©What's special about the Internet?
The very definition of what constitutes a "copy" is at issue on the Internet, as the clear demacations of tangible, printed copies no longer apply. On the Internet, everything you see is essentially a "copy" made by your computer of a document that "lives" on a distant server.
One of the main reasons for all the fuss, though has more to do with "publishing" than with "copying." For example, if you videotape a program on television, you are making a copy of it, but you would face enormous cost and distribution issues if you want to "steal" and broadcast the tape to an audience (especially a paying audience), since you probably don't own your own television network. On the Internet, however, anyone can be a publisher--and can do so with very little time and cost invested. All you need are a computer, an Internet connection, a Web site, and some basic text and graphical tools.
The ubiquity of digital "copies" on the Internet and the changing definition of "publishing," as well as the ease with which Web surfers can make copies of and "publish" information, threaten to undermine the rights of copyright owners. Moreover, as a vast new communications medium, the Internet presents important questions about the relationship of copyright protections to First Amendment principles of free speech under the U.S. Constitution.
Example
Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Frena, decided in 1993, is considered by many to be the first Internet copyright case. (And for some reason, a lot of landmark cases involve Playboy.) Playboy sued George Frena, for infringement of copyrighted Playboy photographs that were accessible on Frena's Internet bulletin board service (BBS). The court held Frena liable even though the images were uploaded by one of the BBS users, not Mr. Frena.The case highlights many of the challenging issues facing copyright law on the Internet, from the liability of service providers for infringing activities of their users, to what constitutes a "copy" in a digital world.
For some legal theorists, the ruling reflects the court's ignorance of basic Internet technology. They argue that Frena, who merely provided a communication service, should not be held liable for the actions of those who used his service.
