Live Blogging: Is Grokster Ruling Just?

Fair - what have we subscribed to in our democratic society, with reference to Copyright Law?
Intermediaries have a responsibility:
In the UK we have a provision: section 16 Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Liability is based on "authorisation"
There needs to be some level of culpability.
In the Australian Kazaa case the respondents were held liable for authorising copyright infringement - "Join the Revolution"!:
" (i) despite the fact that the Kazaa website contains warnings against the sharing of copyright files, and an end user licence agreement under which users are made to agree not to infringe copyright, it has long been obvious that those measures are ineffective to prevent, or even substantially to curtail, copyright infringements by users. The respondents have long known that the Kazaa system is widely used for the sharing of copyright files;
(ii) there are technical measures (keyword filtering and gold file flood filtering) that would enable the respondents to curtail – although probably not totally to prevent – the sharing of copyright files. The respondents have not taken any action to implement those measures. It would be against their financial interest to do so. It is in the respondents’ financial interest to maximise, not to minimise, music file-sharing. Advertising provides the bulk of the revenue earned by the Kazaa system, which revenue is shared between Sharman Networks and Altnet.
(iii) far from taking steps that are likely effectively to curtail copyright file-sharing, Sharman Networks and Altnet have included on the Kazaa website exhortations to users to increase their file-sharing and a webpage headed ‘Join the Revolution’ that criticises record companies for opposing peer-to-peer file-sharing. They also sponsored a ‘Kazaa Revolution’ campaign attacking the record companies. The revolutionary material does not expressly advocate the sharing of copyright files. However, to a young audience, and it seems that Kazaa users are predominantly young people, the effect of this webpage would be to encourage visitors to think it ‘cool’ to defy the record companies by ignoring copyright constraints.

A question arose as to the form of relief that might be made against the six respondents that I hold to have authorised infringement of the applicants’ copyright. The applicants are entitled to declarations as to past violations of their rights and the threat of future violations. They are also entitled to an order restraining future violations. However, I have had to bear in mind the possibility that, even with the best will in the world, the respondents probably cannot totally prevent copyright infringement by users. I am anxious not to make an order which the respondents are not able to obey, except at the unacceptable cost of preventing the sharing even of files which do not infringe the applicants’ copyright. There needs to be an opportunity for the relevant respondents to modify the Kazaa system in a targeted way, so as to protect the applicants’ copyright interests (as far as possible) but without unnecessarily intruding on others’ freedom of speech and communication. The evidence about keyword filtering and gold file flood filtering, indicates how this might be done. It should be provided that the injunctive order will be satisfied if the respondents take either of these steps. The steps, in my judgment, are available to the respondents and likely significantly, though perhaps not totally, to protect the applicants’ copyrights."

Reflection Time on Grokster

Have a second look at the following information on the two cases:

Sharman
Have a quick look at the ruling here.

Go here.

What do you think? How did they get hold of your Internet Protocol address?
Who are these guys? Isabella Barwinska?
Copyright law is relevant here too.
Familiarise yourself with some of the background set out here and the Supreme Court ruling and attempt Question 2 of your Seminar. You do not need the Post-ruling, briefs and testimonies. Remember: Academic Honesty. Always attribute sources by placing quotation marks or a footnote.

The US case of Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios. Compare this ruling with the HL ruling in Amstrad (the twin deck recorder case)
Now consider this site.

Why do you think this site is not the BPI hit list?
Also in the FAQ:
What countries is Spotify available in?
"Spotify is currently available in Sweden, Norway, Finland, the UK, France and Spain. We hope to launch in more countries in the future."

What can you not do on this site that could be done on Grokster?

3 Strikes Rule and Dear Lord M

Most of you were not keen that the Government/ISP should be able to disconnect users who have been found to have engaged in illegal file sharing on more than 2 occasions.
Dear Lord Mandelson,

Please don't rush through rules that will allow the government to cut off our internet connection.

The government stated in June this was an ineffective way to tackle filesharing, it's a worrying threat to our freedom of expression and it breaches our fundamental human rights.

Well - what do you make of this:
"Intellectual Property Rights: Commission comes forward with practical, non-legislative measures to combat counterfeiting and piracy"

You can read the full press release here.
Why are some people not entirely pleased?
More on the IFPI here.

Did I say that I would send you a link about petitioning Lord M? Here is the link.

Apple squares off against Eminem in court - Technology - NZ Herald News

• Apple squares off against Eminem in court - Technology - NZ Herald News

  tags: copyright

  • An attorney for Apple has defended the company's use of Eminem's songs on iTunes in court, as a trial got under way to determine who had the right to offer digital downloads of the rapper's music.

At the lecture today we talked about the "justifications" for intellectual property and also considered the range of rights and works protected by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

Consider section 1 of the CDPA and think about how the author/owner of the copyright can determine the manner in which the rights can be exploited:

a. which works are the subject of the litigation?;

b. who is the author/owner?;

What were the rights given to Aftermath Records?

Did the rights of the copyright owner extend to various media? ITunes?

Apple lawyer Glenn Pomerantz said it's a case of "common sense."

"Nowhere does it say only compact discs. Nowhere does it say ... not digital downloads," he told US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor.

One of the clips of the music used by iTunes without authorisation, it appears was this.
Feel free to post your comments on this blog or we can discuss this case in class/lecture.

IFPI Publishes Translated Pirate Bay Verdict

The IFPI summarises the Pirate Bay outcome here:

20 people have been sentenced to jail terms of up to eight months each after a trial in Udine for copyright infringement.The case, which involved the sale of pirate music compilations on eBay, followed a raid carried out by the local Fiscal Police (GdF) acting on a warrant issued by the public prosecutor in 2007. The GdF, assisted by the Italian industry's anti-piracy organisation FPM, had collected evidence of the massive distribution of infringing CD-ROMs which contained mp3 files downloaded from file-sharing networks. The operation led to the seizure of more than 600,000 music tracks, personal computers and CD burners.In addition to the criminal sentences issued the infringers are also still facing huge administrative sanctions of about €10 million.

Its translation of the court's ruling can be found here.