In this session, we're going to talk about infringement.

Infringement looks at the question of "Have I

violated copyright or have I in some way infringed on other people's rights?"

To infringe means to overlap or to go against somebody else's rights.

And so this kind of relates to the question of "Can I be sued?"

Did I do something wrong?

Did I do something that infringed on or stepped on somebody else's rights?

And many times you may say "I don't think that I broke the law.

I'm not sure. Can I be sued?"

And infringement doesn't actually have to be intentional nor does it have to be direct.

So you might have infringed on other people's rights in

ways that are not necessarily direct but you still could be sued.

So one example of that is vicarious infringement — somebody else

infringed and you have infringed through facilitating or enabling their actions.

The second is direct infringement — you did

something which clearly directly violates copyright.

And the third is contributory infringement — you didn't actually do anything to infringe

Let's look at each of these individually.

First, vicarious infringement.

A person or entity, like a corporation,

indirectly and illegally uses copyright work even if they're not aware of it.

So an example of that might be you share music illegally,

you put it up on BitTorrent,

BitTorrent could be sued.

They could be sued even though they didn't put the music up,

one of their users did.

And the lawsuit could be that BitTorrent or YouTube is

violating copyright by sharing music that's not legal to share.

Can YouTube be sued?

Well, they were. Of course, they have been.

And YouTube's settlement with the studios and copyright holders is

"we will agree to quickly take things down" if you object.

And so, YouTube's very quick to take things down.

Many users say, "that's not fair", "it's not right",

"I should have the right to do this",

and YouTube says, "you know what,

I really don't want to get sued."

And this could be for a lot of money.

It's not that YouTube did anything specifically wrong or BitTorrent,

it's that they contributed or vicariously, I'm sorry,

not contributed, they vicariously infringed copyright through someone else.

Someone else infringed but they enabled, facilitated that infringement.

Or Sony was sued for

vicarious infringement for creating a VCR that allowed people to record TV shows.

Sony had to go to court and it was a tough legal case that was

fought all the way through appeals up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Cost a fortune to defend against and eventually Sony

won and VCRs were allowed to make copies of TV shows,

but only under a fair use exception to copyright laws because Sony's VCR was deemed to

have made illegal copies unless a fair use exception could be applied in that situation.

Sony eventually won but it was a tough case that cost a lot of money.

The second is direct infringement.

You did something.

You reproduced or distributed or displayed or performed

That's pretty easy.

You directly violated somebody else's right.

You photocopied a textbook — that's direct infringement.

You did it. You're guilty. You shouldn't have done it.

You don't have a fair use exception.

Guilty — direct infringement.

You sold an illegal DVD.

What rights did you violate or you copied it in the first place?

That's reproduction rights, and you distribute it by selling it or giving it.

Either is the same, whether the sale is for price or

no price or you posted it on the Internet — that's distribution.

So the copying is illegal,

the distributing is illegal.

That's direct infringement.

The third area's probably the most complex and this is contributory infringement,

and this is where you induce someone else to violate copyright.

Let me give an example of that.

As a professor, I could say to students,

"I can't tell you to copy the textbook."

That would be illegal,

but there happens to be a copy of the textbook in

this copy center and they have a self-service copier.

They won't copy it for you because they don't want to violate copyright,

but they have a self-service copy center that you can use your student card with

your allowed budget on it

and you can copy it in the self-service copier.

Could I be sued as the professor?

Absolutely. I'm contributing to their infringement.

I'm encouraging or inducing the students by putting the textbook copy there,

by telling them about it.

I'm encouraging or contributing to their bad behavior.

Can the copy center be sued? For sure.

They put a self-service copier there,

they put the textbook there,

they know it's there and they've encouraged or induced students to make copies.

Therefore, the copy center is liable,

the professor is liable,

and the students are liable for direct infringement,

but the professor and the copy center are liable for contributory infringement,

and the copy center is also liable for vicarious infringement

by putting that copy machine there and making it easy.

They not only induced you to make copies — contributory infringement,

but they also facilitated your doing it — vicarious infringement, both.

Sometimes, infringement can be unconscious or unintentional.

A good example of that is George Harrison of the Beatles.

Fantastic music, great musician.

Wrote the song "My Sweet Lord."

He was sued by The Chiffons,

because the Chiffons said "My Sweet Lord" sounds a lot like "He's So Fine."

Now, if you listen to the two songs, you would say,

"George Harrison song is clearly very different from the Chiffons songs."

Styles different, the music before is different,

but the key thing the court found is that

the core chord structure of the melody is the same.

In George Harrison's song,

you can listen to it on the Internet,

play it and you'll find it sounds

very much like the Beatles and like George Harrison's creation,

but the melody repeated over and over again is "my sweet lord."

The Chiffons, a different style but their melody

repeated over and over throughout the song is "he's so fine."

Other parts of the melody are also repeated.

The judge said, "Too close.

Too coincidental.

I don't believe that this was not a copy".

George Harrison said, "No, I created it myself.

I never copied anything."

The judge said, "You know I believe that you never meant to copy,

but I believe that you subconsciously copied because it is the same rhythm.

It is the same notes.

It's too close."

And the argument was The Chiffons song was on

the radio when George Harrison was a teenager. He heard it.

He had to have heard it because he listened to top radios.

He loved music.

He loved the top hits so he heard it.

It went into his mind and years later, subconsciously,

that set of notes and that rhythm came

out in his creation — so subconsciously, he copied.

That's direct infringement of creating a derivative work or work based on the original,

but it was unintentional and subconscious, he's still liable.

So types of infringement could be vicarious,

that means somebody else did it but you

benefited from it and you had the ability to control it.

Or direct, you did the infringing,

you broke copyright laws.

Or you've contributed to someone else doing it by

encouraging them or giving them incentives to do it.

Three different kinds of infringements,

three reasons to sue.

Thank you. We'll see you on our next session.

1.7 The infringement

Protecting Business Innovations via Copyright

Meet the Instructors