Legal History of Film Streaming Websites - Essay Example

Legal History of Film Streaming Websites Introduction: Over the past few years, the desires andpreferences of internet users have changed dramatically. Therefore, website designers are now focused on devising new and creative ways which would enable convenient viewing and hearing of information, movies and other forms of entertainment content on the internet. Such technological developments have enabled copyright holders to reach millions of consumers at their homes through the internet and promote their creative works either for commercial or artistic reasons. (Gringras 1997). Despite immense benefits of new technologies, there are some drastic disadvantages which are increasingly becoming quite difficult to control. One such disadvantage is the increased risk of infringement of the rights of copyright holders. The Internet provides a faster, cheaper and easier access to entertainment content which inevitably increases the risk of unauthorized reproduction, unchecked distribution and illegal public performance of copyrighted content. (Aspen Pub, 2001). The advent of new digital technologies has eased the circulation of movies around the world which has been and continues to be the source of tremendous problems for the entertainment industry. With the advent of movie streaming technology, an individual can view a movie without downloading it from the website therefore; the ease of viewing has been enhanced. There are a large number of legitimate and legal websites that enable internet users to view motion pictures, live sports events, TV programs and other forms of entertainment. However, the problem of unauthorized public performance of movies has intensified with the advent of illegal and illegitimate movie streaming websites. (Litman 2001). History of Video streaming websites and Copyright Law issues: The demand for online viewing of movies surfaced in the year 1997 and is now a $1.9 billion industry. In 2001 two major movie downloading websites surfaced which were Movielink and Moviebeam. Both websites failed to establish a profitable market place and were sold in the year 2006. Today, one of the major legal movie downloading sites is Apple iTunes along with Amazon, Veoh, Hulu, Netflix and Blockbuster. (Finney, Angus 2010). One of the fundamental issues that arose with widespread use of the Internet was violation of copyright laws. In 1997, the Congress enacted the No Electronic Theft Act in an effort to prevent the unauthorized uploading of movies and videogames. In accordance with Telecommunications Act of 1996, Internet Service Providers will not be considered liable of copyright infringements committed by their website users if they agree to promptly remove the unlawful materials from their website. The advent of social networking and film clips sharing sites such as MySpace and Youtube was soon followed by lawsuits filed by copyright owners. In accordance, Youtube was sued by Media conglomerate Viacom for $1 Billion for the violation of copyright laws as thousands of copyright videos were uploaded by Youtube users each day. Youtube and Viacom solved the issue by negotiating outside the court but officials from Youtube stated in court that they fall in the safe harbor category of Digital Millennium Copyright Act which states that the Violator will not be liable for the violation if they promptly remove the material blamed with copyright infringement. Therefore, both MySpace and Youtube acted to prevent the resurfacing of such an issue by installing specially designed internal filters which prevent the uploading of copyrighted material. However, the critics of such lawsuits believe that it is perfectly legal to upload copyrighted material under the fair use Doctrine. The year 2010 proved to be hugely successful for Google and Youtube because the Court dismissed the billion-dollar infringement claim filed by high profile lawsuits and declared that Youtube falls under the “safe harbor” protection provided by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The Court recognized and appreciated the fact that Youtube had removed 10,000 unlawful film clips on the first business day after receiving the takedown notice from Viacom. Another video hosting website known as Veoh was also subjected to a similar lawsuit filed by Universal Music Group but won the case after receiving protection under the “safe harbor” provision of Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Officials from Veoh claimed that the infringement of copyright laws was committed unknowingly and once the officials were informed of the infringement either through informal or formal notices from the offended authorities, they responded by promptly removing such unlawful film clips from their website. (Belmas et al 2011). In the year 2005, The Congress responded to the rising number of movie streaming websites by enacting the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act. In accordance with the clauses of the Act it is illegal and a federal crime for any individual to either record a movie in a theatre or upload a movie online before its official release. Although the provisions of the Act were passed in an attempt to safeguard the rights of the Entertainment Industry, but the industry was not pleased over a certain clause in the Act which legalized the use of filters by consumers. Such filters enable the customers to filter out the offensive proportions of a movie. During 2005, copyright owners tried relentlessly to curb the problems posed by unauthorized online display of full movies and clips. Simultaneously, the copyright owners were also working to eliminate the objections of consumer advocates and civil liberty groups across Europe. By the end of 2005, Hollywood and the broadcast industry finally managed to persuade the Federal Communications Commission to include “Broadcast Flag” technology in digital television sets in an effort to prevent unauthorized copying of movies and programs transmitted on air. The European Parliament in 2004 approved and implemented a new set of copyright laws to be followed in the European Union. The new set of rules bears close resemblance to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Despite the implementation of new laws and technical solutions, the government has simply failed to prevent online display and sharing of copyrighted material such as movies and sound recordings. A large number of illegitimate movie streaming websites continue to evolve and violate copyright laws in numerous ways and reflect the failure of the government to safeguard the rights of the entertainment industry. It is certainly impracticable for the industry to track and sue every internet user involved in online viewing and sharing of movies. Therefore, in the year 2005, the Supreme Court passed a law that prohibited the manufacture of products facilitating illegal copying in an effort to lower the ease of downloading and copying movies from movie streaming websites. (Belmas et al 2011). The U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator advised the Congress in March 2011, to harmonize the penalties for illegal streaming of copyrighted material. In accordance with this recommendation, the Congress introduced the Commercial Felony Streaming Act. In accordance with the clauses of the Act, anyone involved in willful unauthorized streaming of movies for commercial or private advantage, will be sentenced to a minimum of five year imprisonment. The bill was unanimously approved on June 16, 2011, by the Senate Judiciary Committee. The bill was reported by Senator Leahy on 20th June 2011. (http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/crs/R41975_110829.pdf). Crackdown of illegitimate Movie Streaming Websites: Recently, a major crackdown action was taken against a website kino.to which was involved in unauthorized copying and display of audio and visual entertainment content. The website was famous among the users of Germany, Austria and Switzerland and was created by anonymous web designers. In Germany, the website gained immense popularity and for most students, it completely replaced the Television as it provided unlimited free access to movies and TV shows at their convenience. A German organization known as GVW managed to obtain data about the identities of the individuals behind the management of kino.to and launched a massive crackdown against them. The charges against the potential culprits were presented in front of the public prosecutors office on 28th April, 2011. The investigation was then taken over by the Saxonian special prosecution unit. The Saxonian prosecution unit searched the locations related to the Kino.to and raids were also carried out in Spain and France because of the widespread criminal network of the website owners. As a result of the extensive search raids, 13 individuals were arrested which were claimed to be involved in more than one million copyright infringement cases. In accordance with the report of Saxonian prosecution unit, the city centre of the organization of Kino.to was Leipzig while business centers were also located in Berlin and Bremen. The guilty individuals were charged in accordance with Strafgesebuch i.e. the German penal code. The individuals were charged with the violation of clauses of the “Article 106 Unauthorized Exploitation of Copyrighted Works” which considers any individual guilty of violation if he indulges in unlawful reproduction, distribution and public performance of copyrighted material and violators will be liable to prosecution and punishment by the State. The individuals were charged guilty in accordance with the “Article 129 Forming criminal organizations”, which states that it is illegal to form organizations directed at the commission of public offenses such as unauthorized display of copyrighted material and members of the organization will be sentenced to five years of imprisonment or will be considered liable to pay fine. The investigation on the case is still going on however the website kino.to is now offline. (http://www.contentandcarrier.eu/?p=422). Other movie streaming websites such as PlanetMovies.com, TVShack.net and ThePirateCity.org have been the recent victims of the ongoing fight to eliminate the menace of piracy from modern society. To curb the problem of internet counterfeiting and privacy, the new Obama administration has new strategies in store. Movie streaming websites make movie watching very simple and violate the rights of copyright holders in numerous ways. The high speed broadband connections have posed immense piracy problems and have forced the authorities to take actions against the websites involved in the violation of laws by offering unauthorized public performance of audio and visual content. In an effort to stamp out privacy, the new Obama administration has launched a massive crackdown operation against some of the major websites involved in the unauthorized display of copyrighted material. Massive crackdown operations were launched against PlanetMovies.com, TVShack.net and ThePirateCity.org and the operations were a joint venture of various departments of the federal authorities such as the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Department of Homeland Security. The domain names of the websites were seized by the federal authorities in accordance with the violation of 18 U.S.C article 981 and 2323. In accordance with the report of the federal authorities, these websites attracted more than 6.2 million users a month therefore, we can safely say that the content was extensively viewed and thus the violation of copyright laws was also extensive. The crackdown operation was carried out in 11 States by 100 Federal agents. The federal officers seized the assets from more than 15 banks which reflect the magnitude of the widespread criminal network of the owners of media streaming websites. (http://www.worldtvpc.com/blog/federal-government-shuts-movie-streaming-websites/). Conclusion: The advent of movie streaming websites has proved to be quite beneficial for the internet users; as such websites provide unlimited free access to movies at the convenience of the user. However, such websites have posed tremendous problems for copyright holders of entertainment content. Many websites have suffered shut downs after becoming victims of the on going fight against the paradoxical legacy of privacy. As the websites continue to shut down, more of them continue to surface each day. Therefore, the fight against privacy is somewhat at a standstill, as the authorities continue to rigorously fight to ban movie streaming websites, the website owners on the other hand continue to devise new ways of resurfacing. Thus, the menace of privacy still continues to relentlessly plague the foundations of the entertainment industry. A major obstacle faced by the U.S. authorities in dealing with movie streaming issues is that most of the streaming websites are Chinese and thus, they are not included in the American jurisdiction. A large number of movie and TV streaming websites that were previously shutdown such as kino.to have resurfaced with different domain names. Therefore, the fight against the deep rooted problem of privacy is far form over. In many ways, it has just begun. References: Finney, Angus. The International Film Business. London: Routledge, 2010. Print. Law of Internet. Aspen Pub, 2001. Print. Illegal Internet Streaming of Copyrighted Content: Legislation in the 112th Congress by Brian T. Yeh (http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/crs/R41975_110829.pdf). Belmas, Genelle I, and Wayne Overbeck. Major Principles of Media Law. Boston, MA: Wadsworth, 2011. Print. Federal Government Shuts Down Movie Streaming Websites (http://www.worldtvpc.com/blog/federal-government-shuts-movie-streaming-websites/). The Crackdown on Kino.to in Germany (http://www.contentandcarrier.eu/?p=422). Gringras, Clive. The Laws of the Internet. London: Butterworths, 1997. Print. Litman, Jessica. Digital Copyright: Protecting Intellectual Property on the Internet. Amherst, N.Y: Prometheus Books, 2001. Print. Read More