Internet Censorship vs. Copyright Infringement: a mini-case study in The Pirate Bay?

The Pirate Bay, a massively popular site where users can find links to pirated content via an internal search engine, has run up against copyright laws since its birth in 2003. Now, the file-sharing site’s founders Peter Sunde, Fredrik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm and Carl Lundström are paying the price as Sweden’s Supreme Court rejected an appeal to relieve them of prison sentences and a cumulative $6.7 million fine.

This case, ruled on October 29^th, represents a wider controversy between groups which fear that shutting down sites like the Pirate Bay contribute to censorship and groups which see free file-sharing as an infringement on the copyrights of record companies. This ongoing battle between the camps have come to a head in recent years, infamously begun by the prosecution of Napster in 2001, in cases like the Pirate Bay. Are sites like these stealing from artists by not paying for the right to share the music? Should companies required to pay for the musical copyrights of songs when their websites only guide the user on where to download pirated files, or rely on peer-peer file-sharing?

In the case of the Pirate Bay, the legal victor has been the record companies. The site is now blocked in the UK, the Netherlands, Italy, and Finland, and the list is growing. According to several technology blogs, Neij, Svartholm, and Lundström feared that the United States was also looking to prosecute. In seeking to avoid litigation from the US, the site’s domain was changed from American-registered “.org” to Sweden’s “.se” in February of this year. Additionally, the site now utilizes the cloud to avoid detection from authorities. Though the legalities are debatable as to whether or not these methods prevent the Pirate Bay from seizure, it is likely that the United States will attempt to follow the international trend and ban the site. Historically, the US has been actively pursuing similar litigation suits with other popular torrent sites such as surfthechannel, which led to a website block and a jail sentence for piracy.

For better or for worse, the precedent set by the Supreme Court of Sweden in the Pirate Bay case reflects a support for record companies over expanding internet user freedoms. Nevertheless, the ongoing battle between copyright infringement codes and internet censorship promises to continue to play out in the years (and legal cases) ahead.

Posted by: Sophia Higgins

Sources: BBC, Time, PC World

Photo credit: The Pirate Bay Makes Itself Raid-Proof by Moving to the Cloud @ photostream courtesy of Flickr user methodshop.com

The Importance of Intellectual Property in the U.S.

Most experts and policymakers are aware of the critical role innovation plays in the U.S. economy.  It underpins our competitive advantages and is the source of continued economic growth and prosperity.  As America seeks to regain its competitive edge in the wake of the Great Recession, innovation remains a major point of discussion in policy circles.  A key factor that has enabled America’s strong innovation environment is intellectual property and its standards.  A solid intellectual property (IP) regime, and the rights it guarantees, provides innovation incentives and protections, creating a climate the rewards risk-taking, creative thinking, and ceaseless advancement.  It’s safe to say that intellectual property is important to the U.S. economy, but just how important?

The U.S. Department of Commerce just released a joint report from the Economics and Statistics Administration and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that goes a long way in answering that question.  The report cites that IP has both direct and indirect benefits for almost every industry, and these benefits flow upstream and downstream in the production chains.  IP is used “everywhere in the economy” and the rights granted to holders of IP “support innovation and creativity in virtually every industry.”  While all industries rely on some form of IP, the report identifies 75 industries as “IP-intensive,” approximately one quarter of all domestic industries.  They account for almost 20% of all U.S. employment and tend to pay average weekly wages at a 42% premium.  In addition, every two IP-intensive jobs support another one indirectly, thereby raising attributable employment to almost 30% of total employment. These industries account for over $5 trillion in value-added to U.S. GDP and contribute to over 60% of total goods exports and roughly 20% of all services exports.

The data above clearly support the vital importance of intellectual property to American innovation and the economy at large.  This understanding makes it critical that the United States continue to protect intellectual property at home, and especially abroad.  It is a primary source of U.S. exports and the root of its competitive advantage in trade.  The continued protection of American ideas and intellectual capital promotes “innovative, open, and competitive markets, and helps to ensure that the U.S. private sector remains America’s innovation engine.”

Posted by Brian Gowen

Sources: The U.S. Department of Commerce

Photo credit USPTO@Alexandria courtesy of flickr user cytech

Legal Policy and Innovation

When considering the optimal environment for economic growth and innovation one important part of the mix is a supportive legal structure.  This concern was highlighted in a recent paper titled “Legal Process and the Discovery of Better Policies for Fostering Innovation and Growth” by Henry N. Butler, the Foundation Professor of Law and Executive Director of the Law & Economics Center at George Mason University School of Law, and Larry E. Ribstein, the Associate Dean for Research, Mildred Van Voorhis Jones Chair, University of Illinois College of Law.

As highlighted by ShopFloor, a blog published by the National Association of Manufacturers, Butler and Ribstein advocated for a number of policies including a federal law that would address the behavior of contracting parties’ actions related to growth and innovation.  The authors call for a “market-type legal process that enables discovery of optimal rules.”

Some, meanwhile, have argued for a host of other legal reforms designed to foster innovation.  The Kaufman Foundation collected a series of essays in which leading scholars argued for immigration reform, tax reform, zoning reform and a host of other issues under the auspices of helping to foster growth and innovation.  Others still urge innovators not to neglect the intellectual property ramifications of innovation.

Posted by: Rachel Barker

Sources:  Innovation Tools, Kauffman Foundation, Shop Floor, Social Science Research Network

Photo Credit: US Supreme Court building, detail courtesy of flickr user jcolman