• Home
  • 1st Annual Symposium
  • About
  • Available Positions
  • Issues
    • Vol. 4 Issue 2
    • Vol. 4 Issue 1
    • Vol. 3 Issue 3
    • Vol. 3, Issue 2
    • Vol. 3, Issue 1
    • Vol. 2, Issue 3
    • Vol. 2, Issue 2
    • Vol. 2, Issue 1
    • Vol. 1, Issue 1
  • Staff
    • 2009-2010 Staff
    • 2010-2011 Staff
    • 2011-2012 Staff
    • 2012-2013 Staff
  • Submissions
  • Subscribe
Featured Article

A featured article from the current issue of the Intellectual Property Brief.

Daily Blog

A daily blog of IP-related news and issues

Articles

All of the Intellectual Property Brief’s published articles. All articles are hand-selected from outside submissions and from our very own IPB staff members.

Issues

PDF versions of each of the Intellectual Property Brief’s issues.

Short Circuit

Case-by-case summaries of intellectual property related opinions from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Home » Daily Blog, Featured, Patents

Password Protecting Knowledge: Preventing Copyright Piracy Through Patent

Submitted by Chelsea Zimmerman on June 22, 2012 – 6:23 AM55433 Commentshttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F2012%2F06%2F22%2Fpassword-protecting-knowledge-preventing-copyright-piracy-through-patent%2FPassword+Protecting+Knowledge%3A+Preventing+Copyright+Piracy+Through+Patent2012-06-22+10%3A23%3A14Chelsea+Zimmermanhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F%3Fp%3D5543

As the cost of textbooks rises, students at higher education institutions are finding ways to minimize these expenses; students are buying used books, sharing with other students, finding cheap or free digital copies online, or deciding to forgo textbook purchases altogether.  As a result the publishing industry is facing declining sales and decreased revenue.

On June 5, 2012, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted patent #8195571 to Joseph Henry Vogel, an economics professor at the University of Puerto Rico-Río Piedras.  Vogel’s patent is for a “Web-based system and method to capture and distribute royalties for access to copyrighted academic texts by preventing unauthorized access to discussion boards associated with copyrighted academic works.”

The system attempts to control copyright piracy by requiring a student to purchase a textbook with a unique code providing access to an online discussion board in which participation is a component of the student’s grade. Students that do not purchase the textbook and acquire the code receive a lower grade, although a student can still take advantage of second-hand or shared textbooks by purchasing a discounted access code from the publisher.  Needless to say, the potential impact of Vogel’s system has produced divergent reactions.

Supporters for this patent recognize the negative impact of copyright piracy on the publishing industry and this system’s potential to correct existing industry problems.  Recent survey data indicates students are purchasing fewer textbooks due to the rising cost of educational materials in higher education and the increased access to cheaper pirated copies online. As students purchase fewer textbooks, the academic community suffers from decreased publishing opportunities and royalties.  Adoption of this system by publishers would prevent students from using pirated materials and allow the academic community to benefit from increased royalty revenue.  Moreover, widespread use of a system that increases legal textbook purchases could have a decreasing effect on the price of textbooks in the long run.

Opponents to this system, however, contest the proposed benefit to the publishing industry based on its potential detriment to higher education objectives.  The system’s impact on the affordability of higher education is a highly contentious issue as the cost of textbooks rises along with tuition rates in the United States.  There is indication, however, that use of the patented system by the publishing industry would include discounted or waived access fees for students below a certain income level.

Critics have also expressed concern with the actual patent, suggesting that one-time use access codes in the video game industry could be considered prior art and that the four patent claims are broad and could easily fail the non-obvious test.

Additionally, there are concerns regarding the patent’s viability under copyright law.  Under 17 U.S.C. §109, the first sale doctrine provides a distributive right to an individual that purchases a book.  When a book is sold the copyright owner loses distributive interest in the book, allowing the purchaser to then resell the book, give the book away, rent the book out, or destroy the book.    By requiring a student to purchase an access code for used textbooks, the publishers and authors would receive a profit from these subsequent sales, which exceeds the scope of a copyright owner’s distributive rights under the first sale doctrine.

The Copyright Act also includes specific exceptions to copyright infringement for educational purposes.  Under 17 U.S.C. §110 there is no copyright infringement for nonprofit educational use of copyrighted material, while the fair use doctrine ensures that the use of copyrighted material for teaching, scholarship, and research are exempt from copyright infringement.

The relevant impact of this patent on the publishing industry, the academic community, and copyright law, however, depends on the implementation of Vogel’s system by publishers and instructors.  As the demand for open educational resources increases, and websites such as Khan Academy and Open Culture grow in popularity, publishers may be hesitant to adopt a system that limits access to educational resources.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare

About the Author:

Author: Chelsea Zimmerman

Chelsea Zimmerman is a 2L at Washington College of Law. In addition to being a Blog Editor and Blogger for the IP Brief, Chelsea is involved with the Moot Court Honor Society and the AU Journal for Gender, Social Policy & the Law. Chelsea has a B.A. in Political Science from Heidelberg University and an M.A. in International Studies from the University of Denver. Chelsea is interested in IP law and international business law, particularly their intersection with human rights.

Chelsea Zimmerman has written 5 posts for the IPB.

55433 Commentshttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F2012%2F06%2F22%2Fpassword-protecting-knowledge-preventing-copyright-piracy-through-patent%2FPassword+Protecting+Knowledge%3A+Preventing+Copyright+Piracy+Through+Patent2012-06-22+10%3A23%3A14Chelsea+Zimmermanhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F%3Fp%3D5543 »

  • Joseph Henry Vogel says:
    June 22, 2012 at 8:41 PM

    The article states that the patent "could easily fail the non-obvious test". Hmmm…How is it possible that the USPTO Board of Appeals and Interferences did not perceive the non-obvious test when it ruled in favor of the inventor on 21 November 2011? Are the bloggers more expert than the Board? In the second press release, linked above, the inventor states that the system encourages uploading of e-texts for fair use, inasmuch as the object of payment is the discussion board. So, how would the patent violate first sale doctrine?

    Low and moderate-income students now pay for new and used books. Under the waiver, they would not pay for the access code and may even get access to a new edition should the publisher upload it for fair use. However, the most beneficial element of the web-based system for society is the most subtle: removing the temptation to pirate by financially stressed low and moderate-income students, principiis obsta .

    Reply to this comment »
    • Law Scholar says:
      June 26, 2012 at 4:59 PM

      Professor Vogel, while I appreciate your response to Ms. Zimmerman's article, I do have some concerns of my own, even ignoring the obvious stake you have in insuring that your students must purchase your online, co-authored textbooks.

      First, the patent being disputed is merely a compilation of previously-established patents. Essentially, this patent re-appropriates the idea used in previous patents for multiplayer platform gaming and merely substitutes the content, in this case a forum for the discussion of academic topics. Even if we were to assume that your patent does not fail the non-obvious test (a big assumption as we shall see in a moment), it seems as though the principiis obsta patent merely combines two systems that have already been widely implemented.

      Second, the infallible officers at the USPTO have been known to make mistakes. An easy example is their ignorance to the fact that Disney and Pixar had merged into a singular company. In the words of one writer, "never assume the obvious when dealing with the USPTO." From a common sense perspective, don't blindly assume that a governmental agency is always correct.

      Third, the board that you are referring to is not a unified board, but rather 100 isolated agents who have no peer oversight or redundant analysis in legal issues. To put it simply, one board member ruling on a patent does not mean that the USPTO as a whole analyzed it. One USPTO board member is as capable of making a mistake as any doctor, lawyer, or professor when they examine a problem.

      If I could make a suggestion about future conduct, I would urge you to have a puppet post on these topics, as identifying yourself as someone with no legal education and a clear agenda might be counter-productive to your purpose here.

      Reply to this comment »
  • Password Protecting Knowledge: Preventing Copyright Piracy … | Buy pills says:
    June 22, 2012 at 8:54 PM

    [...] Password Protecting Knowledge: Preventing Copyright Piracy … June 22, 2012 8:49 pm / Leave a Comment / grif Password Protecting Knowledge: Preventing Copyright Piracy … Students that do not purchase the textbook and acquire the code receive a lower … in higher education and the increased access to cheaper pirated copies online. …. Unfair Competition (3), app store (3), Disney (3), UK (3), warner brothers (3 … Read more on American University Intellectual Property Brief [...]

    Reply to this comment »

Leave a comment!

Click here to cancel reply »

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.

Copyright »

Appropriating Sid Vicious

Appropriating Sid Vicious

Mr. Brainwash’s works recently joined the increasing number of cases on appropriation art after photographer Dennis Morris sued the street artist for use of his 1977 picture of Sid Vicious.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Patents »

Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business

Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business

Shortly after the oral arguments between Monsanto and Bowman, WCL hosted both parties for a post argument discussion. Recently the Supreme Court ruled on the case, requiring annual purchases of Monsanto’s soybeans.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Trademark »

Can “Boston Strong” be Trademarked?

Can “Boston Strong” be Trademarked?

Following the explosions on April 15, “Boston Strong” emerged as a viral hashtag on Twitter, a rallying cry at public events, and a logo on all kinds of apparels. It does not take too long for business opportunists to take advantage of this national tragedy.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Facebook

Accepting Submissions

The IP Brief is currently accepting submissions. We are looking for papers that address a legal topic relating to any area of intellectual property. Please submit completed papers and a cover page with the name and title of the article to ipbrief [at] wcl.american.edu. Any questions can also be sent to this e-mail address.

Blogroll

  • American University Washington College of Law
  • Carrollogos
  • Copyright Blog
  • GamePolitics
  • Intellectual Property Watch
  • PatentlyO
  • Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property
  • Spicy IP
  • The TTABlog®
  • ©ollectanea

Tags

Archives

  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • January 2010

Random Posts

Public Shame as a Weapon Against Piracy Sites Posner Speaks [Again] on Patent Reform: A Critique The Future of Copyright Law The North Face and The South Butt Reach a Settlement Chief Judge Rader Issues Stern Rebuke to Patent Bar Over § 101 Challenges A Needle in a Haystack: A Case of Criminal Charges for Copyright Infringement Operation Fake Sweep: Protecting the NFL Brand Major Media Companies File Amicus Brief in Support of Google UPDATE: Fox News Continues Copyright Infringement Suit Against Former Democratic Senate Candidate Robin Carnahan  Olympic Themed Anti-Romney Ad Pulled After Request From Olympic Committee America: Last in Line for First to File System The Power of Red: The Shoe Showdown Between Louboutin and Yves Saint Laurent Ryan Lochte Applies for Federal Trademark, Hopes People Will Buy
(refresh random posts)

Latest Video Post

Relatively New Anti-Piracy PSA: Another Analogy Comparison of Piracy to Stealing Cars or an Effective Message?

Recent Posts

  • Can “Boston Strong” be Trademarked?
  • Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business
  • Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million
  • Appropriating Sid Vicious
  • Chick-Fil-A’s ‘Eat Mor Chikin’ Trumps Kale-Promotion Slogan

Twitter

  • No public Twitter messages.
  • Copy / Paste
  • Site Search
  • Wikipedia
  • Google
  • Facts
  • Amazon
  • eBay
  • Outlook
  • Gmail
  • Y! Mail
  • Twitter
  • Search & Share
Powered by WordPress | Log in | Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS) | Arthemia Premium theme by Colorlabs Project
The American University Intellectual Property Brief is licensed by the staff of the American University Intellectual Property Brief under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License. IPBrief.net is hosted by Dan Rosenthal. For technical queries, contact dan@danrosenthal.org

Creative Commons License