In search of copyright's lost ark: Interpreting the right to distribute in the internet age

Journal of the Copyright Society of the U.S.A.

Volumn 59, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 1-67

  Menell, Peter S ^a,b  

^a STANFORD LAW SCHOOL   (United States)

^b Berkeley Center for Law and Technology ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84859606815     PISSN: 08863520     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (224)

1. 2010 marked the 300th anniversary of the Statute of Anne, the British precursor of the U.S. copyright law. See 8 Anne c. 19 (1710).
2. See Pub. L. No. 105-304, §404,112 Stat. 2860 (1998) [hereinafter DMCA].
3. See ROBERT P. MERGES, PETER S. MENELL & MARK A. LEMLEY, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN THE NEW TECHNOLOGICAL AGE 672-81 (5th ed. 2010) (summarizing the DMCA's principal provisions).
4. Peter S. Menell, Envisioning Copyright Law's Digital Future, 46 N.Y.L. SCH. L. REV. 63, 63, 103-99 (2003).
5. See JOSEPH MENN, ALL THE RAVE 161 (2003) (quoting a venture capitalist's back-of-the-envelope calculation: "You've distributed more music than the whole record industry since it came into existence").
6. See Raymond Shih Ray Ku, The Creative Destruction of Copyright: Napster and the New Economics of Digital Technology, 69 U. CHI. L. REV. 263 (2002) (suggesting that "[c]opyright is no longer needed to encourage distribution because consumers themselves build and fund the distribution channels for digital content").
7. See Stan J. Liebowitz, File Sharing: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?, 49 J.L. & ECON. 1 (2006);
8. Rafael Rob & Joel Waldfogel, Piracy on the High C's: Music Downloading, Sales Displacement, and Social Welfare in a Sample of College Students, 49 J.L. & ECON. 29 (2006);
9. INT'L FED. OF THE PHONOGRAPHIC INDUS., IFPI DIGITAL MUSIC REPORT 2010, at 7, 18-22, available at http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/DMR2010.pdf (reporting a 30% decline in total music sales from 2004-09; quoting Teemu-Brunila, former lead singer for The Crash: "One year the band played Valmiera, the biggest music festival in Latvia. We drove from the airport and heard our songs on the radio. We headlined the festival and the 10,000-strong crowd roared out our songs. When we came off stage I asked our label representative how many records we sold in Latvia. The answer was a slap in the face. 200.");
10. Bono, Ten for the Next Ten, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 2, 2010, at WK10 (observing that "[a] decade's worth of music file-sharing and swiping makes clear that the people it hurts are the creators").
11. See John Borland & Cecily Barnes, Judge Issues Injunction Against Napster, CNET NEWS (Jul. 26, 2000), http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-243698.html.
12. See Menell, supra note 4, at 150.
13. See John Borland, File Swapping in the Legal Crosshairs, CNET NEWS (Dec. 2, 2002), http://news.cnet.com/File-swapping-in-the-legal-crosshairs/21001027-3- 975618.html.
14. See Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 259 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (CD. CaI. 2003).
15. Although the Supreme Court would later reverse Judge Wilson's decision on the alternative ground that Grokster could be liable for inducing unauthorized reproduction of copyright works, see Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005), and
16. Judge Wilson eventually found Grokster liable, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 454 F. Supp. 2d 966 (CD. Cal. 2006),
17. See Amy Harmon, The Price of Music: The Overview: 261 Lawsuits Filed on Music Sharing, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 9, 2003, at Al.
18. See Copy-wrongl Unpacking the $1.92M Downloading Verdict, WSJ BLOG (June 27, 2009), http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/06/27/copy-wrong-unpackingthe- 192m-downloading-verdict [hereinafter Copy-wrong!].
19. See Sarah McBride & Ethan Smith, Music Industry to Abandon Mass Suits, WALL ST. J. (Dec. 19, 2008), http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122966038836 021137.html.
20. See Sarah Jacobsson Purewal, Copyright Trolls: 200,000 BitTorrent Users Sued Since 2010, PC WORLD (Aug. 9, 2011);
21. Eriq Gardner, New Litigation Campaign Quietly Targets Tens of Thousands of Movie Downloaders, HOLLYWOOD REP. (Mar. 30, 2010), http://thresq. hollywoodreporter.com/20 10/03/new-litigation-campaign-targets-tens-of- thousands-of-bittorrent-users. html.
22. See Copy-wrong!, supra note 14.
23. See infra text accompanying notes 59-66.
24. See Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas, 579 F. Supp. 2d 1210 (D. Minn. 2008);
25. London-Sire Records, Inc. v. Doe 1, 542 F. Supp. 2d 153 (D. Mass. 2008).
26. See Nat'l Car Rental Sys., Inc. v. Computer Assoes. Int'l., Inc., 22 U.S.P.Q.2d 1375 (D. Minn. 1992).
27. See Nat'l Car Sys., 991 F.2d at 430 (footnote omitted).
28. It is well-established that fixation of a copyrighted work on a computer medium -such as a hard drive or even random access memory (for more than transitory duration) -constitutes a "copy." See MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 518-519 (9th Cir. 1993)
29. See Nat'l Car Sys., 991 F.2d at 430.
30. Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Webbworld, Inc., 991 F. Supp. 543, 551 (N.D. Tex. 1997) (concluding that defendant "distributed" copyrighted works by allowing its users to download and print copies of electronic image files);
31. Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Frena, 839 F. Supp. 1552 (M.D. FIa. 1993) (finding that copyrighted photographs posted on Internet Web Site implicated Playboy's exclusive right of distribution).
32. See CoStar Group, Inc. v. LoopNet, Inc., 373 F.3d 544, 549 (4th Cir. 2004);
33. ALS Scan, Inc. v. RemarQ Communities, Inc., 239 F.3d 619, 622 (4th Cir. 2001);
34. cf. Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Netcom On-Line Comm'n Servs., Inc., 907 F. Supp. 1361,1368-73 (N.D. CaI. 1995) (anticipating DMCA §512 in holding that an Internet provider which serves, without human intervention, as a passive conduit for copyrighted material, is not liable as a direct infringer).
35. A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1014 (9th Cir. 2001).
36. In re Napster, Inc. Copyright Litigation, 377 F. Supp. 2d 796, 802-05 (N.D. Cal. 2005).
37. 471 U.S. 539 (1985).
38. Id. at 552 (quoting H.R. REP. NO. 94-1476, at 62) (original alteration omitted); see also Ford Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Prods., Inc., 930 F.2d 277,299 (3d Cir.) (noting that "'[publication' and the exclusive right protected by section 106(3) . . . are for all practical purposes [ ] synonymous"),
39. cert. denied, 502 U.S. 939 (1991).
40. 17 U.S.C. §101 (2006).
41. In re Napster, Inc. Copyright Litigation, 377 F. Supp. 2d 796, 803-04 (N.D. CaI.
42. See In re Napster, Inc. Copyright Litigation, 377 F. Supp. 2d 796, 802-05 (N.D. CaI. 2005).
43. 7 See Perfect 10 v. Google, Inc., 416 F. Supp. 2d 828, 844-45 (CD. CaI. 2006).
44. See Perfect 10 v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146, 1162 (9th Cir. 2007).
45. See Brad King, The Day the Napster Died, WIRED (May 15, 2002), http://www. wired.com/news/mp3/0,1285,52540,00.html.
46. See Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 259 F. Supp. 2d 1029, 1043, 1046 (CD. CaI. 2003).
47. See Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005).
48. See Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 454 F. Supp. 2d 966 (CD. CaI. 2006).
49. See Universal City Studios, Prods., LLP v. Bigwood, 441 F. Supp. 2d 185 (D. Me. 2006).
50. see also Interscope Records v. Duty, No. 05-CV-3744, 2006 WL 988086, at*2 (D. Ariz. Apr. 14, 2006) (holding that the "mere presence of copyrighted [works] in [defendant's] share file may constitute copyright infringement").
51. Id. at*3. See also Arista Records, LLC v. Greubel, 453 F. Supp. 2d 961, 969 (N.D. Tex. 2006) (observing that "the right of distribution also has been identified as synonymous with the publication of a copyrighted work"). The court bolstered this conclusion by reference to Hotaling and the Ninth Circuit 2001 Napster decision. It distinguished Judge Patel's 2005 Napster ruling on the erroneous ground that the present case alleged direct infringement whereas Napster involved indirect infringement. Indirect liability must be premised on a finding of direct infringement. Thus, the court in Napster proceeded on the theory that users committed direct infringement for which Napster was indirectly liable.
52. 2006 WL 2844415, at*4 (W.D. Tex. July 17, 2006). See also Elektra Entm't Group, Inc. v. Barker, 551 F. Supp. 2d 234,243 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (concluding based on the text of the Copyright Act that Congress intended to treat "distribute" and "publication" "synonymously], " rejecting plaintiffs "contourless 'make available' right," and reading "distribute" strictly in conformity with the Copyright Act's definition of "publication").
53. 7 534 F. Supp. 2d 278, 282 (D. Conn. 2008) (quoting 4 WILLIAM PATRY, PATRY ON COPYRIGHT §13:9 (2007) and citing the Ninth Circuit's decision in Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146,1162 (9th Cir. 2007)).
54. See Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas, 579 F. Supp. 2d 1210,1216-25 (D. Minn. 2008) (largely tracking Judge Wake's reasoning in Howell).
55. See Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset, 680 F. Supp. 2d 1045, 1049 (D. Minn. 2010).
56. See Greg Sandoval, Jammie Thomas Rejects RIAA's $25,000 Settlement Offer, CNET (Jan. 27, 2010), http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001-3-10442482-261. html.
57. See Greg Sanoval, Joel Tenenbaum Follows in Jammie Thomas' Footsteps, CNET NEWS (July 28,2009), http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023-3-10298079-93. html.
58. See Affidavit in Support of Motion to Dismiss and in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment at 2, Sony BMG Music Entm't v. Tenenbaum, Civil Action NO.07-CV-11446 (D. Mass.) (filed Nov. 16, 2007), available at http:// joelfightsback.com/wp-content/uploads/487.pdf
59. See Ben Sheffner, Tenenbaum Takes the Stand: I Used P2P and Lied About It, ARS TECHNICA (July 30,2009), http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/ 07/tenenbaum-takes-the-stand-i-used-p2p-and-lied-about-it.ars
60. See Ben Sheffner, Copyrights & Campaigns, Plaintiffs Win Tenenbaum Case; Court Considers Rule 50 Ruling; Grants Directed Verdict on Copyright Liability, HOLLYWOOD REP. (July 31, 2009), http://thresq.hollywoodreporter. com/2010/03/new-litigation-campaign-targets-tens-of-thousands-of-bittor rent-users.html.
61. See Sony BMG Music Entm't v. Tenenbaum, 721 F. Supp. 2d 85,116 (D. Mass. 2010),
62. aff'd in part, vacated in part, rev'd in part, 660 F.3d 487 (1st Cir. 2011) (holding that district court violated principle of constitutional avoidance and inappropriately bypassed issue of common law remittur)
63. See Atlantic Recording Corp. v. Howell, 554 F. Supp. 2d 976, 981 (D. Ariz. 2008).
64. The discussion that follows is based upon the version of Nimmer on Copyright that was available to jurists and practitioners through August 2011. After reading this article, Professor Nimmer asked me to co-author a complete revision of the sections of Nimmer on Copyright relating to the scope of the distribution right and the definition of "publication." Consequently, Release 85 of Nimmer on Copyright adopts the analysis of this article. See 1 MELVILLE B. NIMMER & DAVID NIMMER, NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT §§4.01, 8.11 (2011).
65. 2 PAUL GOLDSTEIN, GOLDSTEIN ON COPYRIGHT §7.5.1 (3d ed. 2009) (2009 Supp.).
66. Obolensky v. G.P. Putnam's Sons, 628 F. Supp. 1552 (S.D.N.Y. 1986).
67. Minter v. Williams, 111 Eng. Rep. 781 (1835) (K.B.). For another source of the text of Minter v. Williams,
68. see 1WILLIAM CARPMAEL, ESQ., LAW REPORTS OF PATENT CASES 647-50 (A. MacIntosh 1843).
69. See 2 GOLDSTEIN, supra note 99 §7.5.1, at 7:127
70. STAFF OF THE H. COMM. ON THE JUDICIARY, 89TH CONG., COPYRIGHT LAW REVISION, PART 6: SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT OF THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS ON THE GENERAL REVISION OF THE U.S. COPYRIGHT LAW: 1965 REVISION BILL 19 (Comm. Print 1965) [hereinafter 1965 SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT].
71. See David O. Carson, Making the Making Available Right Available, 33 COLUM. J.L. & ARTS 135,135 (2010)
72. See, e.g., Joe Weissman, Distribution, I Presume: A Role for Presumptions in Establishing the "Making Available" Right, 27 CARDOZO ARTS & ENT. L.J. 737, 739 (2010);
73. Vincent J. Galluzzo, When "Now Known or Later Developed" Fails its Purpose: How P2P Litigation Has Turned the Distribution Right Upside-Down, 61 FLA. L. REV. 1165 (2009);
74. Ken Nicholds, The Free Jammie Movement: Is Making a File Available to Other Users over a Peerto-Peer Computer Network Sufficient to Infringe the Copyright Owner's 17 U.S.C. §106(3) Distribution Right?, 78 FORDHAM L. REV. 983,1001 (2009);
75. William Henslee, Money for Nothing and Music for Free? Why the RIAA Should Continue to Sue Illegal File-sharers, 9 J. MARSHALL REV. INTELL. PROP. L. 1 (2009).
76. Shana Dines, Actual Interpretation Yields "Actual Dissemination": An Analysis of the "Make Available" Theory Argued in Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Lawsuits, and Why Courts Ought To Reject It, 32 HASTINGS COMM. & ENT. L.J. 157 (2009).
77. See Brief Amici Curiae of Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge, United States Internet Industry Association, and Computer & Communica-tions Industry Association in Support of Defendant Jammie Thomas, Capitol Records v. Thomas, 579 F. Supp. 2d 1210 (No. 06-1497), at 6;
78. See The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Our Mission, http://www.pff.org/ about (last visited on Nov. 2, 2011).
79. See Thomas D. Sydnor III, The Making-Available Right Under U.S. Law, 16 PROGRESS ON POINT (The Progress & Freedom Foundation Mar. 2009)
80. (calling attention to Murray v. Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch.) 64, 118 (1804)
81. (requiring courts to defer to reasonable interpretations of U.S. statutes that implement U.S. international obligations); see also RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF FOREIGN RELATIONS LAW OF THE U.S. §114 (1987) ("Where fairly possible, a United States statute is to be construed so as not to conflict with international law or an international agreement of the United States.").
82. United States v. Clawson, 408 F.3d 556, 558 (8th Cir. 2005). Sydnor's article does not provide the full context for this analogy. More generally, Sydnor fails to fully expose counter-arguments to his position.
83. See National Information Infrastructure Copyright Protection Act of 1995: Hearing on H. R. 2441 and S. 1284 Before the Subcomm. on Courts and Intellectual Property of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 104th Cong. 44 (1995) (statement of Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights).
84. Those two treaties encompass the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performance and Phonograms Treaty. See 3 NIMMER & NIMMER, supra note 90, §12A.02[B].
85. See Online Copyright Liability Limitation Act, Hearing on HR. 2281 and H.R. 2280 Before the Subcomm. on Courts and Intellectual Property of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 105th Cong. 43-44 (1997) (statement of Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights).
86. H.R. REP. NO. 105-796, at 63 (1998) (Conf. Rep.).
87. The House Judiciary Committee's report on the DMCA states that "[t]he treaties do not require any change in the substance of copyright rights or exceptions in U.S. law." H.R. REP. NO. 105-551, at 9 (1998).
88. Letter from Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights, to Rep. Howard L. Berman, Subcomm. on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Prop. 1 (Sept. 25, 2002),
89. reprinted in 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)).
90. See Robert Kasunic, Making Circumstantial Proof of Distribution Available, 18 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. MEDIA & ENT. L.J. 1145 (2008).
91. See David O. Carson, Making the Making Available Right Available, 33 COLUM. J.L. & ARTS 135 (2010).
92. (noting the "well-established rule of construction" that "'[w]here Congress uses terms that have accumulated settled meaning under ... the common law, a court must infer, unless the statute otherwise dictates, that Congress means to incorporate the established meaning of these terms" (quoting Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318,322 (1992)
93. (quoting Community for Creative NonViolence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730,739 (1989));
94. see also United States v. Morrisette, 342 U.S. 246, 250 (1952) (observing that "where Congress borrows terms of art in which are accumulated the legal tradition and meaning of centuries of practice, it presumably knows and adopts the cluster of ideas that were attached to each borrowed word in the body of learning from which it was taken and the meaning its use will convey to the judicial mind unless otherwise instructed").
95. See U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE, REPORT OF THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS ON THE GENERAL REVISION OF THE U.S. COPYRIGHT LAW, at x (July 1961) [hereinafter 1961 REGISTER'S REPORT].
96. See Peter S. Menell & David Nimmer, Pooh-Poohing Copyright Law's "Inalienable" Termination Rights, 57 J. COPYRIGHT SOC'Y 799 (2010).
97. See KAMINSTEIN LEGISLATIVE HISTORY PROJECT : A COMPENDIUM AND ANALYTICAL INDEX OF MATERIALS LEADING TO THE COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1976 (Alan Latman & James F. Lightstone eds., 1981) (6 vols.);
98. OMNIBUS COPYRIGHT REVISION LEGISLATIVE HISTORY (George S. Grossman ed., 2001) (17 vols.).
99. See Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591 (1834);
100. EATON S. DRONE, A TREATISE ON THE LAW OF PROPERTY IN INTELLECTUAL PRODUCTIONS 100,11621 (1879).
101. NOAH WEBSTER, AMERICAN DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (S. Converse 1828) [hereinafter cited as WEBSTER'S 1828 DICTIONARY], available at http://1828.mshaffer.com.
102. University of Notre Dame, Latin Dictionary and Grammar Aid, http://www. archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookit.pl?latin=publico (last visited Oct. 29, 2011). 149 See WEBSTER'S 1828 DICTIONARY, supra note 147.
103. see also Ladd v. Oxnard, 75 F. 703,729-30 (CC Mass. 1896) (holding that making copies of a book available to subscribers on loan, even with the restriction that it should not be passed to others, was a general publication since there was no limit placed on the extent or number of persons to whom the book might be distributed).
104. See D'Ole v. Kansas City Star Co., 94 F. 840, 842 (CC Mo. 1899);
105. see also Chapman v. Ferry, 18 F. 539, 541 (CC Or. 1883) (indicating that offering for sale to the public would constitute publication under copyright law).
106. See EVAN JAMES MACGILLIVARY, A TREATISE UPON THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT 261-62 (1902) (emphasis added).
107. See H.R. REP. NO. 60-2222, at 4 (1909).
108. see also H.R. REP. NO. 60-2222, at 12 (stating that the "notice now required by law . . . must be very strictly followed in order to prevent forfeiture of the copyright").
109. American Visuals Corp. v. Holland, 239 F.2d 740, 744 (2d Cir. 1956).
110. Benjamin Kaplan, Publication in Copyright Law: The Question of Phonograph Records, 103 U. PA. L. REV. 469, 488-89 (1955);
111. see also Melville B. Nimmer, Copyright Publication, 56 COLUM. L. REV. 185, 185 (1956)
112. See Berne Convention Implementation Act, Pub. L. No. 100-568, §13(a), 102 Stat. 2853, 2861 (1988).
113. See 1965 SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT, supra note 114, at ix-xvi (summarizing the program for general revision of the Copyright Act).
114. See 1961 REGISTER'S REPORT, supra note 136, at x.
115. See 1961 REGISTER'S REPORT, supra note 136, at 24 (emphasis added).
116. See H. COMM. ON THE JUDICIARY, 88TH CONG., COPYRIGHT LAW REVISION, PART 2: DISCUSSION AND COMMENTS ON REPORT OF THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS ON THE GENERAL REVISION OF THE U.S. COPYRIGHT LAW (Comm. Print 1963),
117. reprinted in 3 OMNIBUS COPYRIGHT REVISION LEGISLATIVE HISTORY (1976) [hereinafter COPYRIGHT LAW REVISION, PART 2].
118. See H. COMM. ON THE JUDICIARY, 88TH CONG, COPYRIGHT LAW REVISION, PART 3: PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR REVISED U.S. COPYRIGHT LAW AND DISCUSSIONS AND COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT (Comm. Print 1964),
119. reprinted in 3 OMNIBUS COPYRIGHT REVISION LEGISLATIVE HISTORY (1976) [hereinafter COPYRIGHT LAW REVISION, PART 3].
120. See Transcript of Meeting on Preliminary Draft for Revised U.S. Copyright Law: Discussions of §§5-8, reprinted in COPYRIGHT LAW REVISION, PART 3),
121. See S. 1006, 89th Cong., A Bill for the General Revision of the Copyright Law, Title 17 of the U.S. Code, and for Other Purposes,
122. reprinted in 8 OMNIBUS COPYRIGHT REVISION LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 3,8 (2001) (emphasis added)
123. . See 1965 SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT, supra note 114, at 15.
124. See 1965 SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT, supra note 114, at 13-14.
125. See H.R. REP. NO. 94-1476, at 48 (1976) [hereinafter 1976 HOUSE REPORT] (recounting the long gestation of the Copyright Act of 1976).
126. See 1965 SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT, supra note 114, at 224.
127. See 1965 SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT, supra note 114, at 258 (emphasis added).
128. See COPYRIGHT LAW REVISION: PART 2, supra note 169, at 24.
129. COPYRIGHT LAW REVISION, Part 3, supra note 170, at 4 (text of Preliminary Draft §5).
130. See 1964 Bill §5(a), reprinted in 1965 SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT, supra note 114, at 187.
131. See H. COMM. ON THE JUDICIARY, 89TH CONG., COPYRIGHT LAW REVISION PART 5, 1964 REVISION BILL WITH DISCUSSIONS AND COMMENTS 57 (Comm. Print, 1965) [hereinafter COPYRIGHT LAW REVISION, PART 5].
132. See 1965 SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT, supra note 114, at 16.
133. See H.R. REP. NO. 94-1476, at 61.
134. See U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE, SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT OF THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS ON THE GENERAL REVISION OF THE U.S. COPYRIGHT LAW 312 (Comm. Print 1975) (noting that "'[p]ublication,' perhaps the most important single concept under the present law, also represents its most serious defect").
135. See 1909 Act §26.
136. See supra text accompanying notes 147-150.
137. See supra text accompanying notes 160-161
138. See id. at 9-10
139. (citing Jewelers' Mercantile Agency, Ltd., v. Jewelers' Weekly Publ'g Co., 49 N.E. 872, 875 (N.Y. 1898)
140. and Ladd v. Oxnard, 75 F. 703, 729-30 (CC Mass. 1896))
141. See 1961 REGISTER'S REPORT, supra note 164, at 40-41
142. See 1965 SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT, supra note 114, at xi
143. See id. at 81-85
144. See id. at 99
145. See id. at 172
146. See 1976 HOUSE REPORT, supra note 182 at 182
147. See S. 644, 92nd Cong. (1971) (emphasis added). Congress added the third sentence of the definition -"A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication." -in 1974.
148. See S. REP. NO. 93983, at 5 (1974)
149. See 1976 HOUSE REPORT, supra note 181, at 48-49.
150. Federal action was particularly critical because of concern that recent Supreme Court decisions could be seen to preempt state and common law remedies to combat record piracy. See Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., 376 U.S. 225 (1964);
151. Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc., 376 U.S. 234, 237 (1964);
152. see also Letter of Deputy Attorney General Richard G. Kleindienst to House Judiciary Committee, reprinted in H.R. REP. NO. 92-487, at 12 (Sept. 22, 1971)
153. [hereinafter SRAA HOUSE REPORT]
154. Pub. L. No. 92-140, 85 Stat. 391 (1971)
155. 25 U.S.T. 309,888 U.N.T.S. 67 (Oct. 29,1971)
156. [hereinafter Geneva Phonogram Convention]
157. See SRAA HOUSE REPORT, supra note 210, at 3
158. See SRAA HOUSE REPORT, supra note 210, at 2 . 217
159. See SRAA HOUSE REPORT, supra note 210, at 10-11 (emphasis added)
160. See generally William N. Eskridge, Jr. & Philip P. Frickey, Statutory Interpretation as Practical Reasoning, 42 STAN. L. REV. 321 (1990) (exploring the landscape of approaches to statutory interpretation and positing a pragmatic positive framework)
161. See United States v. James, 478 U.S. 597, 604 (1986)
162. (quoting Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723, 756 (1975) (Powell, J., concurring))
163. "[T]he 'strong presumption' that the plain language of the statute expresses congressional intent is rebutted only in 'rare and exceptional circumstances,' when a contrary legislative intent is clearly expressed." Ardestani v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 502 U.S. 129, 135-36 (1991)
164. (citing Immigration & Naturalization Serv. v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 432, n.12 (1987)
165. and quoting Rubin v. United States, 449 U.S. 424, 430 (1981))
166. See United States v. Universal C.I.T. Credit Corp., 344 U.S. 218, 222 (1952) (Consideration of the "specific history of the legislative process that culminated in the [statute at issue] affords . . . solid ground for giving it appropriate meaning" and for resolving ambiguity present in statutory text.).
167. Statutory history as well as bill history can also be important. See, e.g., United States v. Wells, 519 U.S. 482,492-93 (1997)
168. (consolidation of a number of separate provisions supports the "natural reading" of the current law); Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. 561, 581-82 (1995) (legislative history supports reading of "prospectus" in Securities Act as being limited to initial public offerings);
169. Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter, 515 U.S. 687, 70406 (1995) (relying on committee explanations of word "take" in Endangered Species Act).
170. See WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, UNABRIDGED 660 (Philip Babcock Gove ed., 1961, 1993) (some examples and synonyms omitted; emphasis in original)
171. [hereinafter WEBSTER'S THIRD DICTIONARY]. Note that Webster's provided the same definition in both its 1961 and 1993 editions. The 1961 edition would have been available to the drafters of the Copyright Act at the time that the word "distribute" was adopted
172. The only court to expressly examine the dictionary definition of "distribute" focuses narrowly on the apportionment definition. See Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas, 579 F. Supp. 2d 1201, 1217 (D. Minn. 2008).
173. See WEBSTER'S THIRD DICTIONARY, supra note 227, at 1923,1287
174. As Learned Hand has taught, "There is no surer way to misread any document than to read it literally." Guiseppi v. Walling, 144 F.2d 608, 624 (2d Cir. 1944)
175. (L. Hand, C.J., concurring), aff'd sub nom., Gemsco, Inc. v. Walling, 324 U.S. 244 (1945)
176. " Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457,459 (1892).
177. See generally Carol Chomsky, Unlocking the Mysteries of Holy Trinity: Spirit, Letter, and History in Statutory Interpretation, 100 COLUM. L. REV. 901 (2000)
178. See Keith A. Christiansen, Technological Change and Statutory Interpretation, 1968 Wis. L. REV. 556
179. Peer-to-peer technology was not even anticipated at the time Congress passed the DMCA in 1998. See Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am., Inc. v. Verizon Internet Servs., Inc., 351 F.3d 1229, 1238 (D.C Cir. 2003) (suggesting that peer-to-peer technology was "unforeseen" at the time Congress passed the DMCA).
180. There is not a single mention of "peer-to-peer" technology or file-sharing networks in the legislative history of the DMCA. See H.R. REP. No. 105-796 (1998) (Conference Report, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to accompany H.R. 2281);
181. H.R. REP. No. 105-551, pts. 1, 2 (1998) (House Judiciary Committee Report, Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 to accompany H.R. 2281);
182. S. REP. NO. 105-190 (1998) (Senate Judiciary Committee Report, Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998)
183. See 1965 SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT, supra note 114, at 14
184. See Guiseppi v. Walling, 144 F.2d 608, 624 (2d Cir. 1944) (L. Hand, C.J., concurring)
185. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318, 322 (1992)
186. (quoting Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 739 (1989));
187. see Standard Oil Co. of N.J. v. United States, 221 U.S. 1, 59 (1911) ("[W]here words are employed in a statute which had at the time a well-known meaning at common law or in the law of this country, they are presumed to have been used in that sense")
188. WEBSTER'S THIRD DICTIONARY, supra note 227, at 1837. Definition 1 conveys the emphasis on making available. Definition 3 comes closest to the copyright usage -emphasizing making available and releasing creative work to the public
189. DRONE, supra note 144, at 291
190. SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT, supra note 114, at 19
191. 17 U.S.C §§203(a)(3), 407 (2006).
192. See supra text accompanying notes 183-188
193. See Geneva Phonogram Convention art. 1(d)
194. See supra note 220 and accompanying text
195. 554 F. Supp. 2d 976, 985 (D. Arize. 2008)
196. IRD DICTIONARY, supra note 227, at 53a
197. See id. at 146-47 (some examples and synonyms omitted; emphasis in original)
198. Washington Cnty. v. Gunther, 452 U.S. 161,169 (1981)
199. (quoting BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 122 (5th ed. 1979) (defining "authorize" as "[t]o empower; to give a right or authority to act")
200. 533 U.S. 483, 489 (2001) (emphasis added)
201. 464 U.S. 417, 433 (1984) (emphasis added)
202. COPYRIGHT LAW REVISION, PART 2, supra note 169, at 24
203. COPYRIGHT LAW REVISION, PART 3, supra note 170, at 123
204. COPYRIGHT LAW REVISION, PART 5, supra note 195, at 57
205. SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT, supra note 114, at 16
206. HOUSE REPORT, supra note 182, at 61
207. See COPYRIGHT LAW REVISION: PART 3, supra note 170, at 122-23 (emphasis added)
208. See Ardestani v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 502 U.S. 129, 135-36 (1991)
209. (citing Immigration & Naturalization Serv. v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421,432, n. 12 (1987)
210. and quoting Rubin v. United States, 449 U.S. 424, 430 (1981))
211. See supra Part III.C.l, supra
212. See 1965 SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT, supra note 114, at 14
213. See COPYRIGHT LAW REVISION: PART 2, supra note 169, at 24
214. See 1965 SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT, supra note 114, at 14
215. See IFPI DIGITAL MUSIC REPORT 2010, supra note 7, at 18-22.
216. Although various factors have affected sound recording revenues, there is little ques-tion today that file-sharing has played a substantial role. See Liebowitz, supra note 7; Rob & Waldfogel, supra note 7
217. See Mark A. Lemley & R. Anthony Reese, Reducing Digital Copyright Without Restricting Innovation, 56 STAN. L. REV. 1345 (2004)
218. See id. at 1386-90. The effects of indirect copyright liability on technological innovation, however, are complex and subtle. While technological progress often furthers society's interests, it can also lead to undesired and unintended consequences. For this reason, tort law, government regulation and industry self-regulation seek to constrain and channel technological innovation in socially desirable ways. See Peter S. Menell, Indirect Copyright Liability and Technological Change, 32 COLUM. J.L. & ARTS 375, 381 (2009)
219. See Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset, 799 F. Supp. 2d 999, (D. Minn. 2011) (substantially reducing jury's statutory damages award on constitutional grounds);
220. Sony BMG Music Entm't v. Tenenbaum, 721 F. Supp. 2d 85, 116 (D. Mass 2010) (same)
221. See IFPI Digital Music Report 2010, supra note 7 at 18-22
222. See Dave Itzkoff, "Avatar" Commandeers Film Piracy Record, N.Y. TIMES, at A2 (Jan. 5, 2010) (reporting that Avatar was illegally downloaded nearly 1,000,000 times in the first week following its theatrical release);
223. Greg Sandoval, "Hurt Locker" Producers Follow RIAA Footsteps, CNET NEWS (May 12, 2010), http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001-3-20004860-261.html (noting that the winner of the 2009 Academy Award for Best Picture had earned only $16 million at the box office as a result of having been leaked onto the Internet five months before its U.S. theatrical release)
224. 273 See Sarah Jacobsson Purewal, Copyright Trolls: 200,000 BitTorrent Users Sued Since 2010, PC WORLD (Aug. 9,2011), http://www.pcworld.com/article/ 2375 93/copyright-trolls-200000-bittorrent-users-sued-since-2010.html.