuoquanFa()[CopyrightLawofthe
PeoplesRepublicofChina(CopyrightLawofChina)](promulgatedbytheStandingComm.NatlPeoplesCong.,
Feb.26,2010,effectiveApr.1,2010),art.10(12),2010FALHUIBIAN20,25(China),translatedat
http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=186569(unofficialtranslation).Someothertranslationscallthisright
therightofdisseminationoninformationnetworks.
327
67
U.S.CopyrightOffice
throughinformationnetworkfoundthatwhenanetworkuseroranetworkserviceprovider328
makesanotherpersonscopyrightedworkavailableonlinewithoutauthorization,includingby
uploadingittoapubliclyavailableserverorusingfilesharingsoftware,theactorhasviolatedthe
rightofcommunication,withoutrequiringfurtherevidencethatthecontentwasactually
downloaded.329
C. StatutorySilenceModel
Thethirdmodelthattheremainingcountriesfitintoinvolvescaseswherethereisno
explicitstatutorylanguagethatmentionseitheracommunicationtothepublicrightthatincludes
amakingavailablerightorastandalonemakingavailableright.Underthismodel,thestatuteis
silentonthemakingavailablerightbutthecountrymaintainsthatexistinglaworlawsprovide
rightsthattogethercomprisethemakingavailableright.TheUnitedStatestakesthisapproach,
asdoroughlyfourteenothercountriesweidentified.330Insomecases,itisunclearwhich
countriesaresilentbecauseofrelianceonapatchworkofexistinglaws,andwhicharesilent
becausethetreatyisselfexecutingorthememberstatehasyettoamenditscopyrightstatute.
OutsideofU.S.caselaw,weareawareoflittlelitigationinthesecountriesthathashelped
ThetermnetworkserviceproviderincludesbothInternetServiceProviders(ISPs)andInternetContentProviders
(ICPs).SeeXinxiWangluoChuanboquanBaohuTiaoli()[RegulationontheProtectionofthe
RightofCommunicationthroughInformationNetwork](promulgatedbytheStateCouncil,May18,2006,effectiveJuly
1,2006;revdbytheStateCouncil,January30,2013),art.14,20,22,&23,ST.COUNCILGAZ.,Feb.28,2013,at12(China),
versionwithautomatictranslationtoolavailableathttp://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=13403)(regulating
networkserviceproviderswhoprovideinformationstorage,searching,orlinkingservices);andZuigaoRenminFayuan
GuanyuShenliShejiJisuanjiWangluoZhuzuoquanJiufenAnjianShiyongFalRuoganWentideJieshi(
)[InterpretationoftheSupremePeoplesCourt
RegardingCertainMattersofLawApplicationstoCasesofComputerNetCopyrightDisputes](promulgatedbythe
SupremePeoplesCourt,Nov.22,2000,repealedbyZuigaoRenminFayuanGuanyuShenliQinhaiXinxiWangluo
ChuanboquanMinshiJiufenAnjianShiyongFalRuoganWentideGuiding(
)[SupremePeoplesCourtInterpretationonIssuesConcerningtheApplication
ofLawintheTrialofCivilCasesontheInfringementofInformationNetworkTransmissionRight(Interpretationof
CourtonRightofCommunicationthroughInformationNetwork)](promulgatedbytheSupremePeoplesCourt,
Nov.26,2012,effectiveJan.1,2013),art.16,197SUP.PEOPLESCT.GAZ.11(China),translatedat
https://chinacopyrightandmedia.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/regulationsconcerningsomeissuesofapplicablelawin
hearingcivildisputecasesoninfringementoftherighttodisseminationthroughinformationnetworks/),art.5,69
SUP.PEOPLESCT.GAZ.26(China),a2006versionwithautomatictranslationtoolavailableat
http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=6485(indicatingthatnetworkserviceprovidersencompassesICPby
specificallyregulatingnetworkserviceproviderswhoprovidecontentservices).
328
InterpretationofCourtonRightofCommunicationthroughInformationNetwork,supranote328,art.3.
329
SeeAppendixE.EvenamongcountriesthathaveadoptedtheStatutorySilenceModel,theU.S.approachto
implementationofthemakingavailablerightisviewedbymanycommentersasanoutlier.See,e.g.,Tr.at329:1017
(JaneC.Ginsburg,Colum.LawSch.)(IntheUnitedStatesourapproach,toputsomethings[inabox]called
distribution,includingdigital,andotherthingsinaboxcalledpublicperformance,issomethingofanoutlier.In
mostothercountries,theconceptofcommunicationtothepubliccoversdigitalcommunications,whetherasastream
orasadownload.).
330
68
U.S.CopyrightOffice
tofleshoutthescopeofamakingavailableright.331TheexceptionappearstobeBelgium.The
copyrightstatuteissilentonthemakingavailablerightforcopyright,butnationalcourtshave
interpreteditslawsasprovidingamakingavailableright.332Forexample,ProfessorGuido
Westkampnotesina2007studythat,inapreInternetTreatiescase,Belgiancourtsappliedthe
makingavailablerighttotheauthorizedstoringofnewspaperarticlesinadatabaseandthe
deliveringofthemtousersuponrequest.333Therefore,heargues,onecanconsiderthatthe
communicationrightalreadycoverednonsimultaneousreceptionofelectroniccommunicationor
actsofmakingcopyrightedcontentavailabletothemembersofthepublicataplaceandatatime
individuallychosenbythem.334
D. EmergingIssuesRelatingtotheMakingAvailableRight
Beyondtheissuesofonetoonetransmissionsandoffers,whichformtheprimaryfocusof
thisReport,foreignjurisdictionshavebeguntograpplewithanotherintersectionoftechnology
andthemakingavailablerightthelegalconsequencesofadefendantprovidingaccessto
copyrightedcontentthatishostedonaservercontrolledbysomeoneelse.Providingaccessto
contenthostedelsewhereontheInternetcanbeaccomplishedinanumberofways,althoughthe
mostfrequentmethodsarevariousformsofhyperlinking,includingframingandinlinelinking.335
Ahandfulofforeigncourtshavebeguntoaddresstheseissues,buttheyhavebyfarreceivedthe
mostattentionintheEuropeanUnion,wheretheCJEUhasissuedanumberofcloselyfollowed
decisionsaddressingwhether,andunderwhatcircumstances,hyperlinkingtocontentcanviolate
aplaintiffsmakingavailableright.
TheCJEUhasalreadyissuedanumberofdecisionsregardingtheextentofpotential
liabilityforsuchconduct,findingthatthisactivitydoesnotgenerallygiverisetoliabilityundera
makingavailabletheoryoutsideofanarrowsetofcircumstances.Intheseopinions,theCJEU
doesnotdifferentiateamongthetypesofhyperlinkingactivitiesthatcould,inanyinstance,
permitaudiencesononewebsitetoaccesscontentfromanothersite.Rather,itsapproachhas
beentocomparetheaudiencefortheoriginalcommunicationtothepublic(asauthorizedbythe
copyrightowner)withtheaudienceoftheallegedlyinfringingcommunication.Specifically,the
courtaskswhethertheaudiencefortheallegedlyinfringingcommunicationofthecopyrighted
It is possible some cases exist, but upon extensive research and public comments, including a direct request for
comments on foreign implementation at the subcommittee hearing, we learned of no cases in the vast majority of
countrieswhoselawissilentonthemakingavailableright.
331
SeeGuidoWestkamp,TheImplementationofDirective2001/29/ECintheMemberStates,inSTUDYONTHE
IMPLEMENTATIONANDEFFECTINMEMBERSTATESLAWSOFDIRECTIVE2001/29/ECONTHEHARMONISATIONOFCERTAIN
ASPECTSOFCOPYRIGHTANDRELATEDRIGHTSINTHEINFORMATIONSOCIETY,Pt.II,p.120(LucieGuibaultetal.,2007),
availableathttp://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/docs/studies/infosocstudyannex_en.pdf.
332
Westkamp,supranote332,at120(citingTribunaldepremireInstance[Civ.][CourtofFirstInstance]Bruxelles,Oct.
16,1996,AUTEURSETMDIA[AM]1996,426,confirmparCourdAppel[CA][CourtofAppeals]Bruxelles,Oct.28,1997,
AUTEURSETMDIA[AM]1997,383(CentralStation)(Belg.)).
333
Id.
334
Fordefinitionsoftheseterms,seenote237,supra.
335
69
U.S.CopyrightOffice
contentiscomprisedofthesamepublictargetedbytheoriginalcommunication,orwhetherthe
defendantsactionsinsteadmadethecontentavailabletoanewpublicthatdidnothaveaccess
totheoriginalcommunication.336Forexample,didthecopyrightownerpostthecontentonline
withoutrestriction,makingtheoriginalaudiencefortheworkcoextensivewiththepublicto
whichthedefendanthasmadetheworkavailable?Ordidthedefendantmakeavailablecontent
towhichthecopyrightownerhadlimitedaccess,forexampletothosepayingsubscriptionsor
otherfees(suchascontenthostedbehindawebsitepaywall)?
Incraftingandapplyingthisnewtest,theCJEUhasdeniedliabilityforclaimsagainsta
defendantprovidingdeeplinkstoaccesscopyrightedcontenthostedontheplaintiffsserver,337
althoughthecourthasindicatedthattheremaybeliabilityforsuchdeeplinksiftheplaintiff
employedtechnologicalrestrictionstorestrictaccesstoalimitedsetofindividuals,suchasits
subscribers.338TheCJEUhasnotyetdirectlyreachedthequestionofwhetherliabilityshouldbe
imposedforprovidingaccesstounauthorizedcopieshostedonthirdpartyservers,althoughthis
issueisraisedbyseveralcasescurrentlypendingbeforethecourt.339
ThenewpublictestwasfirstformulatedbytheCJEUincasesinvolvingtelevisionbroadcasts,includingacasein
whichtelevisionbroadcastswereretransmittedtohotelguests.See,e.g.,RafaelHoteles,2006EURLexCELEX
62005CJ0306,para.40(Thus,suchatransmissionismadetoapublicdifferentfromthepublicatwhichtheoriginalact
ofcommunicationoftheworkisdirected,thatis,toanewpublic.)(discussingtheexclusiverightofbroadcastingand
communicationtothepublicunderArticle11bis(1)(ii)oftheBerneConvention).
336
337See,e.g.,Svensson,2014EURLexCELEX62012CJ0466,atparas.2728(findingthatdefendantsdeeplinkstocontent
ontheplaintiffswebsitedidnotviolatetheplaintiffsrightofcommunicationtothepublic,statingthatwhereallthe
usersofanothersite[suchasdefendants]towhomtheworksatissuehavebeencommunicatedbymeansofaclickable
linkcouldaccessthoseworksdirectlyonthesiteonwhichtheywereinitiallycommunicated,withouttheinvolvement
ofthemanagerofthatothersite,theusersofthesitemanagedbythelattermustbedeemedtobepotentialrecipientsof
theinitialcommunicationand,therefore,asbeingpartofthepublictakenintoaccountbythecopyrightholderswhen
theyauthorisedtheinitialcommunication);CaseC348/13,BestWaterIntlGmbHv.MichaelMebes,StefanPotsch,
2014EURLexCELEX62013CB0348(Oct.21,2014)(findingthattheuseofframingtechnologytomakeplaintiffsvideo
availableondefendantswebsitedidnotviolateplaintiffsrightofcommunicationtothepublic,stating[t]hemerefact
thataprotectedwork,freelyavailableonan[I]nternetsite,isinsertedintoanother[I]nternetsitebymeansofalink
usingtheframingtechnique...cannot[be]classifiedascommunicationtothepublic...sincetheworkatissueis
nottransmittedtoanewpublicorcommunicated[via]aspecifictechnicalmethoddifferentfromthatoftheoriginal
communication.).
Svensson,2014EURLexCELEX62012CJ0466,para.31(statingthatwhereaclickablelinkmakesitpossibleforusers
ofthesiteonwhichthatlinkappearstocircumventrestrictionsputinplacebythesiteonwhichtheprotectedwork
appearsinordertorestrictpublicaccesstothatworktothelattersitessubscribersonly,andthelinkaccordingly
constitutesaninterventionwithoutwhichthoseuserswouldnotbeabletoaccesstheworkstransmitted,allthoseusers
mustbedeemedtobeanewpublic.).
338
See,e.g.,RequestforaPreliminaryRulingfromtheRechtbankMiddenNederland(Netherlands)Lodgedon5October2015
StichtingBreinvJackFrederikWullems,CurrentlyTradingUndertheNameFilmspeler(CaseC527/15),2016O.J.(C27)67
(referringquestionsregardingthestatusofhyperlinkstowebsitesonwhichcopyrightprotectedworks...aremade
directlyaccessible,withouttheauthorisationoftherightholders);RequestforaPreliminaryRulingFromtheHogeRaad
derNederlanden(Netherlands)Lodgedon7April2015GSMediaBVvSanomaMediaNetherlandsBVandOthers(CaseC
160/15),2015O.J.(C205)1819(posingthequestion[i]fanyoneotherthanthecopyrightholderrefersbymeansofa
hyperlinkonawebsitecontrolledbyhimtoawebsitewhichismanagedbyathirdpartyandisaccessibletothe
generalinternetpublic,onwhichtheworkhasbeenmadeavailablewithouttheconsentoftherightholder,doesthat
339
70
U.S.CopyrightOffice
TheCJEUstest,frequentlyreferencedasthenewpublictest,hasgeneratedsome
debatewithintheEuropeanUnion.340TheEuropeanCommissioniscurrentlyconsidering
whethermodificationstothedefinitionsoftherightsofcommunicationtothepublicand
makingavailableareneededtoaddresstheambiguitiesintroducedbytheSvenssonlineofcases
aspartofitsbroaderworkontheDigitalSingleMarket.341Thisconsultation,combinedwiththe
pendingreferralstotheCJEU,342mayresultinafurtherrefinementofthenewpublictest,ormay
supersedethenewpublictestandreplaceitwithanewruleregardingwhatconstitutesa
communicationtothepubliconline.
OthercourtsinInternetTreatyModeljurisdictionshavefoundthatliabilitymayexist
whenadefendantassistsitsuserstobypasstheplaintiffsprotectionmeasuresorprovidesaccess
toinfringingthirdpartycontent.343Incontrast,whiletheredoesnotappeartohavebeen
constituteacommunicationtothepublicwithinthemeaningofArticle3(1)ofDirective2001/29?).Bothcasesarose
intheNetherlands,whichisaStatutorySilenceModelcountry,butissubjecttotheInfoSocDirectiveasamemberof
theEU.ThelowercourtinGSMediahadinitiallyfoundthatthedefendantviolatedtheplaintiffsrightof
communicationtothepublicbyprovidinglinkstootherwisenonindexedpicturesonaforeignwebsite.SeeRb.
Amsterdam12september2012,CR2013/7,m.nt.A.R.Lodder(Sanoma/Geenstijl)(Neth.),availableat
http://www.geenstijl.nl/archives/images/vonnisbrittdekkernaakt.pdf,discussedinCaseC466/12,Svenssonhyperlinks
andcommunicatingworkstothepublic,EULawRadar(Jan.20,2013),http://eulawradar.com/casec46612svensson
hyperlinksandcommunicatingworkstothepublic/.ThelowercourtsdecisionwasoverturnedbytheAmsterdam
CourtofAppeals,andiscurrentlyonappealtotheDutchSupremeCourt,whichreferredtheissueabovetotheCJEU.
Id.Inaddition,theSupremeCourtoftheNetherlandshadreferredtotheCJEUanothercaseraisingthequestionof
whetheracommunicationtothepublicoccurswhenawebsiteindexesandcategorizesmetadatatoenableauserto
locateanddownloadinfringingcontent,whenthecontentitselfisnothostedonthedefendantswebsite.SeeHR13
november2015,ECLI:NL:HR:2015:3307(StichtingBrein/ZiggoB.V.enXS4ALLInternetB.V.)(Neth.),discussedin
Netherlands:DutchSupremeCourtrequestsrulingonwhetherThePirateBaymakesacommunicationtothepublic,IRIS
MERLIN(Jan.2016),http://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris/2016/1/article22.en.html.
CompareMiraBurri,PermissiontoLink:MakingAvailableviaHyperlinksintheEuropeanUnionafterSvensson,5J.INTELL.
PROP.,INFO.TECH.,&ELECTRONICCOM.L.245,251(Dec.2014)(hailingthenewpublictestasaccommodat[ing]boththe
essentialfunctionsoftheInternetasanetworkofnetworksinthetechnicalsense,aswellasitsfunctionasa
comprehensivecognitivedatabasewithsubstantialsocietalimplications),withAssociationLittraireetArtistique
Internationale(ALAI),OpinionProposedtotheExecutiveCommitteeandAdoptedatitsMeeting,17September2014onthe
CriterionNewPublic,DevelopedbytheCourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanUnion(CJEU),PutintheContextofMakingAvailable
andCommunicationtothePublic2(Oct.15,2014,11:28AM),http://www.alai.org/assets/files/resolutions/2014opinion
newpublic.pdf(describingtheCJEUsapplicationofthenewpublictestasproblematicandinconflictwith
internationaltreatiesandEUdirectives,statingthatithastheeffectofinappropriateexhaustionoftheexclusiveright
ofcommunicationtothepublicofworkswhichtheirauthorsorotherrightownershavemadeavailableovergenerally
accessiblewebsites).
340
SeeCommunicationfromtheCommissiontotheEuropeanParliament,theCouncil,theEuropeanEconomicandSocial
CommitteeandtheCommitteeoftheRegions:TowardsaModern,MoreEuropeanCopyrightFramework,at910,COM(2015)
626final(Dec.9,2015).
341
Seesupranote339.
342
343See,e.g.,ParamountHomeEntmtIntlLtd.v.BritishSkyBroad.Ltd,[2014]EWHC937(Ch)[31][35](Eng.)(finding
theSvenssonnewpublictestmetwherecontentholderhadnotauthorizedtheappearanceofthecontentonthe
linkedtowebsite);1967Ltd.v.BritishSkyBroad.Ltd.[2014]EWHC3444(Ch)[20](Eng.)(same);Bundesgerichtshof
[BGH][FederalCourtofJustice]Apr.29,2010,NEUEJURISTISCHEWOCHENSCHRIFT[NJW]2011,769(Ger.),discussedin
AnneYlinivaHoffmann,Germany:BGHRulesonDeepLinksCopyrightViolation,IRISMERLIN(Jan.2011),
71
U.S.CopyrightOffice
significantlitigationregardingsuchactivitiesinmostAlternativeLanguageModelcountries,in
thefewreportedcaseswewereabletoidentifythecourtsrejectedinfringementclaimsbased
uponhyperlinkingtocontentfoundontheInternet,regardlessofwhetherthehyperlinked
contentwasitselfunauthorized.344
***
Theforegoingreviewofcasesfromjurisdictionsrepresentingthethreedifferent
implementationmodelsrevealsafewtrends.
First,thedegreeofconsistencyamongcountriesregardingtheinterpretationofthe
makingavailablerightdifferswithrespecttothedifferentfactualscenarioswereviewed.The
caselawisgenerallyconsistentacrossjurisdictionswithrespecttotheapplicationofthemaking
availablerighttooffers.Theonlycaseswelocatedrejectingliabilityforofferswerethedistrict
courtcasesintheUnitedStatesdiscussedabove.345Likewise,onetoonetransmissionshavebeen
foundtobecoveredbythemakingavailablerightinmostofthejurisdictionswestudied,with
theprincipalexceptionbeingSingapore.346Therehasbeensomegreaterdivergencein
http://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris/2011/1/article15.en.html(findingthatdeeplinkingwouldviolatethemakingavailable
rightifthelinkbypassedtechnicalmeasurestakenbythecopyrightownertorestrictaccesstocertainusers,for
example,requiringthatuserscouldaccesscertaincontentonlyafterviewingthehomepage).ButseePolymeles
Protodikeio[Pol.Pr.][MultimemberCourtofFirstInstanceofAthens]5249/2014(Greece),discussedinEleonoraRosati,
GreekCourtSaysthatitDoesntMatterWhethertheContentYouLinktoisLawfulorUnlawful,IPKAT(Oct.3,2015,1:16PM),
http://ipkitten.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/greekcourtsaysthatitdoesntmatter.html(holdingthatdefendantsuseofdeep
linkstoprovideaccesstounauthorizedcontenthostedonathirdpartywebsitedoesnotinfringetheplaintiffsrightof
communicationtothepublicunlessthedefendantdirectlyassistedinthecopyrightinfringementoftheinitialuploader
tothethirdpartywebsite).
See,e.g.,sakaChihSaibansho[OsakaDist.Ct.]June20,2013,Hei23(wa)no.15245,2218HANREIJIH[HANJI]112
(Japan)(Niconico),availableathttp://www.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanrei_jp/364/083364_hanrei.pdf(rejectingaclaimfor
violationofthepublictransmissionrightbasedonhyperlinkingtounauthorizedcontenthostedbyathirdparty);
ShanghaiJuliChuanmeiJishuYouxianGongsiSuTianjinJinbaoChuanmeiWangluoFazhanYouxianGongsi,Beijing
RuobobaisiZixunYouxianGongsiDeng(
)[PPLiveInc.v.TianjinJinbaoMediaNetworkDev.Inc.,BeijingRuobobaisiConsultingInc.,etal.],
20133RENMINFAYUANANLIXUAN301,30607(TianjinSecondInterm.PeoplesCt.Mar.1,2013)(China)(providing
commentandanalysistothecase,inadditiontoreproducingthecourtsopinion)(holdingthattheuseofframinglinks
toconnecttoauthorizedcontentonathirdpartysserverdidnotdirectlyorindirectlyinfringetherightof
communicationthroughinformationnetwork);Warmanv.Fournier,[2012]F.C.803,para.37(Can.Ont.)(rejecting
claimforinfringementbasedonaninlinelinkfromdefendantswebsitetoplaintiffswebsite,holdingthatthe
[plaintiff]authorizedcommunicationofthe[work]bypostingitonhiswebsiteandthereforethereisno
infringement);UniversalMusicAustl.PtyLtdvCooper[2005]FCA972[63],[88](Austl.),availableat
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2005/972.html(findingnodirectliabilitywheredefendantmadeworks
availablethroughhyperlinkstounauthorizedcontentonthirdpartiesservers,onthegroundsthattheactofmaking
availablewasperformedbythe[thirdparty]remotewebsiteswhichmakeavailablethesoundrecordingsandfrom
whichthedigitalmusicfilesaredownloadedasaresultofarequesttransmittedtotheremotewebsite,butfinding
secondaryliability).
344
Seesupranote98andaccompanyingtext.
345
SeeRecordTV,[2010]SGCA43,at[5][9],[28].
346
72
U.S.CopyrightOffice
jurisprudencewithregardstotheemergingissueofmakingavailablecontentalreadyhosted
elsewhereontheInternet(suchasthroughsomeformofhyperlinking),althoughamajorityof
courtshavedeclinedtofindliability.Theoutcomesinsuchcasesappeartobehighlyfact
specific,andthefullcontoursofhowthecourtswillapplythemakingavailablerightinsuch
situationsarestillevolving.Itdoesappear,however,thatevencourtsincountriesthathave
adoptedtheverbatimlanguageoftheTreatieshavebeencarefultoconstruetherighttoavoid
impositionofliabilityincasesthatmayinvolveeverydayonlineactivity,suchasprovidingdeep
linkstootherwisefreelyavailablecontent.347
Second,thereisnoapproachthatprovidescrystalclearlegalguidanceinallmaking
availablecases,eitherintermsoftheactivitythatwillbecoveredbytherightortheabilityto
ensurethatitsapplicationwilleasilyaddressnewandemergingtechnologies.Althoughmostof
thecountriesthathaveratifiedtheWIPOInternetTreatiesadoptedlanguagefromtheWCT
nearlyverbatimintonationallaw,courtsacrossthespectrumofimplementationapproaches
whetherverbatimWIPOInternetTreatieslanguage,alternativelanguageprovidingamaking
availableright,orexistinglanguagethatissilentonamakingavailablerighthavestruggled
withtheapplicationofthestatutorylanguagetospecificfactualsituationsinthedigitalage.
Thus,evenadoptingthemakingavailablelanguagefromtheWIPOInternetTreatieshasnot
guaranteedclarity,buthasinsteadresultedinsometimesconflictingresultswhenappliedby
courtsindifferentcountries.348Manyofthesechallengeshavetheirrootsinnewfactual
circumstancesandtechnologicalcapabilitiesnotfullyunderstood,orevenknown,whenthe
WIPOInternetTreatieswereconcludedin1996.
V. CONCLUSIONSANDRECOMMENDATIONS
Aspartofthisstudy,theCopyrightOfficewasaskedtoassessthefeasibilityand
necessityofamendingU.S.lawtostrengthenorclarifyourlawwithrespecttothemaking
availableright.349NocommentersdisputedthattheUnitedStateshasanobligationtorecognize
theright.Atthesametime,nearlyallexpressedtheviewthatitiscurrentlyunnecessaryto
amendU.S.lawforpurposesofimplementingthatobligation,though,asnoted,therewassome
disagreementovertheexactscopeofthetreatyrequirement.Undertheinterpretationadopted
overwhelminglybyscholarlyauthoritiesandforeigncourts,aswellasbyasubstantialmajority
ofcommenters,themakingavailablerightcoverstheofferingofondemandaccesstoaworkto
thepublic,regardlessofwhetherthereisevidenceofactualreceipt.350TheOfficeagreesthatthis
See,e.g.,Svensson,2014EURLexCELEX62012CJ0466;BestWater,2014EURLexCELEX62013CB0348.
347
See,e.g.,Tr.at324:10325:14(Lunney,Tul.U.Sch.ofLaw)(notingthatvariousforeignjurisdictionshadcometo
differingconclusionswithregardtoonetoonetransmissions,andconcludingthattheyhavecometosomedifferent
outcomesinsomeareas,but,onthewhole,itishardtoseewheretheirlawisinanysensepreferableontheseissuesor
clearerontheseissuesthanours).
348
LetterfromRep.MelvinL.Watt,supranote10,at2.
349
350
73
U.S.CopyrightOffice
readingbestcomportswiththeplainlanguageoftheTreaties,whichdefinemakingavailable
intermsofwhethermembersofthepublicmayaccessawork.351
AssessingU.S.lawinlightofthisunderstanding,theOfficeconcludesthatnostatutory
changeisneededatthistimefromatreatyperspective.Forthereasonsexplainedbelow,andin
lightoftheforegoinganalysis,theOfficecontinuestobeoftheviewthattheexclusiverights
underSection106collectivelygivecopyrightownerstheexclusiverighttoofferaccesstotheir
worksonline,includingthroughindividualizedondemandtransmissions.Totheextentthatthe
statuteisambiguouswithrespecttoparticularaspectsofthatright,boththelegislativehistoryof
U.S.treatyimplementationandtheCharmingBetsycanoninstructthatitshouldbeinterpretedin
accordancewiththeUnitedStatesinternationalobligationsinthisarea.Intheeventthatcourts
adoptanarrowerconstructioninthefuture,suchthatcertaininternationallegalquestionsmight
arise,Congressmaywishtoconsidervariouslegislativeclarifications.Anysuchchange,
however,wouldneedtobecarefullydrawnsoasnottoproduceunintendedconsequencesor
upsetsettledexpectations,andmayrequireconsiderationofcorrespondingchangestomaintain
thecopyrightlawsexistingbalance.
A. SufficiencyofCurrentStatute
TheOfficemaintainsitslongstandingviewthattheactofmakingacopyrightedwork
availableinsuchawaythatmembersofthepublicmayaccessitatatimeandplaceoftheir
choosingwillimplicateoneormoreoftheexclusiverightsunderSection106oftheU.S.
CopyrightAct.Ingeneral,whereapartyoffersmembersofthepublicaccesstoaworkinthe
formofadownload,theofferimplicatestherightofdistribution.Whereaccessisofferedinthe
formofastreamortheshowingofanimage,therelevantrightisthatofpublicperformanceor
publicdisplay.Ineachcase,theapplicablestatutoryprovisionsatisfiestheessentialelementsof
thetreatyobligation,includingspecificallytherequirementsthattheexclusiverightcover(1)
offerstocommunicateawork,notjustcompletedtransmissions,and(2)individualized
communicationsthatcanbereceivedinseparateplacesandatdifferenttimes.
Again,itisimportanttonotethattheanalysishereislimitedtotheshowingsnecessaryto
supportaprimafacieclaimforinfringement,whichisaseparateissuefromthatofthedefendants
ultimateliability.Shouldaplaintiffsucceedinestablishingaclaimononeofthesebases,the
defendantwillbeentitledtoassertthesamedefensesthatareavailabletocopyrightdefendants
generally,includingrelianceonanyrelevantexceptionorlimitationundertheCopyrightAct.352
1. OfferstoCommunicate
TheOfficeinterpretsboththerightofdistributionunderSection106(3)andtherightsof
publicperformanceandpublicdisplayunderSection106(4)(6)tocoveroffersofaccess.Inthe
caseofthedistributionright,asdiscussedinPartIII.B.1,thestatutorylanguage,context,and
legislativehistoryallindicatethatCongressintendedtoreservetocopyrightownerstherightto
WCT,supranote1,art.8;WPPT,supranote1,arts.10,14.
351
See17U.S.C.107122.
352
74
U.S.CopyrightOffice
determinewhetherandhowtheirworksaremadeavailabletothepublicincopies,including
digitalfiles.ReferencestothedistributionrightinothersectionsoftheCopyrightAct
demonstratethatCongressdidnotintendforinfringementclaimstorequireacompletedtransfer
ofcopiesinallinstances.Moreover,Congresssadoptionofcriminalsanctionsforthe
distributionofprereleasecopiesofaworkbymakingitavailableonacomputernetwork
accessibletomembersofthepublic,353indicatesthatCongressunderstoodsuchconducttobean
infringementofthedistributionright.Thisunderstandingisconfirmedbythelegislativehistory,
whichshowsthatCongressintendedtherighttobesynonymouswiththehistoricrightof
publication,whichhadlongbeenunderstoodtoincludeofferstodistributecopiestothepublic.
Therefore,acopyrightownercanestablishaprimafacieinfringementofSection106(3)byshowing
thatthedefendanthadpossessionofacopyofaworkandofferedtoelectronicallytransmit
copiestothepublicintheformofdownloadablefiles.Noevidencethatanyindividualmember
ofthepublicinfactdownloadedacopyneedbeoffered.
Nevertheless,thecaselawonthisquestionisfarfromuniform,andanumberofcourts
haveconcludedthatSection106(3)appliesonlytocompletedtransfers.Todate,however,the
casesthathavedirectlyheldtothateffectarelimitedtodistrictcourts.354Moreover,nearlyallof
thosedecisionseitherciteddirectly,orreliedonpriorcasesciting,theNimmeronCopyright
languagethatProfessorNimmerhassinceretractedinlightofProfessorMenellsrecent
legislativehistoryscholarship.SincethepublicationofthosefindingsandtheupdatedNimmer
treatise,theTenthCircuithascitedbothtoconclude,albeitintheanalogcontext,that
distributiondoesnotrequireanactualtransferofcopies.355Basedpartlyonthese
developments,mostcommenterswhoagreedthatSection106(3)isproperlyconstruedtocover
offersarguedthatitisnotcurrentlynecessarytoamendthestatutetoresolvethelackofjudicial
consensus.356TheyinsteadsuggestedthatCongressandtheOfficemonitorthecaselawand,in
theeventthatcourtsinfuturecasesinterpretthestatutetoexcludemakingavailableclaims,to
considerlegislativechangesatthattime.357TheOfficeagreesthattheexistingprecedenttaking
Id.506(a)(1)(C).
353
Asdiscussed,seesupranote163,theNationalCarRentalcasebeforetheEighthCircuitdidnotinvolveanofferto
distributecopiesofawork.
354
Diversey,738F.3dat1202n.7.
355
MPAARIAAJointInitialCommentsat25([T]heMPAAandRIAAdonotbelieveitisnecessary,atthistime,to
changeU.S.lawstoimplementU.S.obligationsundertheWCTandWPPT,includingtheobligationstoproviderights
ofmakingavailableandcommunicationtothepublic.);AAPInitialCommentsat5(Iffurtherclarificationisneeded
intheabsenceofadditionalwaywardcourtdecisions,AAPbelievesthatCongressshouldsimplyreaffirmtheexistence
oftherightwithinthecurrentsetofexclusiverightsprovidedinSection106withoutamendingtheCopyrightActto
createanexplicit,standalonemakingavailableright.)(citationsomitted);CopyrightAllianceInitialCommentsat2
([W]ebelievethebundleofrightsestablishedin106,wheninterpretedasCongressintendedandinaccordancewith
internationaltreatyobligations,adequatelyaddressesthemakingavailableright.Therefore,wedonotbelieve
legislativechangesarenecessaryatthispoint.);SIIAInitialCommentsat33(Basedonouranalysis,SIIAstrongly
believesthat,atthistime,neitherlegislationnoranytypeoffurtherCongressionalclarificationisneededtoprovidefor
amakingavailablerightunderU.S.law.).
356
MPAARIAAJointInitialCommentsat25(TheOfficeandCongressshouldcloselymonitordevelopmentsinthis
areaandifothercourtsadopttheflawedanalysisrequiringproofofactualdisseminationorotherwiseimpose
357
75
U.S.CopyrightOffice
thatnarrowviewofSection106(3)isnotsowidespreadorsettledastorequirecongressional
actiontoconfirmU.S.treatyimplementationatthistime.358
Wealsoarecognizantoftheconcernexpressedbysomestudyparticipantsthat
interpretingthedistributionrighttocoverofferscouldcreateliabilityforcommonplaceand
harmlessactivitiessuchastheuseofcommonfilestorageinabusinesssetting,orpersonaluseof
Internetbasedcloudstoragesystemsthatmayinadvertentlybeaccessiblebythepublic.359In
ourview,however,theseconcerns,whileworthnoting,areoverstated.Applicationofthe
makingavailablerightisunlikelytogiverisetoasubstantialnumberofclaimstargetingactivities
suchthese,becausethefairusedoctrine,thesafeharborsunderSection512,andothercopyright
exceptionsandlimitationswillcontinuetoproviderobustaccommodationsforusers.360
Inthecontextoffilesharing,moreover,failuretorecognizeamakingavailablerightcan
imposerealcostsoncopyrightowners,courts,andthirdparties.Itistruethatsomecourtsthat
havebeenunwillingtopermitclaimsbasedonoffersofaccesshavenonethelessallowedfile
sharingcasestomoveforwardonthebasisofcircumstantialorinvestigatorevidenceof
completeddownloads.361AsProfessorNimmertestifiedinthecongressionalreviewhearingon
thisissue,however,arequirementthatplaintiffsproveactualdownloadingwouldinmanycases
generatecostlydiscoveryandevidentiarydisputes.362Totheextentthatsuchinvestigations
mightinvolvetheissuanceofsubpoenastoInternetServiceProvidersinordertofurnishthe
identityofthesubscribersbehindtheInternetProtocoladdressesthathaveengagedin
additionalrequirementsinconsistentwiththeCopyrightActandU.S.internationalobligations,actionshouldbetaken
toremedyanysuchmisinterpretationofUnitedStateslaw.);AAPInitialCommentsat4([W]easktheCopyright
OfficeandCongresstocloselymonitorcourtdecisionsregardingthepracticalapplicationofthisrightinphysicaland
digitalscenariosandtoconsiderappropriatelegislativeactionshouldbarrierstoeffectiveonlineenforcementpersist
becausesomecourtscontinuetorequireproofofactualdistribution(i.e.,thedownloadingofafilebyaspecificuser)in
ordertosupportaclaimofviolationofthemakingavailableright.);CopyrightAllianceInitialCommentsat2(We
...encouragetheU.S.CopyrightOfficeandCongresstoremainwatchfulandreadytoaddressjudicialerosionofthe
right,shoulditoccur,inordertoensurecontinuedcompliancewithCongressintentandU.S.international
obligations.).
TheOfficenotes,however,adisturbingtrendinsomerecentdistrictcourtdecisionsthathaverejectedtheexistence
ofamakingavailablerightoutofhand,orwithonlycursoryanalysis.See,e.g.,Alticor,2015WL8536571,at*7([T]he
courtagreesthattheActdoesnotconferamakingavailablecopyrightunder106.);DishNetwork,2015WL1137593,
at*21(WhileneithertheNinthCircuitnoranyothercircuitcourthasaddressedthemakeavailabletheoryof
distributionundertheCopyrightAct,ithasbeenconsideredbyanumberofcourts,and[t]hegreatmajorityofcourts
thathaveconsideredthequestion...havestoppedshortoffullyendorsingthemakeavailableright.)(citations
omitted).Ifdistrictcourtscontinuetotakethisapproachtotheissue,withoutcorrectionorfurtherguidancefromthe
circuitcourts,theremaybeaneedforCongresstostepintoclarifythelaw.
358
PKEFFJointAdditionalCommentsat8.
359
SeeTr.at320:1316(JaneC.Ginsburg,Colum.LawSch.)([W]hetherornotitisaprimafacieviolation,itisnot
necessarilyaninfringementbecauseofthefairusedoctrineandotherexceptions.).
360
Seesupranote99,andaccompanyingtext.
361
SeeTheScopeofCopyrightProtection,supranote95,at1316(statementofDavidNimmer,ProfessorfromPractice,
UCLASch.ofLaw,OfCounsel,Irell&Manella,LLP,LosAngeles).
362
76
U.S.CopyrightOffice
downloading,therealsocouldbeconsiderableimplicationsforuserprivacy.363TheOffice
agreesthat,asapolicymatter,rejectingthemakingavailablerightwouldhavetheeffectof
undulyrais[ing]thecostsofenforcingthecopyrightownersdistributionright,withthe
unfortunateconcomitantofreducingthedeterrenteffectsofcopyrightenforcement.364
Withrespecttothepublicperformanceandpublicdisplayrights,theCopyrightOffice
likewiseconcludesthattheproperconstructionistopermitclaimsbasedonofferstotransmit.In
contrasttothedistributionright,theavailabilityofofferbasedclaimsundertheserightshasnot
beenacentralfocusoflitigation;indeed,theOfficeisnotawareofanycaseinwhichacourthas
squarelydecidedtheissue.TheOfficeneverthelessbelievesthatitsinterpretationfollowsfrom
readingthestatutorylanguageinlightofitsexpressedpurpose.Boththetextandlegislative
historyoftheTransmitClauseindicatethatCongressintendedtodefinethestatutescoverageon
thebasisofwhethermembersofthepublicarecapableofreceivingthetransmissionofa
performanceordisplay,notwhetheranypersonactuallyhasdoneso.365TheOfficeisnot
convincedthatthedistinctionindeliverymethodsbetweentraditionalservicesandondemand
streamingi.e.,thatthelatterrequiresuseractiontoinitiatethetransmissionmakesa
substantivedifference.Inanyevent,giventheapparentinfrequencywithwhichthisquestionhas
ariseninlitigation,therewouldnotseemtoexistanimmediateneedforstatutoryclarification.
2. IndividualizedCommunications
Thetreatylanguagegivingcopyrightholderstheexclusiverighttomaketheirworks
availableforaccessfromaplaceandatatimeindividuallychosenbymembersofthepublic
requiresmemberstatestocoverthedeliveryofworksviaindividualizedcommunications.The
UnitedStatesimplementationofthisobligationseemsclear.Withrespecttothedistribution
right,thereappearstobenodispute(withtheexceptionofthosewhoarguethattherightdoes
notapplyatallinthedigitalcontext366)thatSection106(3)coversthetransmissionofcopiesto
recipientswhoareseparatedinspaceandtime.Inthepublicperformancecontext,conflicting
lowercourtdecisionshadcreatedsomeuncertaintyoverwhetherondemandtransmissions
qualifyunderSection106(4),butAereohasresolvedthatquestionintheaffirmative.
Asdiscussed,priortoAereo,courtshaddividedonwhetherthetermperformanceinthe
TransmitClausereferstotheunderlyingperformanceofaworkortoaparticulartransmissionof
aperformance.Thelatterreading,adoptedbytheSecondCircuitinCablevision,mighthave
raisedconcernsfromatreatyperspectivebecauseaparticularondemandtransmissionis
receivableonlybyoneperson,andthereforewouldnotconstituteatransmissiontothepublic.
InAereo,however,theCourtrejectedthatconstruction.Itheldinsteadthatwhenanentity
communicatesthesamecontemporaneouslyperceptibleimagesandsoundstomultiplepeople,it
Id.at13.
363
Id.at1516.
364
17U.S.C.101(publicly).
365
SeePartIII.B.1.a,supra.
366
77
U.S.CopyrightOffice
transmitsaperformancetothemregardlessofthenumberofdiscretecommunicationsit
makes.367TheCourtsrulingthusconfirmsthatU.S.law,consistentwiththetreatyrequirement,
protectsthedeliveryofworkstothepublicviaindividualized,asynchronousstreams,and
thereforenolegislativechangeisnecessaryinthisarea.368
Thisisnottosaythattheapplicationofthepublicperformancerighttoparticular
streamingtechnologieswillalwaysbeclear.Infact,Aereoindicatesthattheinquiryishighlyfact
specific.Forexample,whiletheCourtheldthatAereoperformedeventhoughthecontentto
betransmittedwasselectedbyindividualsubscribers,itobservedthat[i]nothercasesinvolving
differentkindsofserviceortechnologyproviders,ausersinvolvementintheoperationofthe
providersequipmentandselectionofthecontenttransmittedmaywellbearonwhetherthe
providerperformswithinthemeaningoftheAct.369Thissuggeststhatastorageservicewhose
relationshiptoatransmissionissufficientlypassivemightbearguedtobemerelyasupplierof
equipmentorfacilitiesratherthanaperformerofworks.Asnoted,onecourtrecentlyreached
thatconclusioninthecaseofaDISHserviceallowingsubscriberstoremotelyaccesstelevision
programmingthattheyalreadywerelicensedtoreceiveonahomesettopbox.370
Similarly,theAereoCourtnotedthatthepublicnatureofaperformancemayturnonthe
recipientsrelationshiptotheunderlyingwork,explainingthatanentitythattransmitsa
performancetoindividualsintheircapacitiesasownersorpossessorsdoesnotperformtothe
public,whereasanentitylikeAereothattransmitstolargenumbersofpayingsubscriberswho
lackanypriorrelationshiptotheworksdoessoperform.371TheCourtalsoemphasizedthatit
hadnotconsideredwhetherthepublicperformancerightisinfringedwhentheuserofaservice
paysprimarilyforsomethingotherthanthetransmissionofcopyrightedworks,suchasthe
remotestorageofcontent.372Thus,theapplicationoftheperformancerighttocertainactivities
mayinvolvedifficultquestionsconcerninguserslegalrelationshiptotherelevantcontentand
thenatureoftheservicesforwhichtheyarepaying.373
Thefact,however,thattheremaybeclosecasesdoesnotaltertheoverallscopeofU.S.law
367
SeeGinsburgAdditionalCommentsat2(TheAereodecisionclearlyestablishesthatthepublicperformanceright
extendstoasynchronoustransmissions.);MusicalWorksOrganizationsJointAdditionalCommentsat6(TheCourts
decisioninAereoisonpointwiththetechnologyneutralemphasisoftheWIPOInternetTreatiesincorrectlyrejecting
anynotionthattechnologicalengineeringcansomehowlimitthebroadrightsgrantedbytheCopyrightActto
copyrightholders.).
368
134S.Ct.at2507.
369
DishNetwork,2015WL1137593,at*1012.
370
134S.Ct.at2510.
371
Id.at2511.
372
See,e.g.,DishNetwork,2015WL1137593,at*13(holdingthatDISHsubscriberdidnotperformpubliclyby
transmittingprogrammingrightfullyinherpossessiontoanotherdevice).
373
78
U.S.CopyrightOffice
inthisarea.374InlightofAereo,itisnowclearthatthepublicperformanceanddisplayrights
covertransmissionsaccessiblefromaplaceandatatimeindividuallychosenbymembersof
thepublic.ThelimitationsonthescopeoftherightsarticulatedbytheCourtwhich,together
withthestatutoryexceptionsandlimitationsundertheAct,provideimportantchecksagainst
overbroadapplicationsareconsistentwiththeflexibilityaffordedbytheTreaties.Inthe
Officesview,therefore,additionallegislationisnotcurrentlynecessaryfromatreatyperspective.
B. LegislativeOptions
TheOfficehasbrieflyexaminedvariousoptionsthatCongresscouldconsidershould
courtsinfuturecasesconstrueSection106inconsistentlywiththemakingavailableobligation.
Theserangefromnarrowdefinitionalclarificationstoamorefundamentalrestructuringunder
whichcertainexistingexclusiverightswouldbecombinedintoageneralcommunicationtothe
publicrightsimilartothoseinplaceinothercountries.
TotheextentCongresswishestoaddressonlytheaspectofthisissueonwhichcourtsare
presentlydivided,itcoulddosobyaddingadefinitionofdistributetoSection101that
includesoffers.Forexample,Congresscouldadoptadefinitionsimilartothatinthe
SemiconductorChipProtectionAct,whichprovides:todistributemeanstosell,ortolease,
bail,orotherwisetransfer,ortooffertosell,lease,bail,orotherwisetransfer.375ShouldCongress
alsowishtoclarifythatthepublicperformanceanddisplayrightscoverofferstocommunicatea
work,itcouldconsideramendingtheTransmitClause376toprovidethatofferingtotransmitor
otherwisecommunicateaperformanceordisplaytothepublicsatisfiesthedefinitionof
performingordisplayingaworkpublicly.ThesetwochangeswouldconfirmtheOffices
understandingofcurrentlawbyclarifyingthatthethreeexclusiverightsmostdirectlyrelevantto
themakingavailableobligationdistribution,publicperformance,andpublicdisplayall
includetherighttoofferonlineaccesstoaworktothepublic.Congressalsocouldconsidera
morebasicexplanatoryamendmentforexample,theadditionofastatementinSection106
providingthatacopyrightownersexclusiverightsthereunderencompasstherighttomakea
workavailabletothepublic,includinginsuchawaythatmembersofthepublicmayaccessthe
workfromaplaceandatatimeindividuallychosenbythem.377
SeeCCIAInitialCommentsat5(Thatthereislitigationoverthereachofthe106rightssaysnothingaboutthose
rightsadequacy;thelimitsofanyrightareboundtobetestedbylitigants.).
374
17U.S.C.901(a)(4).
375
Seeid.101(publicly).
376
Underanotherapproach,Congresscouldconsidergivingcopyrightownersanindependentcauseofactionfor
authorizinginfringingconductbasedontheintroductoryclauseofSection106.Seeid.106(theownerofcopyright
underthistitlehastheexclusiverighttodoandtoauthorizeanyofthefollowing)(emphasisadded).Asnoted,courts
haverejectedtheargumentthatthetoauthorizelanguageestablishesdirectliabilityformakingworksavailablefor
infringement,holdingthatitprovidesonlyforsecondaryliability.Seesupranote277.Congresscouldoverturnthose
decisionsbyaddingadefinitiontoSection101providingthattherighttoauthorizetheexerciseofanexclusiveright
isindependentoftherighttodothoseactivities.However,thisapproachcouldbeconsideredoverbroadbecause,for
example,itwouldpermitclaimsforauthorizingthepreparationofderivativeworks.See17U.S.C.106(2).
377
79
U.S.CopyrightOffice
Alternatively,CongresscoulddepartfromtheUnitedStateshistoricalpracticeof
implementationthroughmultipleexclusiverightsandinsteadadoptageneralrightof
communicationtothepublicthatincludesoffersofondemandaccess.Thiscouldtakeavariety
offorms,butundertheWCT,thetermCommunicationimpliestransmissiontoapublicnot
presentintheplacewherethecommunicationoriginates.378IfCongressweretofollowthat
model,theexistingrightsofdistribution,publicperformance,andpublicdisplaylikelywouldbe
subsumedunderthecommunicationtothepublicrightinsofarastheycovertransmissionsto
remotelocations.Theseparatelyenumerateddistribution,performance,anddisplayrights
wouldremaininthestatute,butpresumablywouldbelimitedonlytophysicalorinperson
communicationsgoingforward.
ThisapproachwouldrepresentasweepingreconfigurationofU.S.copyrightlaw.The
additionofacommunicationtothepublicrighttoSection106wouldnecessitatecorresponding
changesthroughoutTitle17.Virtuallyeveryexistingprovisionreferringtothedistribution,
performance,ordisplayrightswouldhavetobeupdatedtoaddresswhichrightorcombination
thereofwouldbeimplicatedunderthenewstructure.379Asseveralcommentersobserved,such
changeswouldintroducesubstantialuncertaintyintothemarketplacebydisruptingestablished
licensingmodelsandotherbusinesspracticesbasedaroundthecurrentexclusiverights
framework.380Existinglimitationsandexceptions,aswell,mayneedtobeupdatedandnew
onescreatedinordertoavoidupsettingthecurrentbalancewithinthecopyrightlaw.381Itisnot
clearthatthecostsofthesedisruptionswouldbejustifiedbyanyadditionalclaritythatsucha
rightmightproduce.
Thisconclusionisbolsteredbythefactthatcommunicationtothepublicrightshavenot
alwaysbeenappliedconsistentlyamongforeignjurisdictionsthathaveimplementedthem.In
particular,courtshavereacheddifferingconclusionsoverwhetherandunderwhatcircumstances
individualizedtransmissionsmayconstitutecommunicationstothepublic.IntheEU,itis
irrelevantwhetherthepotentialrecipientsaccessthecommunicatedworksthroughaonetoone
connection,becausedoingsodoesnotpreventalargenumberofpersonshavingaccesstothe
WIPOBasicProposal,supranote3,10.14,at44;seealsoREINBOTHE&VONLEWINSKI,supranote4,7.8.13(arguing
thatWCTusesthetermcommunicationtothepublicinthesamesenseasundertheBerneConvention,meaningthat
itexcludesformsofdirectpresentationthatdonotinvolveanytransmissiontoaremoteplace),7.8.30(WCT
communicationtothepublicrightislimitedtoremotetransmissions).
378
SeePKEFFJointInitialCommentsat9(Anexplicitmakingavailablerightwouldmostlikelyoverlapextensively
withcurrentlyexistingexclusiverights,andthusCongressmayhavetoconsidereliminatingsomeofthoserightsinthe
eventitelectstocreateamakingavailableright.).
379
SeeBridgesInitialCommentsat12(UndueexpansionoftheSection106(3)right,throughabroadconceptionof
makingavailable,wouldalsodisturbsettledexpectationsintransactionsandlegalrelationshipsthatrestupon
existingclassificationsofrightsinSection106.);CCIAInitialCommentsat7(Creatingorredefiningexclusiverights
alsocausesproblemsforexistingcontractsunderwhichrightswereproperlylicensedyetnewertechnologieswerent
anticipated.);ESAInitialCommentsat3(Adjustmentstothescopeofexistingrights,ortheintroductionofnew
exclusiverights,canbedisruptivetoexistinglicensingpractices.).
380
PKEFFJointInitialCommentsat10.
381
80
U.S.CopyrightOffice
sameworkatthesametime.382Conversely,SingaporesCourtofAppealhasheldthata
communicationrequestedbyauserandaccessibleonlybythatuserisnottothepublic.383
Thesedivergentresultsindicatethatcountriesprovidingacommunicationtothepublicrightare
experiencingmanyofthesamechallengesovertheapplicationofexclusiverightstoemerging
technologiesthathavefacedU.S.courts.TheOfficeaccordinglyisnotpersuadedthatthe
additionofsucharighttoourlawwouldgeneratesubstantiallygreaterpredictabilitythanexists
currently.
***
InadoptingtheWIPOInternetTreaties,memberstatesrecognizedtheprofoundimpact
ofthedevelopmentandconvergenceofinformationandcommunicationtechnologiesonthe
creationanduseofliteraryandartisticworks.384Ofalltheseeffects,noneismoresignificant
thantheunprecedentedeasewithwhichcopyrightedworkscanbemadeavailabletovast
numbersofwouldberecipientsthroughouttheworld.Bygrantingcopyrightownersthe
exclusiverightofmakingavailable,theTreatiesseektoensurethatauthorsmaycontinueto
exercisemeaningfulcontrolregardingwhetherandhowtheirworksareaccessedand
disseminatedtothepublic,includingthroughondemandaccess.
Forallthereasonsdiscussed,theCopyrightOfficeconcludesthatU.S.lawprovidesthe
fullscopeofprotectionrequiredbythemakingavailableobligation.TheOfficehopesthatthe
analysispresentedherewillbeusefultocourtsandstakeholdersconsideringthepossible
applicationoftheCopyrightActsexclusiverightstoparticularcommunicationstechnologiesand
activities.ShouldCongressdetermine,basedonfuturejudicialdevelopmentsorotherwise,that
statutoryclarificationwouldbeadvisable,theOfficestandsreadytoassistwithitsconsideration
ofanyproposedchanges.
CaseC607/11,ITVBroad.v.TVCatchUp,2013EURLexCELEX62011CJ0607,para.34(Mar.7,2013).
382
383
WCT,supranote1,pmbl.;seealsoWPPT,supranote1,pmbl.(Recognizingtheprofoundimpactofthedevelopment
andconvergenceofinformationandcommunicationtechnologiesontheproductionanduseofperformancesand
phonograms....).
384
81
the making available right in the united states
appendix a
u.s. copyright office
study request from

representative melvin l. watt
appendix b
federal register notices
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 37 / Tuesday, February 25, 2014 / Notices
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
United States Copyright Office
[Docket No. 20142]
Study on the Right of Making

Available; Comments and Public
Roundtable
U.S. Copyright Office, Library
of Congress.
ACTION: Request for comments and
notice of public roundtable.
AGENCY:
The United States Copyright

Office is undertaking a study at the
request of Congress to assess the state of
U.S. law recognizing and protecting
making available and
communication to the public rights
for copyright holders. The Office is
requesting public comments on how the
existing bundle of rights under Title 17
covers the making available and
communication to the public rights,
how foreign laws have addressed such
rights, and the feasibility and necessity
of amending U.S. law to strengthen or
clarify our law in this area. The
Copyright Office also will hold a public
roundtable to discuss these topics and
to provide a forum for interested parties
to address the issues raised by the
comments received.
DATES: Comments are due on or before
April 4, 2014. The public roundtable
will be held on May 5, 2014, from 9:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EDT.
ADDRESSES: All comments should be
submitted electronically. To submit
comments, please visit http://
www.copyright.gov/docs/
making_available/. The Web site
interface requires submitters to
complete a form specifying name and
organization, as applicable, and to
upload comments as an attachment via
a browser button. To meet accessibility
standards, commenting parties must
upload comments in a single file not to
exceed six megabytes (MB) in one of
the following formats: The Portable
Document File (PDF) format that
contains searchable,accessible text (not
an image); Microsoft Word;
WordPerfect; Rich Text Format (RTF);
or ASCII text file format (not a scanned
document). The form and face of the
comments must include both the name
of the submitter and organization. The
Office will post all comments publicly
on the Offices Web site exactly as they
are received, along with names and
organizations.
The public roundtable will take place
in the Copyright Office Hearing Room,
LM408 of the Madison Building of the
Library of Congress, 101 Independence
bjneal on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
05:00 Feb 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20559.

The Copyright Office strongly prefers
that requests for participation be
submitted electronically. A
participation request form will be
posted on the Copyright Office Web site
at http://www.copyright.gov/docs/
making_available/ on or about April 7,
2014. If electronic submission of
comments or requests for participation
is not feasible, please contact the Office
at 2027071027 for special
instructions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Maria Strong, Senior Counsel for Policy
and International Affairs, by telephone
at 2027071027 or by email at
mstrong@loc.gov, or Kevin Amer,
Counsel for Policy and International
Affairs, by telephone at 2027071027
or by email at kamer@loc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The WIPO Internet Treatiesthe
WIPO Copyright Treaty(WCT) 1 and
the WIPO Performances and
Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) 2
require member states to recognize the
rights of making available and
communication to the public in their
national laws. The treaties obligate
member states to give authors of works,
producers of sound recordings, and
performers whose performances are
fixed in sound recordings the exclusive
right to authorize the transmission of
their works and sound recordings,
including through interactive platforms,
such as the Internet, where the public
can choose where and when to access
them. In the specific context of
interactive, on-demand situations, WCT
Article 8 and WPPT Articles 10 and 14
provide treaty members with flexibility
in the manner in which they implement
this right.3
1 WIPO Copyright Treaty art. 8, Dec. 20, 1996, 36
I.L.M. 65 (Without prejudice to the provisions of
Articles 11(1)(ii), 11bis(1)(i) and (ii), 11ter(1)(ii),
14(1)(ii) and 14bis(1) of the Berne Convention,
authors of literary and artistic works shall enjoy the
exclusive right of authorizing any communication
to the public of their works, by wire or wireless
means, including the making available to the public
of their works in such a way that members of the
public may access these works from a place and at
a time individually chosen by them.) (text of
Agreed Statement omitted). WCT Article 8 is
entitled Right of Communication to the Public.
2 WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty
arts. 10, 14, Dec. 20, 1996, 36 I.L.M. 76. Articles 10
and 14 provide the making available right to
performers whose performances are fixed in sound
recordings (phonograms) and to producers of sound
recordings. The separate communication to the
public provision in the WPPT (Article 15) involves
a right of remuneration, and is not the same
communication to the public right found in the
Berne Convention and WCT Article 8.
3 This flexible approach is known as the
umbrella solution. See Mihaly Ficsor, World
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
10571
The United States implemented the

WIPO Internet Treaties through the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act
(DMCA) in 1998.4 Based on advice
received from the Copyright Office,
among many other experts, Congress did
not amend U.S. law to include explicit
references to making available and
communication to the public,
concluding that Title 17 already
provided those rights.5 As former
Register of Copyrights Marybeth Peters
observed:
While Section 106 of the U.S. Copyright
Act does not specifically include anything
called a making available right, the
activities involved in making a work
available are covered under the exclusive
rights of reproduction, distribution, public
display and/or public performance. . . .
Which of these rights are invoked in any
given context will depend on the nature of
the making available activity.6
Indeed, both Congress and the Executive

Branch have continued to support this
view since the enactment of the DMCA.7
Intellectual Property Organization, Guide to the
Copyright and Related Rights Treaties Administered
by WIPO and Glossary of Copyright and Related
Rights Terms 209 (2003) (WCT Article 8s umbrella
solution allows treaty members to implement the
making available right through a right other than
the right of communication to the public or through
the combination of different rights); id. at 24748
(WPPT Articles 10 and 14 apply umbrella solution
in a fully fledged manner incorporating the neutral
description of interactive digital transmissions
directly).
4 Public Law 105304, 112 Stat. 2860 (1998).
5 See H.R. Rep. No. 105551, at 9 (1998) (The
treaties do not require any change in the substance
of copyright rights or exceptions in U.S. law.); see
also WIPO Copyright Treaties Implementation Act
and Online Copyright Liability Limitation Act:
Hearing on H.R. 2281 & H.R. 2180 Before the H.R.
Subcomm. on Courts and Intellectual Property of
the Comm. on the Judiciary, 105th Cong. 43 (1997)
(Register of Copyrights advised Congress that there
was no need to alter the nature and scope of the
copyrights and exceptions, or change the
substantive balance of rights embodied in the
Copyright Act). More recent research into the
legislative history of U.S. law by Professor David
Nimmer and Professor Peter Menell has provided
additional textual support regarding Congresss
views on the breadth of existing U.S. law and the
broad scope of the making available right. See
Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, 2 Nimmer On
Copyright 8.11 (2012); Peter S. Menell, In Search
of Copyrights Lost Ark: Interpreting the Right to
Distribute in the Internet Age, 59 J. Copyright Socy
U.S.A. 1, 5051 (2011).
6 Piracy of Intellectual Property on Peer-to-Peer
Networks: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Courts,
the Internet, and Intellectual Property of the H.
Comm. on the Judiciary, 107th Cong. 114 (2002)
(letter from Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights,
United States Copyright Office).
7 See Internet Policy Task Force, U.S. Dept of
Commerce, Copyright Policy, Creativity, and
Innovation in the Digital Economy 1516 (2013),
available at http://www.uspto.gov/news/
publications/copyrightgreenpaper.pdf (noting that
Copyright Acts distribution right was intended to
include the mere offering of copies to the public
and that contrary judicial decisions predate . . .
E:\FR\FM\25FEN1.SGM
Continued
25FEN1
10572
The lack of explicit references to these

rights in U.S. law, however, has led
some courts and commentators to
express uncertainty over how the
existing rights in Title 17 may apply to
various methods of making of
copyrighted works available to the
public, including in the digital
environment. Especially in the Internet
era, in any given case several of these
rights (reproduction, distribution,
public performance, and public display)
may be at issue, depending on the facts
involved.
Courts, academics, and practitioners
particularly have focused on the scope
of the distribution right under Section
106 and have debated whether it fully
encompasses the making available of a
copyrighted work without proof of an
actual distribution.8 For example, two
early Eighth and Fourth Circuit cases
discussing making available yielded
conflicting results. The Eighth Circuit in
National Car Rental System, Inc. v.
Computer Associates International, Inc.
rejected the notion that making a work
available without more violated the
distribution right.9 The principal
authority to the contrary is the Fourth
Circuits decision in Hotaling v. Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, in
which the defendants made several
unauthorized microfiche copies of
genealogical research materials, one of
which ended up in a library
collection.10 The library did not keep
records of public use, and therefore
there was no evidence of the copy being
loaned to the public.11 The court found
that making a work available to the
public constituted distribution because
[w]hen a public library adds a work to
its collection, lists the work in its index
or catalog system, and makes the work
available to the borrowing or browsing
public, it has completed all the steps
necessary for distribution to the
public. 12
A recent Tenth Circuit decision,
Diversey v. Schmidly,13 followed
Hotalings conclusion that making a
work available to the public constitutes
distribution under Section 106(3).
Diversey involved a similar situation to
recent academic scholarship on previously
unanalyzed legislative history).
8 The Section 106 distribution right is far broader
than the new distribution right afforded under the
WIPO Treaties (WCT art. 6 and WPPT arts. 8, 12).
9 991 F.2d 426, 430 (8th Cir. 1993) ([W]e cannot
conclude that an allegation that National permitted
the use necessarily amounts to an allegation of the
actual distribution of a copy of the program.).
10 118 F.3d 199, 202 (4th Cir. 1997).
11 Id. at 203.
12 Id.
13 Diversey v. Schmidly, No. 132058, 2013 U.S.
App. LEXIS 25506, at *1213 (10th Cir. Dec. 23,
2013).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
05:00 Feb 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
Hotaling and addressed a library

lending an unauthorized copy of a work
to the public. The Tenth Circuit noted,
however, that there has not been
consensus on Hotalings applicability to
Internet file-sharing cases, and the court
avoided extending its holding to those
digital situations.14
Other courts have addressed the scope
of the distribution right in the online
context and have reached similarly
conflicting results. The Ninth Circuit in
A&M Records v. Napster, Inc.
concluded that distribution
encompasses making available,
observing that Napster users who
upload file names to the search index
for others to copy violate plaintiffs
distribution rights. 15 Other courts have
disagreed and required actual
distribution. Thus, the court in LondonSire Records, Inc. v. Doe 1, which
considered infringement of the
distribution right through peer-to-peer
file sharing, cast doubt on Hotaling,
asserting that [m]erely because the
defendant has completed all the steps
necessary for distribution does not
necessarily mean that a distribution has
actually occurred. 16 Notably, however,
while the London-Sire court required
actual distribution, it did not require
direct evidence of dissemination over
peer-to-peer networks, holding instead
that a reasonable fact-finder may infer
that distribution actually took place
where the defendant has completed all
necessary steps for a public
distribution.17 Other courts have also
relied on the language of Section 106(3)
to require actual distribution in order to
find a violation of that right.18
14 Id.
at *1314 n.7.
Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d
1004, 1014 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Universal City
Studios Prods. LLLP v. Bigwood, 441 F. Supp. 2d
185, 190 (D. Me. 2006) ([B]y using KaZaA to make
copies of the Motion Pictures available to thousands
of people over the internet, Defendant violated
Plaintiffs exclusive right to distribute the Motion
Pictures.); Warner Bros. Records, Inc. v. Payne,
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65765, at *8 (W.D. Tex. 2006)
(Listing unauthorized copies of sound recordings
using an online file-sharing system constitutes an
offer to distribute those works, thereby violating a
copyright owners exclusive right of distribution.).
16 542 F. Supp. 2d 153, 168 (D. Mass. 2008)
(quoting Hotaling, 118 F.3d at 203).
17 Id. at 169.
18 See Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas, 579 F.
Supp. 2d 1210, 1218 (D. Minn. 2008) (concluding
it was bound by the holding in National Car and
stating that although the Copyright Act does not
offer a uniform definition of distribution . . .
Congresss choice to not include offers to do the
enumerated acts or the making available of the work
indicates its intent that an actual distribution or
dissemination is required in 106(3)); Atlantic
Recording Corp. v. Howell, 554 F. Supp. 2d 976, 983
(D. Ariz. 2008) (The statute provides copyright
holders with the exclusive right to distribute
copies of their works to the public by sale or other
transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or
15 A&M
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
In sum, while Congress and the

Copyright Office have agreed that U.S.
law covers the making available right of
the WCT, courts have encountered
difficulties in evaluating the scope of
this interactive right, and the level of
evidence needed to establish liability, in
the specific cases before them.19
In a letter dated December 19, 2013,
Representative Melvin L. Watt requested
that the Copyright Office assess the
state of U.S. law recognizing and
protecting making available and
communicating to the public rights for
copyright holders. . . . In light of the
rapidly changing technology and
inconsistency in the various court
discussions of these rights . . . it is
important that the Copyright Office
study the current state of the law in the
United States. Specifically,
Representative Watt asked the Office to
review and assess: (1) How the existing
bundle of exclusive rights under Title
17 covers the making available and
communication to the public rights in
the context of digital on-demand
transmissions such as peer-to-peer
networks, streaming services, and music
downloads, as well as more broadly in
the digital environment; (2) how foreign
laws have interpreted and implemented
the relevant provisions of the WIPO
Internet Treaties; and (3) the feasibility
and necessity of amending U.S. law to
strengthen or clarify our law in this
area.
On January 14, 2014, the House
Judiciary Committees Subcommittee on
Intellectual Property, Competition, and
the Internet held a hearing during which
two witnesses were asked to address the
issue of the making available right.20
These witnesses expressed a variety of
views on whether current U.S. copyright
law provides sufficient clarity on this
issue and whether adding an explicit
making available right to Title 17 would
lending. Unless a copy of the work changes hands
in one of the designated ways, a distribution under
106(3) has not taken place. Merely making an
unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work available
to the public does not violate a copyright holders
exclusive right of distribution.).
19 As noted, in addition to the distribution right,
the right of making available also implicates the
rights of reproduction, public performance, and
public display. The Supreme Court recently grated
certiorari in a case involving the scope of the public
performance right in the context of online streaming
of broadcast television programs. See Am. Broad.
Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc., 82 U.S.L.W. 3241 (U.S. Jan.
10, 2014) (No. 13461). Oral argument is scheduled
for April 22, 2014.
20 See The Scope of Copyright Protection: Hearing
Before the Subcomm. on Intellectual Property,
Courts, & the Internet of the H. Comm. on the
Judiciary, 113th Cong. (2014), available at http://
judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/2014/1/the-scope-ofcopyright-protection.
E:\FR\FM\25FEN1.SGM
25FEN1
be beneficial.21 They agreed, however,
that current law is properly construed to
provide such protection.22
II. Request for Comment
In light of uncertainty among some
courts regarding the nature and scope of
the making available and
communication to the public rights, and
to facilitate the study requested by
Representative Watt, the Copyright
Office seeks public comments on the
three main issues listed above. The
Office poses additional questions on
these three topics below, and requests
that commenters identify the questions
they are answering in their responses.
1. Existing Exclusive Rights Under Title
17
a. How does the existing bundle of
exclusive rights currently in Title 17
cover the making available and
communication to the public rights in
the context of digital on-demand
transmissions such as peer-to-peer
networks, streaming services, and
downloads of copyrighted content, as
well as more broadly in the digital
environment?
b. Do judicial opinions interpreting
Section 106 and the making available
right in the framework of tangible works
provide sufficient guidance for the
digital realm?
2. Foreign Implementation and
Interpretation of the WIPO Internet
Treaties
a. How have foreign laws
implemented the making available right
(as found in WCT Article 8 and WPPT
Articles 10 and 14)? Has such
implementation provided more or less
legal clarity in those countries in the
context of digital distribution of
copyrighted works?
b. How have courts in foreign
countries evaluated their national
implementation of the making available
right in these two WIPO treaties? Are
there any specific case results or related
legislative components that might
present attractive options for possible
congressional consideration?
3. Possible Changes to U.S. Law

a. If Congress continues to determine
that the Section 106 exclusive rights
21 See Statement of David Nimmer, Professor,
UCLA School of Law, The Scope of Copyright
Protection, supra note 20 (Nimmer Statement);
Statement of Glynn S. Lunney, Jr., Professor, Tulane
University School of Law, The Scope of Copyright
Protection, supra note 20 (Lunney Statement).
These witness statements are available at http://
docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=101642.
22 See Nimmer Statement at 23; Lunney
Statement at 14.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
05:00 Feb 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
provide a making available right in the

digital environment, is there a need for
Congress to take any additional steps to
clarify the law to avoid potential
conflicting outcomes in future
litigation? Why or why not?
b. If Congress concludes that Section
106 requires further clarification of the
scope of the making available right in
the digital environment, how should the
law be amended to incorporate this right
more explicitly?
c. Would adding an explicit making
available right significantly broaden
the scope of copyright protection
beyond what it is today? Why or why
not? Would existing rights in Section
106 also have to be recalibrated?
d. Would any amendment to the
making available right in Title 17
raise any First Amendment concerns? If
so, how can any potential issues in this
area be avoided?
e. If an explicit right is added, what,
if any, corresponding exceptions or
limitations should be considered for
addition to the copyright law?
If there are any pertinent issues not
discussed above, the Office encourages
interested parties to raise those matters
in their comments.
III. Public Roundtable
On May 5, 2014, the Copyright Office
will hold a public roundtable to hear
stakeholder views and to initiate
discussion of the three topics identified
above. The agenda and the process for
submitting requests to participate in the
public roundtable will be available on
the Copyright Office Web site on or
about April 7, 2014.
IV. Requests To Participate
Requests to participate in the public
roundtable should be submitted online
making_available/. Nonparticipants
who wish to attend and observe the
discussion should note that seating is
limited and, for nonparticipants, will be
available on a first come, first served
basis.
Dated: February 20, 2014.
Maria A. Pallante,
Register of Copyrights.
[FR Doc. 201404104 Filed 22414; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 141030P
PO 00000
10573
MILITARY COMPENSATION AND

RETIREMENT MODERNIZATION
COMMISSION
Cancellation of a Meeting of the
Military Compensation and Retirement
Modernization Commission
Military Compensation and
Retirement Modernization Commission.
AGENCY:
Notice of cancellation of public

meetings and town hall meeting.
ACTION:
This notice cancels the

hearings and town hall that were to be
held on Tuesday, February 25, 2014.
SUMMARY:
The public hearings and town

hall originally scheduled for Tuesday,
February 25, 2014, are cancelled.
DATES:
The hearings and town hall

were to be held Tuesday, February 25,
2014 at the Embassy Suites Fayetteville
Fort Bragg, 4760 Lake Valley Drive,
Fayetteville, North Carolina 28303.
ADDRESSES:
Christopher Nuneviller, Associate

Director, Military Compensation and
Retirement Modernization Commission,
P.O. Box 13170, Arlington VA 22209,
telephone 7036922080, fax 703697
8330, email
christopher.nuneviller@mcrmc.gov.
A notice
of public hearings and town hall
meeting that appeared in the Federal
Register on February 18, 2014 (79 FR
9285) announced that the Military
Compensation and Retirement
Modernization Commission
(Commission) was to hold public
hearings and a town hall meeting on
Tuesday, February 25, 2014, to seek the
views of service members, retirees, their
beneficiaries and other interested
parties regarding pay, retirement, health
benefits and quality of life programs of
the Uniformed Services. The
Commission was to also hear from
senior commanders of local military
commands and their senior enlisted
advisors, unit commanders and their
family support groups, local medical
and education community
representatives, and other quality of life
organizations.
The public hearings and town hall
meeting will be rescheduled for a later
date.
Christopher Nuneviller,
Associate Director, Administration and
Operations.
[FR Doc. 201404126 Filed 22414; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
Frm 00108
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\25FEN1.SGM
25FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Notices
Dated: April 23, 2014.
Maria A. Pallante,
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
U.S. Copyright Office
[FR Doc. 201409656 Filed 42814; 8:45 am]
[Docket No. 20142]
Notice of Room Change: Public

Roundtable on the Right of Making
Available
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND

SPACE ADMINISTRATION
AGENCY:
[Notice: (14039)]
Notice of room change for

public roundtable.
NASA Advisory Council; Science

Committee; Planetary Protection
Subcommittee; Meeting

of Congress.
ACTION:
The U.S. Copyright Office has

changed the location of the May 5, 2014
public roundtable announced in the
Offices February 25, 2014 Notice of
Inquiry for its study on the rights of
communication to the public. The
roundtable will be held in 2226 Rayburn
House Office Building, Washington, DC
20515, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EDT.
SUMMARY:

On
February 25, 2014, the Copyright Office
published a Notice of Inquiry requesting
public comments and announcing a
May 5, 2014 public roundtable on the
state of U.S. law recognizing and
for copyright holders. Interested
members of the public were directed to
submit written comments and to request
participation in the public roundtable
using forms posted on the Offices Web
site.
The Office is announcing that the
location of the public roundtable has
been changed to 2226 Rayburn House
Office Building, Washington, DC 20515.
As previously scheduled, the roundtable
will be held on May 5, 2014, from 9:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EDT.
Individuals selected for participation
in one or more roundtable sessions will
be notified directly by the Office. The
Office will post the agenda for the
roundtable on or about April 28, 2014
making_available/. Nonparticipants
who wish to attend and observe the
discussion should note that seating is
limited and, for nonparticipants, will be
available on a first come, first served
basis.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:56 Apr 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
National Aeronautics and

Space Administration.
ACTION: Notice of meeting.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the

Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public
Law 92463, as amended, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) announces a meeting of the
Planetary Protection Subcommittee
(PPS) of the NASA Advisory Council
(NAC). This Subcommittee reports to
the Science Committee of the NAC. The
meeting will be held for the purpose of
soliciting, from the scientific
community and other persons, scientific
and technical information relevant to
program planning.
DATES: Tuesday, May 20, 2014, 8:00
a.m.5:00 p.m., and Wednesday, May
21, 2014, 9:45 a.m.4:30 p.m., Local
Time.
ADDRESSES: NASA Headquarters, Room
3D42, 300 E Street SW., Washington, DC
20546.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann
Delo, Science Mission Directorate,
NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC
20546, (202) 3580750, fax (202) 358
2779, or ann.b.delo@nasa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
meeting will be open to the public up
to the capacity of the room. The meeting
will be available telephonically and by
WebEx. Any interested person may call
the USA toll free conference call
number 8886039625, passcode 4599,
to participate in this meeting by
telephone. Please note, the conference
call number and password is the same
for both days of this meeting, May 20
and May 21, 2014. The WebEx link is
https://nasa.webex.com/; the meeting
number for May 20, 2014 is 997 873
342, password PSS@May2014, and the
meeting the number for May 21, 2014 is
998 038 108, password PSS@May2014.
The agenda for the meeting includes the
following topics:
Update on NASA Planetary Protection
Activities
Mars Curiosity Lessons Learned
Responses
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
24019
Contamination Limits for Planetary

Life Detection
Status of InSight Project Compliance
European Space Agency/ExoMars
Attendees will be requested to sign a
register and to comply with NASA
security requirements, including the
presentation of a valid picture ID to
Security before access to NASA
Headquarters. Foreign nationals
attending this meeting will be required
to provide a copy of their passport and
visa in addition to providing the
following information no less than 10
working days prior to the meeting: full
name; gender; date/place of birth;
citizenship; visa information (number,
type, expiration date); passport
information (number, country,
expiration date); employer/affiliation
information (name of institution,
address, country, telephone); title/
position of attendee; and home address
to Ann Delo via email at ann.b.delo@
nasa.gov or by fax at (202) 3582779.
U.S. citizens and Permanent Residents
(green card holders) are requested to
submit their name and affiliation 3
working days prior to the meeting to
Ann Delo. It is imperative that the
meeting be held on this date to
accommodate the scheduling priorities
of the key participants.
Patricia D. Rausch,
Advisory Committee Management Officer,
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration.
[FR Doc. 201409635 Filed 42814; 8:45 am]
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS

ADMINISTRATION
Information Security Oversight Office
[NARA2014024]
National Industrial Security Program

Policy Advisory Committee (NISPPAC)
National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA).
ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee
Meeting.
AGENCY:

Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. app 2) and implementing
regulation 41 CFR 1016, NARA
announces an upcoming meeting of the
National Industrial Security Program
Policy Advisory Committee (NISPPAC).
DATES: The meeting will be held on June
19, 2014, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
ADDRESS: The Gaylord National Resort,
201 Waterfront Street, Prince Georges
Exhibition Hall B, National Harbor, MD
20745.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\29APN1.SGM
29APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 135 / Tuesday, July 15, 2014 / Notices
Dated: July 11, 2014.
Katherine Ward,
Executive Assistant to the Vice President for
Legal Affairs & General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 201416758 Filed 71114; 4:15 pm]
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
[Docket No. 20142]
Study on the Right of Making

Available; Request for Additional
Comments
of Congress.
ACTION: Request for additional
comments.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Copyright Office

seeks further comments on the state of
U.S. law recognizing and protecting
for copyright holders. This request
provides an opportunity for interested
parties to address issues raised in prior
written comments and during the public
roundtable held on May 5, 2014, as well
as express their views on recent legal
developments.
DATES: Comments must be received no
later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on August 14,
2014.
www.copyright.gov/docs/
making_available/. The Web site
interface requires submitters to
complete a form specifying name and
organization, as applicable, and to
exceed six megabytes (MB) in one of
the following formats: A Portable
contains searchable, accessible text (not
WordPerfect; Rich Text Format (RTF);
or ASCII text file format (not a scanned
Office will post all comments publicly
on the Offices Web site exactly as they
are received, along with names and
organizations. If electronic submission
of comments is not feasible, please
contact the Office at 2027071027 for
special instructions.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:46 Jul 14, 2014
Jkt 232001

I. Background
The Copyright Office is undertaking a
study at the request of Congress to
assess the state of U.S. law recognizing
and protecting making available and
for copyright holders, particularly in the
digital age. As part of its review, the
Office issued a Notice of Inquiry (the
Notice) on February 25, 2014,1
seeking comments from the public on
the following general issues: (1) How
the existing bundle of exclusive rights
under Title 17 covers the making
available and communication to the
public rights in the context of digital ondemand transmissions such as peer-topeer networks, streaming services, and
music downloads, as well as more
broadly in the digital environment; (2)
how foreign laws have interpreted and
implemented the relevant provisions of
the WIPO Internet Treaties; 2 and (3) the
feasibility and necessity of amending
U.S. law to strengthen or clarify our law
in this area. The Office also posed
additional questions on each of these
topics.
The Office received twenty-seven
written comments from various
interested parties in response to the
Notice. On May 5, 2014, the Office held
a public roundtable in Washington, DC
to hear stakeholder views on these
issues. Commenters and participants in
the roundtable expressed a variety of
views on a broad range of topics. The
Notice, public comments, the agenda for
the public roundtable, and the transcript
of the roundtable proceedings are
posted on the Copyright Office Web
site.3 A video recording of the
roundtable will be posted on the Web
site when it becomes available.
Commenters and roundtable
participants generally agreed that
current U.S. law, properly interpreted,
provides rights that are equivalent to the
making available and communication to
the public rights required by the WIPO
Internet Treaties. There was
disagreement, however, over whether
1 Study on the Right of Making Available;
Comments and Public Roundtable, 79 FR 10571
(Feb. 25, 2014).
2 WIPO Copyright Treaty art. 8, Dec. 20, 1996, 36
I.L.M. 65; WIPO Performances and Phonograms
Treaty arts. 10, 14, Dec. 20, 1996, 36 I.L.M. 76.
3 See Making Available Study, U.S. Copyright
Office, http://www.copyright.gov/docs/
making_available/.
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
41309
and how particular provisions of Title

17 may apply to various activities in the
digital context. For example, several
stakeholders argued that the
unauthorized uploading of a
copyrighted work to a shared network
folder that is accessible to the public
constitutes a violation of the exclusive
right of distribution under 17 U.S.C.
106(3). Others disagreed, arguing that
direct or circumstantial evidence that
another user has downloaded a copy of
that file is necessary to establish an
infringement of the distribution right by
the uploader. The roundtable discussion
and initial written comments also
highlighted issues such as whether a
digital file is a material object[] for
purposes of the statutory definitions of
copies and phonorecords; 4 the
relevance of legislative history to the
construction of the distribution right;
the role of secondary liability theories in
assessing the United States
implementation of the relevant treaty
provisions; and the use of evidence
provided by a copyright owners
investigator in digital filesharing cases.
Following the Offices roundtable
discussions, on June 25, 2014, the
Supreme Court decided American
Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc.5
The case involved a service, Aereo, that
used thousands of dime-sized antennas
to allow subscribers to capture and
watch television programs over the
Internet as the programs were being
broadcast over the air. When a
subscriber selected a program to watch
on Aereos Web site, the system would
create a subscriber-specific copy of the
program that would then be streamed to
the subscribers computer or Internetconnected device. The Court held that
this activity infringed the exclusive
right of the owners of the copyrights in
the programs to perform those works
publicly.6
A critical aspect of the Courts
decision was its interpretation of Title
17s Transmit Clause. That clause
provides that the public performance
right afforded to copyright owners
under Section 106 includes the
exclusive right to transmit or otherwise
communicate a performance . . . of the
work . . . to the public, by means of any
device or process, whether the members
of the public capable of receiving the
performance . . . receive it in the same
place or in separate places and at the
same time or at different times. 7
4 See
17 U.S.C. 101.
U.S. ___, No. 13461, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 4496
(June 25, 2014).
6 See 17 U.S.C. 106(4).
7 Id. section 101 (definition of To perform . . .
a work publicly ).
5 573
E:\FR\FM\15JYN1.SGM
15JYN1
41310
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 135 / Tuesday, July 15, 2014 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Finding Aereos activities substantially

similar to those of the [cable television]
companies that Congress intended to
reach when it updated the public
performance right in 1976, the Court
held that Aereo, and not just its
subscribers, perform[ed] (or
transmit[ted]) within the meaning of
the statute.8 The Court further
concluded that Aereo performed
copyrighted works publicly,
notwithstanding that each transmission
was made to a single subscriber from a
personal copy, holding that when an
entity communicates the same
contemporaneously perceptible images
and sounds to multiple people, it
transmits a performance to them
regardless of the number of discrete
communications it makes. 9
Justice Scalia, joined by Justices
Thomas and Alito, dissented,
concluding that Aereo did not
perform within the meaning of
Section 106(4). The dissenting Justices
reasoned that, because Aereos
subscribers, not the company itself,
selected the programs to be streamed,
the resulting performances were not
the product of Aereos volitional
conduct, and therefore Aereo could not
be held directly liable for
infringement.10
II. Request for Comment
The Office invites further written
comments on the issues raised in the
Notice, including from parties who did
not previously address those subjects, or
those who wish to amplify or clarify
their earlier comments or respond to
issues raised during the public
roundtable. In addition, the Office is
interested in commenters views
regarding the Supreme Courts opinion
in Aereo and how that opinion may
affect the scope of the rights of making
public in the United States. Specifically,
commenters may wish to address the
following questions:
1. To what extent does the Supreme
Courts construction of the right of
public performance in Aereo affect the
scope of the United States
implementation of the rights of making
public?
2. How should courts consider the
requirement of volitional conduct when
assessing direct liability in the context
8 Aereo, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 4496, at *19 (alterations
added). See 17 U.S.C. 101 (To transmit a
performance or display is to communicate it by any
device or process whereby images or sounds are
received beyond the place from which they are
sent.).
9 Aereo, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 4496, at *28.
10 Id. at *42 (Scalia, J., dissenting).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:46 Jul 14, 2014
Jkt 232001
of interactive transmissions of content

over the Internet, especially in the wake
of Aereo?
3. To what extent do, or should,
secondary theories of copyright liability
affect the scope of the United States
implementation of the rights of making
public?
4. How does, or should, the language
on material objects in the Section 101
definitions of copy and
phonorecord interact with the
exclusive right of distribution, and/or
making available and communication to
the public, in the online environment?
5. What evidentiary showing should
be required to prove a copyright
infringement claim against an
individual user or third-party service
engaged in unauthorized filesharing?
Should evidence that the defendant has
placed a copyrighted work in a publicly
accessible shared folder be sufficient to
prove liability, or should courts require
evidence that another party has
downloaded a copy of the work? Can
the latter showing be made through
circumstantial evidence, or evidence
that an investigator acting on the
plaintiffs behalf has downloaded a copy
of the work?
6. Please provide any additional
comments or suggestions regarding
recommendations or proposals the
Copyright Office might wish to consider
as it concludes its study.
A party choosing to respond to this
request need not address all of these
topics, but the Office requests that
responding parties clearly identify and
separately address those subjects for
which a response is submitted.
Commenters also may address any other
issues pertinent to the Offices review.
Karyn A. Temple Claggett,
Associate Register of Copyrights.
[FR Doc. 201416537 Filed 71414; 8:45 am]
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND

SPACE ADMINISTRATION
[Notice 14071]
NASA Advisory Council; Institutional

Committee; Meeting
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration.
ACTION: Notice of Meeting.
AGENCY:

Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public
Law 92463, as amended, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration
announces a meeting of the NASA
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Advisory Council (NAC) Institutional

Committee. This committee reports to
the NAC.
DATES: Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 8:00
a.m.3:00 p.m., Local Time
ADDRESSES: NASA Langley Research
Center, 5 Langley Boulevard, Building
2101, Room 205B, Hampton, VA 23681
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Todd Mullins, NAC Institutional
Committee Executive Secretary, NASA
Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546,
2023583831.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
meeting will be open to the public up
to the seating capacity of the room. This
meeting is also available telephonically
and by WebEx. You must use a touch
tone phone to participate in this
meeting. Any interested person may dial
the toll free access number 844467
6272 or toll access number 720259
6462, and then the numeric participant
passcode: 415447 followed by the #
sign. To join via WebEx, the link is
https://nasa.webex.com/, the meeting
number is 397 119 933, and the
password is IC072914; (Password is
case sensitive.) Note: If dialing in,
please mute your telephone. The
agenda for the meeting will include the
following:
Mission Support Overview
NASA IT Overview
Acquisition, Contracts, and Grants
Processing Overview
Attendees will be requested to sign a
register and to comply with NASA
Langley Research Center (LaRC) security
requirements, including the
presentation of a valid picture ID before
receiving access to NASA Langley
Research Center. Foreign nationals
attending this meeting will be required
to provide a copy of their passport and
visa in addition to providing the
following information no less than 10
working days prior to the meeting: Full
name; gender; date/place of birth;
citizenship; visa/green card information
(number, type, expiration date);
passport information (number, country,
telephone); employer/affiliation
information (name of institution,
address, country, telephone); title/
position of attendee. To expedite
admittance, attendees with U.S.
citizenship and Permanent Residents
(green card holders) can provide
identifying information 3 working days
in advance by contacting Ms. Cheryl
Cleghorn, via email at
cheryl.w.cleghorn@nasa.gov or by
telephone at 7578642497. It is
imperative that the meeting be held on
this date to accommodate the
E:\FR\FM\15JYN1.SGM
15JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 148 / Friday, August 1, 2014 / Notices
Total Responses: 1,643.
Average Time per Response: 60
minutes.
Estimated Total Burden Hours: 1,643
hours.
Total Other Burden Cost: $0.
Comments submitted in response to
this request will be summarized and/or
included in the request for Office of
Management and Budget approval; they
will also become a matter of public
record.
James H. Moore, Jr.,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S.
Department of Labor.
[FR Doc. 201418184 Filed 73114; 8:45 am]
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Copyright Office
[Docket No. 201403]
Music Licensing Study

of Congress.
ACTION: Notice of extension of comment
period.
AGENCY:
The United States Copyright

Office is extending the deadline for
public comments regarding the
effectiveness of existing methods of
licensing music that were solicited in a
July 23, 2014 Notice of Inquiry. See 79
FR 42833 (July 23, 2014).
DATES: Written comments are now due
on or before September 12, 2014.
ADDRESSES: All comments shall be
submitted electronically. A comment
page containing a comment form is
posted on the Office Web site at
http://www.copyright.gov/docs/
musiclicensingstudy. The Web site
interface requires commenting parties to
complete a form specifying their name
and organization, as applicable, and to
exceed six megabytes (MB) in one of the
following formats: The Portable
contains searchable, accessible text (not
WordPerfect; Rich Text Format (RTF); or
ASCII text file format (not a scanned
Office will post the comments publicly
on the Offices Web site in the form that
they are received, along with associated
names and organizations. If electronic
submission of comments is not feasible,
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
22:09 Jul 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
please contact the Office at 202707

8350 for special instructions.
Jacqueline C. Charlesworth, General
Counsel and Associate Register of
Copyrights, by email at jcharlesworth@
loc.gov or by telephone at 202707
8350; or Sarang V. Damle, Special
Advisor to the General Counsel, by
email at sdam@loc.gov or by telephone
at 2027078350.
I. Background
The U.S. Copyright Office is
conducting a study to assess the
effectiveness of current methods for
licensing sound recordings and musical
works. The Office received written
comments responding to an initial
Notice of Inquiry, and held three public
roundtables in Nashville, Los Angeles
and New York. See 78 FR 13739 (Mar.
17, 2014); 79 FR 25626 (May 5, 2014).
On July 23, 2014, the Office published
a second Notice of Inquiry, seeking
additional written comments on ten
subjects concerning the music licensing
environment. 79 FR 42833. To ensure
commenters have sufficient time to
address the topics set forth in the July
2014 Notice of Inquiry, the Office is
extending the time for filing written
comments from August 22, 2014 to
September 12, 2014.
Maria A. Pallante,
[FR Doc. 201418096 Filed 73114; 8:45 am]
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
[Docket No. 201402]
Extension of Comment Period; Study

on the Right of Making Available;
Request for Additional Comments
of Congress.
ACTION: Extension of comment period.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Copyright Office is

extending the deadline for public
comments that address topics listed in
the Offices July 15, 2014 Request for
Additional Comments.
DATES: Comments are now due no later
than 5:00 p.m. EDT on September 15,
2014.
www.copyright.gov/docs/making_
available/. The Web site interface
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00134
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
44871
requires submitters to complete a form

specifying name and organization, as
applicable, and to upload comments as
an attachment via a browser button. To
meet accessibility standards,
commenting parties must upload
comments in a single file not to exceed
six megabytes (MB) in one of the
following formats: a Portable Document
File (PDF) format that contains
searchable, accessible text (not an
image); Microsoft Word; WordPerfect;
Rich Text Format (RTF); or ASCII text
file format (not a scanned document).
The form and face of the comments
must include both the name of the
submitter and organization. The Office
will post all comments publicly on the
Offices Web site exactly as they are
received, along with names and
organizations. If electronic submission
of comments is not feasible, please
contact the Office at 2027071027 for
special instructions.

On July
15, 2014, the Copyright Office issued a
Request for Additional Comments on
the state of U.S. law recognizing and
for copyright holders.1 The Request
listed several questions for interested
members of the public to address in the
context of U.S. implementation of the
WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the
WIPO Performances and Phonograms
Treaty (WPPT) rights of making
public, and also invited views on
specific issues raised during the public
roundtable held in Washington, DC on
May 5, 2014. To provide sufficient time
for commenters to respond, the Office is
extending the time for filing additional
comments from August 14, 2014 to
September 15, 2014.

Karyn A. Temple Claggett,
Associate Register of Copyrights.
[FR Doc. 201418097 Filed 73114; 8:45 am]
1 Study on the Right of Making Available; Request

for Additional Comments, 79 FR 41309 (July 15,
2014).
E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM
01AUN1
appendix c
commenting parties
Parties Who Submitted Comments in Response

to the February 25, 2014 Notice of Inquiry
1.
American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers; Broadcast Music, Inc.;

Songwriters Guild of America; SESAC, Inc.; and National Music Publishers
Association
2.
American Society of Media Photographers
3.
Association of American Publishers, Inc.
4.
Association of Learned & Professional Society Publishers
5.
Bridges, Andrew P.
6.
Computer & Communications Industry Association
7.
Copyright Alliance
8.
Corporation for National Research Initiatives
9.
Digital Public Library of America
10.
Entertainment Software Association
11.
Ginsburg, Jane C.
12.
International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers
13.
Internet Commerce Coalition
14.
Library Copyright Alliance
15.
Lunney, Glynn S., Jr.
16.
Menell, Peter S.
17.
Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. and Recording Industry Association of

America, Inc.
18.
Oppenheimer, David
19.
Pangasa, Maneesh
20.
Public Knowledge and Electronic Frontier Foundation
21.
Sanders, Rick G., Jr.
22.
Society of American Archivists
23.
Software & Information Industry Association
24.
Sydnor, Thomas D., II
25.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill University Libraries, Scholarly

Communications Office
26.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Global Intellectual Property Center
Parties Who Submmitted Reply Comments in Response

to the July 15, 2014 Request for Additional Comments
1.
American Association of Independent Music
2.
American Photographic Artists
3.
Barkman, Alex
4.
Bridges, Andrew P.
5.
Broadcast Music, Inc.; American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers;

National Music Publishers Association; SESAC, Inc.; and Songwriters Guild of
America, Inc.
6.
BSA | The Software Alliance
7.
Cablevision Systems Corp.
8.
Campbell, John
9.
Computer & Communications Industry Association
10.
Copyright Alliance
11.
Devorah, Carrie
12.
DISH Network Corporation
13.
Ginsburg, Jane C.
14.
Internet Association
15.
16.
Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. and Recording Industry Association of

America, Inc.
17.
Music Managers Forum and Featured Artists Coalition
18.
PACA, Digital Media Licensing Association, Inc.; National Press Photographers

Association; American Society of Media Photographers; and Graphic Artists Guild
3
19.
Pala
20.
Pangasa, Maneesh
21.
Public Knowledge and Electronic Frontier Foundation
22.
Sanders, Rick G., Jr.
23.
Society of Composers & Lyricists
24.
25.
Sydnor, Thomas D., II
26.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Global Intellectual Property Center
27.
Wade, Brandon
appendix d
agenda for public roundtable

held on may 5, 2014
Public Roundtable on the

Right of Making Available
MO N DAY, M AY 5, 2 0 1 4
Hosted by the U.S.CopyrightOffice

Rayburn House Office Building, Room 2226, Washington,DC20515
INTRODUCTION
9:00 am
Opening Remarks by the U.S. Copyright Office
SESSION 1
Existing Exclusive Rights under Title 17 (Part One)
9:10 am 10:45 am
This session will explore how the exclusive rights in Title 17 cover the making available and
communication to the public rights in the context of digital on-demand transmissions such as
peer-to-peer networks, streaming services, and music downloads, as well as more broadly in the
digital environment. This session will also address evidentiary issues in infringement actions.
10:45 am 11:00 am
John C. Beiter
SESAC, Inc.
Andrew P. Bridges
Attorney
George M. Borkowski
Senior Vice President, Litigation and Legal Affairs, Recording Industry

Association of America
Eugene DeAnna
Library of Congress
Professor Jane Ginsburg
Columbia University School of Law
Terry Hart
Director of Legal Policy, Copyright Alliance
Professor Glynn Lunney
Tulane University School of Law
Professor Peter Menell
University of California Berkeley School of Law
Sam Mosenkis
Vice President, Legal Affairs, American Society of Composers, Authors

and Publishers
Matthew Schruers
Vice President of Law & Policy, Computer & Communications Industry

Association
Nancy Wolff
PACA: Digital Media Licensing Association
Break
Public Roundtable on the Right of Making Available

MO N DAY, M AY 5, 2 0 1 4
SESSION 2
Existing Exclusive Rights under Title 17 (Part Two)
11:00 am 12:30 pm
Like Session 1, this session will explore how the exclusive rights in Title 17 cover the making available
and communication to the public rights in the context of digital on-demand transmissions such
as peer-to-peer networks, streaming services, and music downloads, as well as more broadly in the
digital environment. This session will also address evidentiary issues in infringement actions.
12:30 pm 1:45 pm
Jonathan Band
Counsel, Library Copyright Alliance
Joseph J. DiMona
Vice President, Legal Affairs, Broadcast Music, Inc.
Jim Halpert
Lawrence Husick
Delaware County IP Roundtable
Lee Knife
Executive Director, Digital Media Association
Keith Kupferschmid
General Counsel and Senior Vice President, Intellectual Property,

Patrice A. Lyons
General Counsel, Corporation for National Research Initiatives
Laura Moy
Staff Attorney, Public Knowledge
Jay Rosenthal
General Counsel, National Music Publishers Association
Ben Sheffner
Vice President, Legal Affairs, Motion Picture Association of America, Inc.
Steven Tepp
Global Intellectual Property Center, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Lunch Break

MO N DAY, M AY 5, 2 0 1 4
SESSION 3
Benefits of Clarification/Possible Changes to U.S. Law
1:45 pm 3:15 pm
This session will explore the feasibility and necessity of amending U.S. law to strengthen or
clarify U.S. law in this area.
Allan Adler
General Counsel, Association of American Publishers
Sandra Aistars
Chief Executive Officer, Copyright Alliance
Jonathan Band
Counsel, Library Copyright Alliance
Gregory A. Barnes
General Counsel, Digital Media Association
John C. Beiter
SESAC, Inc.
Andrew P. Bridges
Attorney
Mitch Glazier
Senior Executive Vice President, Recording Industry Association of

America
Keith Kupferschmid
General Counsel and Senior Vice President, Intellectual Property,

Patrice A. Lyons
General Counsel, Corporation for National Research Initiatives
Professor Peter Menell
University of California Berkeley School of Law
Laura Moy
Staff Attorney, Public Knowledge
Nancy Wolff
PACA: Digital Media Licensing Association

MO N DAY, M AY 5, 2 0 1 4
SESSION 4
3:15 pm 4:15 pm
Foreign Implementation and Interpretation of the WIPO

Internet Treaties
This session will explore how foreign laws have interpreted and implemented the relevant
provisions of the WIPO Internet Treaties.
Sofia Castillo
Legal Fellow, Copyright Alliance
Joseph J. DiMona
Vice President, Legal Affairs, Broadcast Music, Inc.
Christian Genetski
Senior Vice President & General Counsel, Entertainment Software

Association
Professor Jane Ginsburg
Columbia University School of Law
Professor Glynn Lunney
Tulane University School of Law
Jay Rosenthal
General Counsel, National Music Publishers Association
Matthew Schruers
Vice President of Law & Policy, Computer & Communications Industry

Association
Steven Tepp
Global Intellectual Property Center, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Session 5
Audience Participation
4:15 pm 5:00 pm
This session will allow the audience to add final comments and views on the issues discussed
during the day. Audience members will be able to sign-up throughout the day. Statements will
be limited to 2 minutes in order to accommodate a maximum number of participants. Session
participants will also be able to sign-up after the public audience members, time permitting.
appendix e
survey of foreign laws regarding

statutory approaches to the right of
making available
The Making Available Right in the United States
Survey of Foreign Laws Regarding

Statutory Approaches to the
Right of Making Available
ThischartidentifiesthestatutorystructureofcountriesimplementationofArticle8of
theWCT.Inordertoconductthissurvey,theOfficedevelopedastructurethat
groupedthemannerofimplementationoftherightofmakingavailableintothree
categories.1
(1) InternetTreatiesLanguage
Underthisapproach,
implementinglegislationadopteda
makingavailablerightusing
languagethattracksthatofWCT
Article8,eitheridenticallyorwith
nonsubstantivedifferences.It
maybecouchedaspartofa
broadercommunicationtothe
publicrightoritmaybea
separatelyenumeratedright.2
ImplementationModel
InternetTreatiesLanguage
AlternativeLanguage
StatutorySilence
14
31
49
(2) AlternativeLanguage
Underthisapproach,anew,explicitmakingavailablerightwasadopted,butthe
statutorytextdoesnotdirectlytrackthelanguagefromtheWIPOInternetTreaties.
Thenationallawsreviewedareidentifiedinthelastcolumnofthechart.Insomecases,officialEnglishtranslations
offoreignlawswerenotavailableandinformaltranslationswereusedtoevaluatethestatutoryprovisionsatissue
andplacethemintheappropriatecategory.Furthermore,thischartrepresentsasnapshotintime;copyrightlaw
reformwasunderconsiderationinseveralcountriesatthetimethisReportwasissuedinFebruary2016,and
proposedlegislationisnotreflectedinthischart.
1
Forinclusioninthiscategory,theforeignstatutecontainstheWCTphrase(orsomeclosevariationthereof):
includingthemakingavailabletothepublicoftheirworksinsuchawaythatmembersofthepublicmayaccess
theseworksfromaplaceandatatimeindividuallychosenbythem.Inafewinstances,aEuropeancountyhada
lawwherethecommunicationtothepublicrightispartof,orasubsetof,alargermakingavailableright.Inthat
case,thesecountries(specificallyDenmark,Finland,Ireland,andSweden)havebeencategorizedasInternetTreaties
Model/PartoftheCTTPRightbecausetherightofmakingavailable,asexpressedstatutorilythere,appearstobe
intertwinedwiththecommunicationtothepublicright.
2
Thenewrightmaybeincludedaspartofabroadcommunicationtothepublicright
oritmaybeastandaloneright.3
(3) StatutorySilence
Thisapproachcoverstheactofmakingavailablethroughapreexistingrightor
rights,withoutadoptingaspecificreferencetolanguagereflectingthemaking
availableright.
Thisapproachincludesthosecountrieswhosestatutesmaybesilentbutthereiscase
lawthatcoversthemakingavailableright.
Alsoincludedinthiscategoryarelawsthatmaybeselfexecuting(hencethereisno
reasontochangestatutorylanguage)aspartofcountriesWCTaccession/ratification.
Finally,thiscategoryalsomayincludenationallawsthatthathavenotyetbeen
amendedtoreflectWCTlanguage.
TheOfficeuseditsexpertise,basedonavailableinformation,toevaluatethesituationin
eachcountryandmakeasubjectivedeterminationresultingintherelevantcategory
placement.
InsomeAlternativeLanguageModelcountries,thestatutorylanguageappearstocloselytracktheWCTlanguage
butincludesadditionalwordsorphrasessuchastelecommunicationorinformationnetworkthatmayreflect
influencesfromotherlegalandregulatoryschemesofthatcountry.InotherAlternativeLanguageModelcountries,
thelanguageusedtoprovideforanexplicitcommunicationtothepublicormakingavailablerightdeviatesmore
significantlyfromtheWIPOInternetTreatieslanguage.
3
SURVEY CHART
(WCT = 94 members as of April 12, 2016)
Internet
Treaties
Model
Alternative
Language
Model
Statutory
Silence
Model
Part of the
CTTP Right
Standalone
Right
Apart from
CTTP
Part of the
CTTP
Right
Standalone
Right Apart
from CTTP
Albania
Algeria
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Argentina
Reference(s)
in National Law
CopyrightandOtherRights
RelatedtoIt,LawNo.9380
of2005,Article13.
CopyrightandRelated
Rights,LawNo.0305of
2003,Article27.
LegalIntellectualProperty
Regime,LawNo.11.723of
1933,asamendedbyLaw
No.26.570of2009,Article2.
CopyrightandRelated
Rights,LawNo.3R142of
2013,Articles13and19.
CopyrightAct,LawNo.63
of1968,asamendedby
ActNo.80of2015,Articles
10and31.
CopyrightAct,LawNo.
111/1936of1936,as
amendedbyLawNo.
58/2010of2010,Article18a.
CopyrightandRelated
Rightsof1996,asamended
byLawNo.636IVQDof
Internet
Treaties
Model
Part of the
CTTP Right
Alternative
Language
Model
Standalone
Right
Apart from
CTTP
Part of the
CTTP
Right
Statutory
Silence
Model
Standalone
Right Apart
from CTTP
Bahrain
ProtectionofCopyright
andNeighboringRights,
LawNo.22of2006,Articles
1and6.
Belarus
CopyrightandRelated
Rights,LawNo.2623of
Belgium
CopyrightandNeighboring
Rightsof1994,asamended
byLawofApril3,1995,
Article1.
Benin
ProtectionofCopyright
LawNo.200530,Articles1,
4,60,and65.
Bosniaand
Herzegovina
CopyrightandRelated
RightsLaw,2010,Article24.
RightsAct,ActNo.8of
2000,asamendedbyAct.
No.6of2006,Articles2,7,
24,and25.
CopyrightandRelated
Rights,LawNo.56/29of
1993,asamendedbyLaw
No.25/25of2011,Article18.
ProtectionofLiteraryand
ArtisticProperty,Law
No.03299/ANof1999,
Articles16,72,and76and
theGlossary.
Bulgaria
Botswana
BurkinaFaso
Reference(s)
in National Law
Internet
Treaties
Model
Part of the
CTTP Right
Alternative
Language
Model
Standalone
Right
Apart from
CTTP
CostaRica
Part of the
CTTP
Right
Burundi
Chile
Statutory
Silence
Model
Standalone
Right Apart
from CTTP
Canada
China
Croatia
Reference(s)
in National Law
CopyrightandRelated
2005,Articles1and24(WCT
willenterintoforceon
Apr.12,2016).
CopyrightAct,LawNo.
c.C42of1985,asamended
byEconomicActionPlan
2015Act.No.1,LawNo.
c.36of2015,Articles2.2,
2.4,and3.
IntellectualPropertyLaw,
LawNo.17.336of1970,as
amendedbyLawNo.20750
of2014,Articles5and18.
CopyrightLaw,Presidential
OrderNo.31of1990,as
amendedbyPresidential
orderNo.26of2010,
Article10.
Colombia
CopyrightLaw,LawNo.23
1982,asamendedbyLaw
No.1450of2011,Articles3,
8,and12.
Copyrightand
NeighboringRights,
Lawno.6683of1982,as
amendedbyLawNo.8834
of2010,Article16.
CopyrightandRelated
RightsAct,LawNo.
167/2003of2003,as
amendedbyLawNo.
127/2014of2014,Article21.
Internet
Treaties
Model
Part of the
CTTP Right
Cyprus
Alternative
Language
Model
Standalone
Right
Apart from
CTTP
Part of the
CTTP
Right
Statutory
Silence
Model
Standalone
Right Apart
from CTTP
Reference(s)
in National Law
CopyrightLawNo.59of
1976,asamendedbyLaw
No.181(1)/2007of2007,
Article7.
Czech
Republic
CopyrightandRights
RelatedtoCopyright,
LawNo.121/2000of2000,
asamendedbyActNo.
168/2008of2008,Article18.
Denmark
CopyrightAct,Consolidate
Act.No.1144of2014,
Article2.
CopyrightLaw,LawNo.
6500of2000,asamended
byLawNo.207of2006,
Articles16and19.
LawNo.200613of2006,
Articles19,20,and22.
Dominican
Republic
Ecuador
ElSalvador
PromotionofandProtection
ofIntellectualProperty,
DecreeNo.604of1993,as
amendedbyDecreeNo.870
Estonia
CopyrightActof1992,as
amendedin2014,Articles
10and13.
European
Union
EUDirective2001/29/EC,
Article3.1.
Finland
CopyrightAct,ActNo.
404/1961of1961,as
amendedin2013,Section2.
Internet
Treaties
Model
Part of the
CTTP Right
Alternative
Language
Model
Standalone
Right
Apart from
CTTP
Part of the
CTTP
Right
Statutory
Silence
Model
Standalone
Right Apart
from CTTP
France
IntellectualPropertyCode,
LawNo.92597of1992,
asamendedbyLawNo.
2015195of2015,
ArticleL122.
Gabon
ProtectionforCopyright
LawNo.1/87of1987,
Articles28and29.
Georgia
CopyrightandRelated
Rights,LawNo.1585of
2005,asamendedin2010,
Articles4and18.
Germany
15and19.
of2005,asamendedby
LawNo.788of2009,
Articles5,28,and76.
Copyright,RelatedRights
andCulturalMatters,
LawNo.2121/1993of1993,
asamendedbyLawNo.
4281/2014of2014,Article3.
CopyrightandRelated
Rights,DecreeNo.3398of
1998,asamendedby
DecreeNo.562000of2000,
Articles4and21.
Guinea
ProvisionsRelatingto
Rights,ActNo.043/APN/CP
of1980,Article3.
Greece
Guatemala
Ghana
Reference(s)
in National Law
Internet
Treaties
Model
Part of the
CTTP Right
Alternative
Language
Model
Standalone
Right
Apart from
CTTP
Part of the
CTTP
Right
Statutory
Silence
Model
Standalone
Right Apart
from CTTP
Reference(s)
in National Law
Honduras
CopyrightandRelated
Rights,LawNo.499Eof
1999,asamendedby
Directive162006of2006,
Articles9and39.
Hungary
CopyrightAct,ActLXXVIof
1999,asamendedbyAct
CXXIXof2015,Article26.
Indonesia
CopyrightandRelated
RightsAct,LawNo.28of
2000,asamendedbyS.I.
No.39of2007,Article40.
RightsAct,LawNo.22of
1941,asamendedbyDecree
No.68of2003,Article16.
TheCopyrightAct,Act5of
1993,asamendedbyAct
No.13of2015,Section9(f).
CopyrightLaw,LawNo.48
of1970,asamendedby
LawNo.35of2014,Articles
2and23.
CopyrightProtectionLaw,
LawNo.22of1992,as
amendedbyLawNo.23of
2014,Article9.
Ireland
Italy
Jordan
Jamaica
Japan
Internet
Treaties
Model
Part of the
CTTP Right
Alternative
Language
Model
Standalone
Right
Apart from
CTTP
Part of the
CTTP
Right
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyz
Republic
Latvia
Lithuania
Statutory
Silence
Model
Standalone
Right Apart
from CTTP
Reference(s)
in National Law
CopyrightandRelated
Rights,LawNo.6of1996,
asamendedbyAnnex3to
OrderNumber250of2015,
Articles2and16.
Copyrightandrelated
rights,LawNo.120of1999,
asamendedbyLawNo.14
of2014,Article16.
CopyrightLawof2000,as
amendedin2014,Sections
1and15.
asamendedbyLawNo.167
of2014,Article10.
CopyrightandRelated
Rights,LawNo.VIII1185
of1999,asamendedbyLaw
No.XI656of2010,Articles
2and15.
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Copyright,Neighboring
RightsandDatabases,Law
No.50of2001,asamended
byLawNo.61of2004,
Articles3and4.
Madagascar
LiteraryandArtistic
Property,LawNo.97036of
CopyrightAct,Act332of
1987,asamendedby
ActA1420of2012,Articles
3and13.
Malaysia
Internet
Treaties
Model
Alternative
Language
Model
Statutory
Silence
Model
Part of the
CTTP Right
Standalone
Right
Apart from
CTTP
Part of the
CTTP
Right
Standalone
Right Apart
from CTTP
Mali
LiteraryandArtistic
Property,LawNo.08024of
Malta
CopyrightAct,ActXIIIof
2000,asamendedbyAct
VIIIof2011,Articles2and7.
Mexico
FederalLawonCopyright,
1996,asamendedin2014,
Article27.
Nicaragua
Mongolia
CopyrightandRelated
Rights,No.7of2006,
Articles3and12.
Montenegro
CopyrightandRelatedActs,
DecreeNo.01/933/2of2011,
Articles20and31.
CopyrightandRelated
Rights,LawNo.200of
2000,asamendedbyLaw
No.3405of2006,Articles
1and10.
Morocco
Netherlands
amendedin2008,Article12.
asamendedbyLawNo.577
Oman
CopyrightandRelated
Rights,DecreeNo.65/2008
Panama
Article55.
10
Reference(s)
in National Law
Internet
Treaties
Model
Alternative
Language
Model
Statutory
Silence
Model
Part of the
CTTP Right
Standalone
Right
Apart from
CTTP
Part of the
CTTP
Right
Standalone
Right Apart
from CTTP
Paraguay
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Peru
Reference(s)
in National Law
CopyrightandRelated
1998,Articles2,25,and27.
CopyrightLaw,Decree
No.822of1996,asamended
byLawNo.30276of2014,
Articles2,31,33,and34.
IntellectualPropertyCode,
ActNo.8293of1997,
asamendedbyActNo.
10372of2013,Sections
171and177.
CopyrightandRelated
Rights,ActNo.83of1994,
asamendedin2010,
Article50.
CopyrightandRelated
1985,asamendedbyLaw
No.16/2008of2008,
Articles67and68.
Qatar
CopyrightandRelated
Articles1and7.
Republicof
Korea
CopyrightAct,LawNo.
9625of2009,asamendedby
ActNo.12137of2013,
Articles2and25.
Republicof
Moldova
CopyrightandRelated
Articles3and11.
11
Internet
Treaties
Model
Part of the
CTTP Right
Alternative
Language
Model
Standalone
Right
Apart from
CTTP
Part of the
CTTP
Right
Statutory
Silence
Model
Standalone
Right Apart
from CTTP
Romania
Rights,LawNo.8of1996,as
amendedbyLawNo.329of
Russian
Federation
CivilCodeoftheRussian
Federation,asamendedin
2014,Article1270.
St.Lucia
of1995,asamendedby
LawNo.7of2000,
Sections2and9.
Senegal
CopyrightandRelated
Rights,LawNo.200809of
CopyrightandRelated
Rights,LawNo.RS104/2009
of2009,asamendedbyLaw
No.119/2012of2012,
Articles4and30.
CopyrightAct(Chapter63),
Act2of1987,asamended
byAct22of2014,Articles
7and26.
CopyrightandRelated
Rights,ActNo.618/2003of
2003,asamendedbyAct
No.283/2014of2014,
Articles5and18.
CopyrightandRelated
RightsAct,LawNo.RS
21/95of1995,asamended
byLawNo.15of2006,
Articles22and32a.
Serbia
Singapore
Slovenia
Slovakia
12
Reference(s)
in National Law
Internet
Treaties
Model
Part of the
CTTP Right
Spain
Sweden
Alternative
Language
Model
Standalone
Right
Apart from
CTTP
Tajikistan
Part of the
CTTP
Right
Statutory
Silence
Model
Standalone
Right Apart
from CTTP
Switzerland
LawNo.1/1996of1996,as
amendedbyLawNo.
21/2014of2014,Articles
20and90.
CopyrightinLiteraryand
ArtisticWorks,LawNo.
1960:729of1960,as
amendedbyAct2011:94of
2011,Article2.
CopyrightandRelated
RightsLawNo.231.1of
1992,asamendedby
AnnexINo.II9oftheCivil
ProcedureCodeof2008,
Article10.
LawonCopyrightand
RelatedRights,1998,as
3and16.
LawonCopyrightand
RelatedRights,LawNo.
115/10of2010,asamended
byLawNo.51of2011,
Articles27and30.
Theformer
Yugoslav
Republicof
Macedonia
Togo
Trinidadand
Tobago
13
Reference(s)
in National Law
Copyright,Folkloreand
RelatedRights,LawNo.
9192of1991,Article18.
CopyrightAct,Cap.82:80,
asamendedbyActNo.5of
2008,Articles3and8.
Internet
Treaties
Model
Alternative
Language
Model
Standalone
Right
Apart from
CTTP
Part of the
CTTP Right
Ukraine
United
Kingdom
Part of the
CTTP
Right
Statutory
Silence
Model
Standalone
Right Apart
from CTTP
IntellectualandArtistic
Works,LawNo.5846of
1951,asamendedby
LawNo.5728of2008,
Articles2025.
CopyrightandRelated
Rights,LawNo.3792XIIof
1993,asamendedbyLaw
No.5460VIof2012,
Articles1and15.
United
Arab
Emirates
CopyrightandRelated
asamendedbyLawNo.32
United
States
ofAmerica
Uruguay
34
15
21
10
14
49
31
14
14
Turkey
Reference(s)
in National Law
Copyright,Designsand
PatentsAct1988,as
amendedbytheCrime
andCourtsAct2013,
Articles20and20.
amendedin2014,
Section106.
Copyright,LawNo.9.739of
1937,asamendedbyLaw
No.18.046of2006,Article2.
u.s.copyrightoffice
library
of
congress
101independenceavenuese
washington,dc20559
www.copyright.gov

Making Available Right Report From U.S. Copyright Office

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Making Available Right Report From U.S. Copyright Office

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

united states copyright office

the making available right

united states copyright office

the making available right

the making available right in the united states

u.s. copyright office

study request from

the making available right in the united states

u.s. copyright office

federal register notices

Study on the Right of Making

The United States Copyright

bjneal on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

05:00 Feb 25, 2014

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20559.

The United States implemented the

Indeed, both Congress and the Executive

bjneal on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

The lack of explicit references to these

05:00 Feb 25, 2014

Hotaling and addressed a library

In sum, while Congress and the

bjneal on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

3. Possible Changes to U.S. Law

05:00 Feb 25, 2014

provide a making available right in the

MILITARY COMPENSATION AND

Notice of cancellation of public

This notice cancels the

The public hearings and town

The hearings and town hall

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christopher Nuneviller, Associate

[FR Doc. 201409656 Filed 42814; 8:45 am]

[Docket No. 20142]

BILLING CODE 141030P

Notice of Room Change: Public

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND

Notice of room change for

NASA Advisory Council; Science

U.S. Copyright Office, Library

The U.S. Copyright Office has

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Maria Strong, Senior Counsel for Policy

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

16:56 Apr 28, 2014

National Aeronautics and

In accordance with the

Contamination Limits for Planetary

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS

National Industrial Security Program

In accordance with the

Study on the Right of Making

The U.S. Copyright Office

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

17:46 Jul 14, 2014

and International Affairs, by telephone

and how particular provisions of Title

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Finding Aereos activities substantially

17:46 Jul 14, 2014

of interactive transmissions of content

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND