Sean Flaim on the private enforcement of copyrights

Sean Flaim

March 26, 2013 · 1 comment

Sean Flaim, an attorney focusing on antitrust, intellectual property, cyberlaw, and privacy, discusses his new paper “Copyright Conspiracy: How the New Copyright Alert System May Violate the Sherman Act,” recently published in the New York University Journal of Intellectual Property and Entertainment Law.

Flaim describes content owners early attempts to enforce copyright through lawsuit as a “public relations nightmare” that humanized piracy and created outrage over large fines imposed on casual downloaders. According to Flaim, the Copyright Alert System is a more nuanced approach by the content industry to crack down on copyright infringement online, which arose in response to a government failure to update copyright law to reflect the nature of modern information exchange.

Flaim explains the six stages of the Copyright Alert System in action, noting his own suspicions about the program’s states intent as a education tool for repeat violators of copyright law online. In addition to antitrust concerns, Flaim worries that appropriate cost-benefit analysis has not been applied to this private regulation system, and, ultimately, that private companies are being granted a government-like power to punish individuals for breaking the law.



Related Links

Related Episodes

  • curtisneeley

    The US HOAX called copy[rite] was spelled [sic] “copyRIGHT” in 1790 to successfully fool all to believe this protected the RIGHTS of authors and inventors as Congress was authorized to do “for a time” in 1787 but has never yet done. As a country the US is still an infant.

    A lawyer, Benjamin Huntington, and linguist, Noah Webster, coined the word copy[rite] but spelled this term [sic]”copyright” immediately after the United States’ most prolific author and inventor died and fooled EVERYONE up to now. This ailing senior inventor’s speech supporting the Constitution was given by proxy due to illness in 1787.

    The US Constitution does not use the linguistic construct of [sic] “copyright” in even the “copy[rite] clause”.