Singularity Law

Over the past several years there have been a steady stream of stories about the record industry pursuing alleged song downloaders from P2P networks. While hundreds of lawsuits have been filed against those who have downloaded songs from the Internet, thousands of alleged downloaders have received “settlement letters,” which accuse them of copyright infringement and offer to settle out-of-court for thousand of dollars. Most of the recipients of these letters have been college students, and while exact figures are not publicly available, it is a safe guess that a significant percentage of the students (and their parents) have settled, rather than incurring the enormous legal fees required to fight the RIAA.

The revenues generated by this scheme have not gone unnoticed by other copyright owners whose works do not have the ubiquity online of popular music. In the last few weeks, various news stories have surfaced that claim that some owners of copyrighted works have decided to tap into this revenue windfall by surreptitiously posting their own copyrighted works online, waiting until users download them, and then threatening a lawsuit unless the downloaders pay them off. One article claims that certain copyright owners are “priming the pump” by posting their own works online, and then threatening litigation in order to wrest fat settlements from those who download their works. A second article claims that an American pornographer hired a German company to post his videos online, and then hired a law firm to threaten downloaders with copyright infringement litigation unless they “settled” and paid a significant sum.

Some commentators have argued that if a copyright owner uploads its copyrighted content to a free downloading site, the owner should be deemed to have impliedly licensed the downloading of that content, and such license should preclude a later claim of copyright infringement. I agree with that view. The problem that I see with asserting that defense is that 1) the downloader has already been sued and will have to incur the legal fees necessary to establish the defense, and 2) it will be very difficult to prove that the copyright owner authorized the posting of the works on the downloading service.

The proof issue is the major problem with defending against these bogus claims. Copyright owners who choose to implement this scheme generally are not going to post the works from their own computer, nor use employees or third parties who can easily be tracked down and who have no incentive to lie under oath. Instead, they will take steps to hide their tracks, using anonymous posting services, public terminals or hackers to post the materials. That will make it virtually impossible to track the postings back to the copyright owner. In addition, most accused downloaders will not have the money or the expertise to track down the party who actually uploaded the works in the first place and establish the copyright owner’s complicity in the scam.

This scam seems almost unstoppable. You can be sure that more scammers will be using it in the future. As long as copyright law allows owners to extort huge sums out of individuals who download copyrighted materials for personal use, this scheme will proliferate.