Did Obama make QEII a copyright criminal?
em>p2pnet news view Politics | Music:- “George W. [Bush] has been video-taped openly admitting he plays music by The Beatles on the BushPod,” said p2pnet almost exactly three years ago, going on:
“The Big Four Organized Music cartel’s RIAA is now after him for stealing copyrighted downloads.”
We quoted RIAA boss Mitch Bainwol as saying, “We have to be seen to be scrupulously fair”
We were joking. They’re not scrupulously anything, of course, let alone fair. Everyone knows that.
They also know Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music’s sue ‘em all campaign doesn’t really mean ‘all’.
It only means ordinary people who, unlike Bush or, come to that Warner boss Edgar Bronfman jr, or even the Queen of England, have neither the financial nor legal means to even begin to defend themselves adequately against spurious Big 4 attacks.
QEII?
“Obama gave Queen Elizabeth II an engraved iPod during his visit to Buckingham Palace,” says the Associated Press. “The portable music device came with headphones and already loaded with 40 songs, all classic show tunes – including several from ‘Camelot,’ based on the King Arthur legend, and ‘My Fair Lady,’ set in London.”
Goes without saying Obama will have scrupulously paid the appropriate legacy copyright holders for 40 songs. Right?
But maybe not.
In fact, “Did he violate the law” when he handed the music player over? – wonders the EFF’s (Electronic Frontier Foundation) Fred von Lohmann, going on »»»
Traditionally, it has been the job of the “first sale” doctrine to enable gift giving — that’s the provision of copyright law that entitles the owner of a CD, book, or other copyrighted work, to give it away (or resell it, for that matter), notwithstanding the copyright owner’s exclusive right of distribution.
In the digital era, however, first sale has been under siege, with copyright owners (and even the Copyright Office) arguing that it has no place in a world where “ownership” has been replaced by “licenses” and hand-to-hand exchanges have been replaced by computer-mediated exchanges that necessarily make copies. But it’s precisely because first sale is central to everyday activities like giving an iPod to a friend, selling a used CD on eBay, or borrowing a DVD from a library, that EFF and others have been fighting for it in case after case.
So, how does President Obama fare in this? It’s nearly impossible to figure out. If he’d simply purchased a “greatest hits” CD of show tunes and given it to the Queen, the first sale doctrine would have taken care of it. But because digital technology is involved here, suddenly it’s a legal quagmire. (And, for the remainder of this discussion, I am going to set aside the Presidential immunity issues and the UK copyright law issues, which make it even more of a quagmire.)
First, let’s imagine that the President (or his staff) bought the 40 show tunes from the iTunes music store. Do you “own” the music that you buy from iTunes? The nearly 9,000 words of legalese to which you agree before buying don’t answer that question (an oversight? I doubt it). Copyright owners have consistently argued in court that many digital products (even physical “promo” CDs!) are “licensed,” not “owned,” and therefore you’re not entitled to resell them or give them away. (And the Amazon MP3 Store terms of service are even worse for consumers than iTunes — those terms specifically purport to strip you of “ownership” and forbid any “redistribution.”)
Second, even if the first sale doctrine applies to iTunes downloads, what about the additional copies made on the iPod? iTunes does not download directly to an iPod. So President Obama’s staff made an additional copy onto the Queen’s intended iPod. How are those copies excused? The iTunes terms of service say that downloads are “only for personal, noncommercial use.” Is giving a copy to a head of state a “personal” use? Seems more like a “diplomatic use,” doesn’t it? So copyright owners could argue that the copy on the iPod was not authorized, because it was beyond the scope of the iTunes “license.” And according to the typical rightsholder argument, any use beyond the scope of the “license” is a copyright infringement.
Perhaps it’s a fair use? I’d certainly take that view. But does it matter here whether President Obama’s staffer first deleted the copy that is still on her computer? Should that matter? (It does not matter for first sale purposes, which is one reason why the first sale doctrine answers questions so much more clearly.)
Third, what about a breach of contract? As I mentioned above, some might argue that this “use” of iTunes downloads breaches the “personal use” limitation in the agreement. And if it is a breach of the iTunes contract, can the copyright owners sue President Obama as “third party beneficiaries” of the iTunes contract? It’s not clear. (In the Amazon terms of service, copyright owners are specifically made third party beneficiaries, which appears to be an attempt to clear a path for record labels to sue Amazon customers for breaches of the contract.)
And all of this even before you start asking what happens when the Queen connects her new iPod to her computer, thereby making even more copies (the UK, after all, lacks a fair use doctrine)… UPDATE: Prof. Michael Froomkin points out that the Queen enjoys sovereign immunity under UK law because she is, well, the sovereign.
No one thinks copyright owners, “are going to send lawyers after either President Obama or the Queen over this,” says von Lohmann, adding:
“But none of us should want a world where even our leaders — much less the rest of us — can’t figure out how copyright law operates in their daily lives.”
No need to stay tuned.
p2pnet – Bush admits p2p file sharing, April 17, 2006
Edgar Bronfman jr – Pay up! Dawnell Leadbetter tells RIAA. Again., March 12, 2009
spurious Big 4 attacks – RIAA to Brittany Kruger: Pay now. Or else., April 2, 2009
Associated Press – WHITE HOUSE NOTEBOOK: Obama NCAA Pick Controversy, April 2, 2009
EFF – iPods, First Sale, President Obama, and the Queen of England, April 2, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.






April 4th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Great article. I asked myself the same thing when i heard about this. This kind of BS has been enraging me for years now.
April 4th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
haha, oh wow. if this isn’t proof the riaa are doing something wrong, i don’t know what is.
April 4th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
” haha, oh wow. if this isn’t proof the riaa are doing something wrong, i don’t know what is. ”
Not really, but it does show that while all men are created equal, some are more
equal than others.
April 4th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
well
id say if the queen can have 40 free tunes we all should GO GET RIGHT NOW.
tell em in court the queen got 40 free tunes…..
April 4th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
“the Queen enjoys sovereign immunity under UK law because she is, well, the sovereign.”
She is a sovereign, so, she can continue abusing everyone else.
Her representatives in Canada like Adrienne Clarkson and Lise Thibault wasted public money. Lise Thibault is under a criminal investigation now. I wonder how this ends.
Time to get rid of the Monarchy in Canada for good.
Monarchy has no place in 21st century Canada.
April 4th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
why is there a queen in england then?
let them get rid a her first to see how it works out LOL
April 5th, 2009 at 9:14 am
This is just one of the confusing aspects of copyright laws and there are hundreds.
Evidently it was written by jerks who knew not what they were doing.
I always wondered what is to be done with the backup copies of videos I have when I die. Must they be given to the same person that inherits the videos? Is it copyright infringement on my part if I put in the will that the backup copies are to be given to charity? Can a dead person commit copyright infringement?
And what of the I tune files? Can I will them without Apple’s permission? Imagine….
Dear Apple: What can do with my I tune licenses after I die?
And can can the Queen will her I pod to a friend? Imagine this….
Dear Apple: I am the Queen of England. Can I will Obamas’s I pod tunes to a niece? Do I need a new license and if so, how much does it cost? Or should I talk to the Chinese ambassador? After all the I pods are probably made in China. BTW I am still wondering why the American president is handing out non American products as gift. Don’t you Americans make anything any longer?
Frankly, the solution is a meeting by Hillary Clinton and her English counterpart to solve this diplomacy problem before a new RIAA-American created copyright war erupts.
April 5th, 2009 at 11:37 am
Quote: Frankly, the solution is a meeting by Hillary Clinton and her English counterpart to solve this diplomacy problem before a new RIAA-American created copyright war erupts
I really hope that was a tongue in cheek remark.Hillary Clinton won’t do anything about copyright law remember it was her husband Bill that gave us the DMCA.
April 6th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
We english want rid of her as well. But sadly our masters (the government) still wants them, so we are all doomed ha ha ha.