Print 85 comment(s) - last by Targon.. on Nov 23 at 10:56 AM

We chat about the latest legal copyright related controversies with a seasoned legal professional

At DailyTech we are always looking for diverse opinions from those with experience and knowledge in fields relating to the tech industry.  Thus DailyTech was quite enthused when Jeffrey Johnson, a partner with Pryor Cashman LLP agreed to do a piece with us discussing copyright and the tech industry.  Pryor Cashman is one of the nation's leading law firms with 120 attorneys, with offices in New York and Los Angeles.  The firm has worked on numerous cases concerning the software/hardware/internet industries and the entertainment industry.

The following is our unabridged interview with Mr. Johnson.

UPDATE: Monday, Nov. 16, 2009, 1:00 p.m.

Many readers asked for Mr. Johnson to reply to the question about the legality of backup copies of DVDs/CDs.  Rather than let these requests fall on deaf ears, we recontacted Mr. Johnson, and his response is now included below.

What do you make of the current state of copyright law, and what parallels do you see to the stir that happened when Xerox hit the scene, offering easy copying of print media and potential infringement?

Generally speaking, and for many understandable policy reasons, law can be slow to change: usually, its a trailing indicator of changes in society at large, and when it does change, those changes ordinarily come about as new legislation or new ways of doing business, rather than judges imposing social change through case law. By way of example, when copyright law was first developed, there was no such thing as a copier. Copying a book was a laborious process, and few people would undertake that process for a non-commercial purpose like sharing the contents with a friend; instead, they would actually share the book itself. When Xerox and other manufacturers made it so easy to copy books, it suddenly became very easy to copy a few pages from a book (or the entire thing for that matter, so long as you had enough nickels) and share them with a friend, or take them home from the library to work on your paper. It took the law several years to figure out how best to deal with the new technology, and even then most of the issues were worked out privately between rights holders (e.g., book publishers) and the owners of widely-accessible copy machines, such as libraries.

While 21st century technology is much different, the underlying process of grappling with technological change, and deciding how the law will change to cope with that new technology, is very similar. When judges try to apply old case law, and old legislation, to new technology, they frequently find that the law simply doesn't address the new circumstances in a manner that allows for sensible results, so they look to the legislators to make changes in the law that will allow for realistic solutions. The legislators, however, are beholden to competing interests that ensure that such change will be slow in coming.

Do you see the music/movies/television industries' legal crusade against citizens who pirate as productive? With rulings like the recent $1.92M USD verdict against Jammie Thomas-Rassert drawing public ire, how can the industry fight piracy, while not coming across as a bunch of thugs?


It's not easy. Until the law catches up with technological change, rights holders can, and I think should, seek to protect and enforce their rights under the law. Those suits, and the public response to those suits, may prove to be one of the best ways to spur legislators to make the hard legislative choices necessary to allow for more practical outcomes than forcing large industries to sue their customers.

Microsoft recently kicked 1 million users off of Xbox Live for modifying their consoles.  Likewise, Apple tried to brick iPhones that were unlocked or jailbroken, back in 2007. In your opinion should the law allow users who legally purchased products to modify them freely, or should the opposite -- a ban on modifications -- be enforced?

As a practical matter, I can't imagine a public consensus developing around a change in the law that would allow end-users to freely modify products that are used to access third party content. Vigorously enforcing a ban on modifications, however, may prove to be impractical. I can imagine a compromise where modifications are allowed subject to some process of review and approval (similar to how Apple handles iPhone apps), or perhaps where machines that can be modified are sold along-side versions that can't, with the machines that can be modified having reduced or altered functionality, or perhaps a much higher price. The key complication is the fact that there are two parties to the transaction -- the manufacturer of the machine and the end-user -- but hundreds of other affected parties (i.e., the owners of all the content that is run on the machine). Getting a consensus from all those parties won't be easy.

One of the key drivers for modification of Xbox consoles is to make backup copies of discs. The RIAA/MPAA have long stated that backups of legally-owned materials are illegal and that "making one copy is another way of saying stole one copy". Should such backups, in your view, be legal? Why or why not?


I think this is a good example of where the law and technology are no longer synchronized. It is generally correct that, as a legal matter, unless a written contract (e.g., license agreement) otherwise allows, it is a violation of copyright law to copy a copyrighted work for purposes of making a "back-up" copy. This is no different than making copies of a hard cover novel or a vinyl album just in case you lose or damage it. Nobody ever seriously grappled with the issue of whether you should have a right to make a copy of a book or an album and keep it on your shelf for that eventuality, arguably because the risk of loss/damage was relatively low, and the cost of copying was relatively high. It seems to me there is little difference with a machine-readable disc, except that the likelihood of damage or loss of the disc is probably higher, while the cost of making a copy is much lower. Accordingly, the real challenge is not construing existing law; rather, it is deciding how, if at all, to change the law in light of a new technological reality.

A UK independent musician from the band Orange Juice says that a variety of major labels have infringed on his songs. He claims such examples of major labels claiming to own copyrights of small musicians (which they don't hold) to be common. What do you make of this, and how do your react to the light that this casts on the major labels campaign against civilian infringers?

These types of disputes are not new, but the vast majority of newly composed music does not get held hostage to a dispute over copyright ownership. When it does, it's a pretty straight-forward legal question, and the courts, however imperfect, are probably still the best place to resolve the issue. While I'm sure there are some unscrupulous label execs. who try to steal music their label's don't rightfully own, there are also musicians who, in all sincerity, hear their own music in tunes actually composed by others.

What's your view on the "three strikes" laws proposed in France, UK, Australia, and elsewhere, that propose cutting off internet filesharers after two warnings, forcing ISPs to cut their service?


We all have to start experimenting with new options to deal with new technology. Whether this approach will work I can't say, but I'm skeptical.

DailyTech thanks Jeffrey Johnson for his time and for providing us with some insightful responses into how some in the law community view various copyright-related issues.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Take that and suck on it
By lewislink on 11/16/2009 2:36:21 PM , Rating: -1
You read the law experts. Now stop breaking the law and stop teaching your children to break the law. Stop trying to find every reason you can to justify breaking the law. You who copy and backup copyrighted media are nothing more than criminals and a cancer on the economy. You think because you believe yourself to be good and decent and law abiding that if you deem a copy or backup of the copyrighted media acceptable, that it is no longer illegal. You also think if you need to copy or backup a copyrighted media it should be legal and you should be allowed to do it. Unfortunately for you, you are still a criminal if you do it.

If you want so badly to copy or backup copyrighted media, change the a legal process, not inside your head.

Abide in the law and learn how to navigate life inside the law!

RE: Take that and suck on it
By rs1 on 11/16/2009 2:50:12 PM , Rating: 5
The law is broken right now. And when the law is broken, it's justifiable to not follow it.

Which isn't to say that right-holders aren't entitled to any compensation. But you are definitely in need of a more thoughtful opinion on the issue.

Laws can be changed, and evolve over time. We are currently at a point where the law must be changed, because it no longer functions adequately in the context of the digital age. Saying "the law is the law" is a poor argument at best, and downright Orwellian at worst.

RE: Take that and suck on it
By lewislink on 11/16/09, Rating: 0
RE: Take that and suck on it
By rs1 on 11/16/2009 3:47:54 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, if you read the post directly below this one, you'd see that I'm trying to propose a solution that would amend the current law in such a way that individual users can download/copy/backup to their heart's content, while still providing fair compensation to the rights-holders. I'm not for unchecked piracy with no compensation, but I'm also not for pretending that the laws we currently have are good enough to deal with the current situation, because they're not anymore.

And murder is justified, if done in self-defense. But not any other time. The law would even back me up on that one.

RE: Take that and suck on it
By lewislink on 11/16/09, Rating: 0
RE: Take that and suck on it
By mindless1 on 11/18/2009 3:40:08 AM , Rating: 2
Your trolling gets boring, don't you know another tune?

You haven't "suffered" anyone, it's your time and your narrow minded interpretation of what OTHERS are supposed to do to suit you that is your burden.

You live your life any way you want, and in return you have to extend the same to others.

RE: Take that and suck on it
By akugami on 11/16/2009 4:28:05 PM , Rating: 2
I remember a time in the past when there were some damned law breaking colonies who wouldn't follow the rightful laws of their sovereign state. I believe they had a war over it or some such. Wonder how those thirteen colonies did?

Laws are not always just or relevant. We need to cut away the fat and repeal or revise old laws that are no longer relevant in today's society. In fact, the Constitution of the United States allows for revision and addition of laws for situations they did not or could not envision.

RE: Take that and suck on it
By lewislink on 11/16/09, Rating: 0
RE: Take that and suck on it
By Ard on 11/16/2009 4:51:40 PM , Rating: 2
At one point in our history harboring a slave was illegal, yet there were people who were willing to risk breaking that law because the law was fundamentally broken and unjust. While the legality of slavery is partly a moral question, the argument can be applied to the current state of copyright law. Simply because there is a law prohibiting something, doesn't mean the law is right (i.e. cohabitation laws, anti-miscegenation laws, etc.).

Simply put, copyright law is a fundamentally broken and anachronistic body of law that no longer has a basis in reality. I'm sorry, but I still stand by the first sale and fair use doctrines. I can do whatever I please with something I've legally purchased so long as I'm not running afoul of any other laws (i.e. resell that item, make a personal copy for archival purposes, etc.), in spite of the nonsense contained within the DMCA.

RE: Take that and suck on it
By Leper Messiah on 11/16/2009 4:54:53 PM , Rating: 2
Don't bother using logic with this dude, I made effectively the same argument and somehow got called a racist. He's just a dumb troll getting his jollies by looking like an idiot.

"It's okay. The scenarios aren't that clear. But it's good looking. [Steve Jobs] does good design, and [the iPad] is absolutely a good example of that." -- Bill Gates on the Apple iPad

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki