COPYRIGHT Internet
ARTICLE LINK US Copyright bringing new meaning to ‘long arm of the law’
INFORMATION FOR READERS:
This resource aims to give a brief overview of developments in Intellectual
Property law and other areas of law relevant to the music and entertainment
industries. Each item is categorised according to relevant areas of the
music or entertainment business, and by the date of uploading. Uploads
are undertaken regularly and are organised on a monthly basis. These updates
are designed to give general information for music and entertainment industry
professionals and students interested in these areas. These Law Updates
are not law reports or detailed references. Users who would like further
information should research the relevant area thoroughly. Relevant references
and links are therefore provided.
Law Updates also provides hyperlinks to other sites which may be of use or interest to legal professionals, academics, students and those involved in the music industry. These are provided at the end of Music Law Updates Archive under 'Music Business Law Links'. You will also find all of these links and other hyperlinks on the links page.
This resource is compiled by Ben Challis. Ben is a UK lawyer specialising in entertainment law and a graduate in law from Kings College London and The City University. He also holds the degree of Master of Arts in Mass Communications from the University of Leicester. Ben is a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. Ben acts as General Counsel for 3A Entertainments, one of the UK's leading concert promoters, and is Executive Producer for television of the Glastonbury Festival. Glastonbury is the UK's leading music and arts festival attended by over 150,000 people. For Glastonbury, Ben combines the role of managing the Festival's broadcast and other media rights alongside acting as General Counsel for the Festival. Ben's other clients have included the Prince's Trust, the Granada Media Group, Pioneer LDCE and British Telecom. Ben regularly writes articles and other material on music business and intellectual property law, contributes to books and is a regular conference speaker in particular on the live music industry. He is currently preparing a collection of cases and materials on music business law for publication. Ben sits as a magistrate in Cumbria, England.
We are interested in your views on the Law Updates resource. Please forward any comments to : musiclaw01@aol.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT
Internet
ARTICLE LINK US Copyright bringing new meaning to ‘long arm of the law’
An Australian man who had never been to the US (or ever even owned a passport) is, thanks to US copyright laws, currently serving a 15-month sentence in a US jail. Hew Griffiths was convicted by a Federal Court in Virginia back in June of this year for being a ring leader of DrinkOrDie (DOD) an underground software piracy network, but the case is interesting because he never actually set foot in the United States nor actually profit from his copyright infringing activities.
See http://www.zeropaid.com/news/8973/US+Copyright+Laws+Bringing+New+Meaning+to+'Long+Arm+of+the+Law'
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT
Internet
US court rules that ‘making available’ files for downloading is infringement; Atlantic v Howell
A US District Judge has ruled that making recordings available on a peer-2-peer file swapping network constitutes infringement of copyright. This case involved a defendant called Jeffrey Howell who had his home IP address turned over to the court by Cox Communications, the Howells' broadband provider. A number of members f the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) then hired Media Sentry Services to look into the contents of the Howell's shared folder on tier two computers. There the firm found 2,329 MP3 tracks, many of which were later identified as works copyrighted by the plaintiff record labels. Mr. Howell's defences were that (1) he was at work at the time MediaSentry detected his shared folder at home, so he wasn't really the person distributing the files at the time; (2) he legally purchased all the tracks in that shared folder; (3) those files had originally been in a non-shared folder, but some hacker probably found a way of moving them into the shared folder. None of these succeeded and Judge Neil Wake held that under federal law, Judge Wake wrote, "Distribution of copyrighted material need not involve a physical transfer." Then citing US code, he added, "'[T]he owner of a collection of works who makes them available to the public may be deemed to have distributed copies of the works' in violation of copyright law." The judge cited previous rulings where Napster users were found guilty of infringement by virtue of having installed Napster and having songs in their shared folder. He then said Kazaa was basically the same: "Several cases suggest that Kazaa users commit direct infringement by employing the Kazaa program to make their collections of copyrighted sound recordings available to all other Kazaa users." Howell contended thar as he ‘owned’ the tracks then them on his computer constituted fair use. Judge Wale held that "The question is not whether Howell owned legitimate copies of some of the sound recordings on CD," Judge Wake concluded, "but instead whether he distributed copies of the recordings without authorization. Howell's right to use for personal enjoyment copyrighted works on CDs he purchased does not confer a right to distribute those works to others without Plaintiffs' authorization." Mr. Howell has been fined $40,850 in penalties and court costs, which will probably be the end of it unless he files an appeal.
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/082707ruling/view
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT
Music Publishing
Bertelsmann settle final Napster claim
Bertelsmann AG has agreed to pay US music publishers, led by the Harry Fox Agency, $130 million to settle a copyright infringement case brought on by the German media giant's deal with the Napster P2P service. BMG owner Bertlesmann and venture capital fund Hummer Winblad
were targeted as they had both provided funding to the P2P firm in its final phase, mainly in a bid to help the Napster chiefs develop a legitimate royalty paying P2P. If approved by a federal judge, the deal announced Friday by the National Music Publishers Association and BMG would end the four-year lawsuit that accused Bertelsmann of contributing to Napster's copyright infringement as an original investor -- before the online music company changed its business model and became a recognised distributor of licensed music via paid downloads. That deal allowed Bertelsmann to end its involvement in a copyright infringement suit with the other major labels. Bertelsmann has made similar deals with other record labels amounting to $154 million. In all the deals, the company does not admit to any wrongdoing. Napster eventually was shuttered by U.S. courts in 2002 over copyright violations but has attempted to re-establish itself as a legitimate online music distributor.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3iae9b905a4fb73c7e19dde70db95c408e
And CMU at http://www.thebeatsbar.co.uk
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT
All Areas
ARTICLE LINK: Court challenge to US copyright term extension
Summit Daily has reported on the decision of the US 10th Circuit Court of Appeals which has ordered the District Court to examine s.514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act under the First Amendment (freedom of speech) as it changed " the traditional contours of copyright protection in a manner that implicates plaintiff's right to free expression."
http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20070904/NEWS/109040087
and see http://kjct8.com/Global/story.asp?S=7026866
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT
Record labels
Zimbabwe pirates avoid prosecution
Against a background of economic collapse and rampant piracy the Zimbabwe Music Rights Association has written to the Ministry of Justice and Parliamentary Affairs complaining about some Bulawayo public prosecutors who allegedly said they were unable to enforce the Copyright and Neighbouring Act. The Anti Piracy Organisation (APOZ) has also voiced concern over the way some courts were handling piracy cases in the country. In the letter dated July 30, 2007 to the Secretary for Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Mr David Mangota, the Music Rights Association said efforts in fighting piracy were being frustrated at all levels and was now praying for the ministry's intervention in this regard. Citing 15 cases of suspected pirates who were arrested in Bulawayo in June and were released because the prosecutors allegedly said according to the new law, the music association had no mandate to represent musicians. In its statement to the International Federation of Phonographic Industries APOZ states that between January and June this year 13,842 pirated DVDs were seized. http://allafrica.com/stories/200709060192.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRADE MARK
Artists
ARTICLE LINK Oldies groups go to court to challenge 'truth in music' law but promoter held in contenpt for using Drfiters name
The first legal challenge to one of the seventeen states who have passed the so called ‘Truth in Music’ law has been launched by a music promoter. The law aims to protect heritage acts and stop consumers being ripped off by imposter bands. At the same time a New Jersey judge has found the same music promoter in contempt of court for continuing to use the name of a famous oldies group, the Drifters, in defiance of an 8 year old court order. US District Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise termed Larry Marshak's promotion of an offshoot of The Drifters titled The Elsbeary Hobbs Drifters as "an elaborate shell game." Judge Debevoise held that Marshak, his relatives and business associates violated a 1999 injunction banning the use of the Drifters name "or any other name that would be confusingly similar to the Drifters." Marshak has been in dispute with Faye Treadwell, wife of the former Drifter’s manager George Treadwell and owner of the Drfiters trade mark for over thirty years. It is companies linked to Marshak who have launched the challenge against state Attorney General Anne Milgram. Marshak and his associates, including his wife and sister-in-law, have promoted shows involving The Platters, The Elsbeary Hobbs Drifters, and the Cornell Gunter Coasters in New Jersey and elsewhere. Elsbeary Hobbs and Cornell Gunter, who are both deceased, sang with the groups in the 1950s and 60s. However, none of the three groups named in the lawsuits currently feature any original members
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newjersey/ny-bc-nj--musicalcopycats0911sep11,0,375018.story
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LICENSING
Live event industry
Licensing Act criticised by Local Authority
Councillors have expressed their concerns over the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003 after the small three day Echo music festival went ahead under the provisions of the Act by using a Temporary Event Notice (TEN). TENS were introduced to streamline the licensing of small one off events. This event was held on private farmland. Neither the Local Authority nor local residents are entitled to object to a TEN under the current legislation – only the police can object on grounds of preventing crime and disorder and then only within 48 hours of receiving the notice. This type of licence can only be used for numbers not exceeding 499 persons – including staff and performers. With Echo, the council did serve a pre-emptive noise abatement order on festival organisers. Comments from councillors included that neighbours were unhappy at not being consulted and were worried about traffic, noise and safety and that the Act was “yet again, another example of this ridiculous legislation introduced by this Government."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT
Music publishing
Amy Winehouse settles songwriting claim
Songwriter and producer P*Nut has reached a settlement with Amy Winehouse people regarding the song 'He Can Only Hold Her', which appears on her album 'Back To Black'. P*Nut, real name John Harrison, had claimed that he co-conceived the song with Winehouse while working with the singer in early 2006. P*Nut will now be credited as a songwriter alongside Winehouse, Richard Poindexter and Robert Poindexter and will receive share of songwriting royalties.
Source: UnLimited/CMU http://www.thebeatsbar.co.uk
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONTRACT
Artists
Ex Snow Patrol bassist brings legal action
Snow Patrol's former bassist Mark McClelland has announced that he is issuing legal proceedings in the High Court against the rest of the band for songwriting royalties and gig earnings dating back to 2005 and beyond, including those from the band's breakthrough album 'Final Straw' and last year's 'Eyes Open'. McClelland left the band alleging creative differences.
Source UnLimited/CMU http://www.thebeatsbar.co.uk
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT
Film & TV
Dutch close DVD pirate plant
Officers from the Dutch Fiscal and Economic Police (FIOD-ECD) are dismantling a pirate disc factory after a raid. The action in the city of Velddriel has led to the seizure of pirate discs and manufacturing equipment, as well as the arrest of the one suspect who was present. The raid followed a complaint by the Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN, who had been alerted to the problem by enforcement officers from IFPI, the body that represents the recording industry worldwide, who had monitored activity at the clandestine plant. Officials seized a DVD press set up to make pirate copies of films including Die Hard 4.0, Ocean’s Thirteen, Evan Almighty and Fantastic Four: The Rise of the Silver Surfer. The seized press had a capacity to manufacture 900 DVDs per hour. Forensic examination by IFPI suggests this press comes from a legitimate DVD plant that had previously been declared bankrupt. Officers also discovered discs which formed part of an order for thousands of pirate CDs featuring a compilation of chart music. Pirate discs from the plant have not been sold through legitimate channels, but by individuals in schools, workplaces, bars or on the street. BREIN estimates that such organised piracy accounts for an estimated 10 per cent of the Netherlands’ physical piracy problem
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT
Internet
In the Wild West of the Internet, Prince calls in the sheriff
Prince has hired UK company Web Sheriff in a move to "reclaim the Internet" and he is preparing to file lawsuits against YouTube, eBay and The Pirate Bay, for allegedly encouraging copyright violations, Prince plans to file suit in both the United States and the U.K., and has hired a Swedish law firm to take action against The Pirate Bay, the BitTorrent tracking site, Web sheriff’s John Giacobbi said that "In the past couple of weeks, we have removed about 2,000 infringing clips from YouTube," Giacobbi said. "We get them down and the next day, there are 100 or 200 more. Their business model is built on making money off other people's creative work." Hani Durzy, a spokesman for eBay said the company has programs in place to help rights holders protect their property. Prince’s action against YouTibe owner’s Google is not without precedent, Google and YouTube already face a $1 billion lawsuit filed earlier this year by media-conglomerate Viacom and a class-action suit filed by a group that includes several professional European sports leagues. Google has always said that it obeys copyright laws. The company maintains that the safe harbour provisions in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act protects service providers from any illegal acts committed by users. YouTube removes copyright work once notified by an owner. But the response of both eBay ad YouTube demonstrate one of the new problems of the digital age. Their business models are built on an open access system – they will – within certain limits – accept anything from users. YouTube have repeatedly promised better and better filtering blocks to stop unauthorised copyrighted film, television and music content reaching the site and eBay has it’s VERO system to allow copyright and trade mark owners to demand items are withdrawn from auction. But the cost of policing this is massive – Prince may well be able to afford this in the short term but to some it seems unfair that he (or any artist) must relentlessly pursue big big businesses at the artist’s cost and it seems almost impossible for eBay or YouTube to deny that their ‘legitimate’ businesses are, to an extent, built on the infringing and sometimes illegal activities of their users. The Pirate Bay’s response was more interesting – they say they hadn’t received any take down notices as their spam filters dealt with such matters!
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9778087-7.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPETITION
Technology, software
Judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-201/04
Microsoft Corp. v Commission of the European Communities
The Court of First Instance has essentially upheld the European Commission’s decision finding that Microsoft had abused its dominant market position although the Court has annulled certain parts of the decision relating to the proposed appointment of a monitoring trustee holding that this has no basis in community law.
On 23 March 2004 the European Commission adopted a decision finding that Microsoft had infringed Article 82 of the EC Treaty by abusing its dominant position by engaging in two separate types of conduct. The Commission also imposed a fine of more than EUR 497 million on Microsoft. The first type of conduct found to constitute an abuse consisted in Microsoft’s refusal to supply its competitors with ‘interoperability information’ and to authorise them to use that information to develop and distribute products competing with its own products on the work group server operating system market, between October 1998 and the date of adoption of the decision. By way of remedy, the Commission required Microsoft to disclose the ‘specifications’ of its client/server and server/server communication protocols to any undertaking wishing to develop and distribute work group server operating systems.
The second type of conduct to which the Commission took exception was the tying of Windows Media Player with the Windows PC operating system. The Commission considered that that practice affected competition on the media player market. By way of remedy, the Commission required Microsoft to offer for sale a version of Windows without Windows Media Player.
In order to assist the Commission in monitoring Microsoft’s compliance with the decision, the decision provided for a monitoring trustee to be appointed by the Commission from a list of persons drawn up by Microsoft. The monitoring trustee’s primary responsibility would be to issue opinions, upon application by a third party or by the Commission, or on his own motion, on whether Microsoft was complying with the decision and on any issue that might be of interest with respect to the enforcement of the decision. He was to have access to Microsoft’s assistance, information, documents, premises and employees and to the source code of the relevant Microsoft products. All the costs associated with the monitoring trustee, including his remuneration, were to be borne by Microsoft. On 7 June 2004 Microsoft brought an action before the Court of First Instance for annulment of the decision or for annulment or a substantial reduction of the fine imposed on it.
The refusal to supply the interoperability information
First, the Court confirms that the necessary degree of interoperability required by the Commission is well founded and that there is no inconsistency between that degree of interoperability and the remedy imposed by the Commission. The Court then observes that the Commission defined interoperability information as a detailed technical description of certain rules of interconnection and interaction that can be used within Windows work group networks to deliver work group services. The Court notes that the Commission emphasised that Microsoft’s abusive refusal to supply concerned only the specifications of certain protocols and not the source code and that it was not its intention to order Microsoft to disclose its source code to its competitors. The Court also considers that the aim pursued by the Commission is to remove the obstacle for Microsoft’s competitors represented by the insufficient degree of interoperability with the Windows domain architecture, in order to enable those competitors to offer work group server operating systems differing from Microsoft’s on important parameters. In that connection, the Court rejects Microsoft’s claims that the degree of interoperability required by the Commission is intended in reality to enable competing work group server operating systems to function in every respect like a Windows system and, accordingly, to enable Microsoft’s competitors to clone or reproduce its products.
As to the question of the intellectual property rights covering the communication protocols or the specifications, the Court considers that there is no need to adjudicate on that question in order to determine the case. It observes that in adopting the decision the Commission proceeded on the presumption that Microsoft could rely on such rights or, in other words, it considered that it was possible that the refusal at issue was a refusal to grant a licence to a third parties, thus opting for the solution which, according to the case-law, was the most favourable to Microsoft.
As regards the refusal to supply the interoperability information, the Court recalls that, according to the case-law, although undertakings are, as a rule, free to choose their business partners, in certain circumstances a refusal to supply on the part of a dominant undertaking may constitute an abuse of a dominant position. Before a refusal by the holder of an intellectual property right to license a third party to use a product can be characterised as an abuse of a dominant position, three conditions must be satisfied: the refusal must relate to a product or service indispensable to the exercise of an activity on a neighbouring market; the refusal must be of such a kind as to exclude any effective competition on that market; and the refusal must prevent the appearance of a new product for which there is potential consumer demand. Provided that such circumstances are satisfied, the refusal to grant a licence may constitute an abuse of a dominant position unless it is objectively justified. In the present case, the Court finds that the Commission did not err in considering that those conditions were indeed satisfied.
The Court considers that the Commission was correct to conclude that the work group server operating systems of Microsoft’s competitors must be able to interoperate with Windows domain architecture on an equal footing with Windows operating systems if they are to be capable of being marketed viably. The absence of such interoperability has the effect of reinforcing Microsoft’s competitive position on the market and creates a risk that competition will be eliminated.
The Court observes that the circumstance relating to the appearance of a new product must be assessed under Article 82(b) of the Treaty. It considers that the Commission’s finding that Microsoft’s refusal limits technical development to the prejudice of consumers within the meaning of that provision is not manifestly incorrect.
Last, the Court rejects Microsoft’s arguments to the effect that the refusal is objectively justified because the technology concerned is covered by intellectual property rights. The Court notes that such justification would render ineffective the principles established in the case-law which are referred to above. The Court further considers that Microsoft has failed to show that if it were required to disclose the interoperability information that would have a significant negative effect on its incentives to innovate. The Court therefore upholds the part of the decision concerning interoperability.
The bundling of the Windows client PC operating system and Windows Media Player
By way of preliminary observation, the Court considers that the factors on which the Commission based its conclusion that there was abusive tying are correct and consistent with Community law. It observes that those factors are as follows: first, the undertaking concerned must have a dominant position on the market for the tying product; second, the tying product and the tied product must be two separate products; third, consumers must not have a choice to obtain the tying product without the tied product; and, fourth, the practice must foreclose competition. In respect of each of those factors, the Court considers that the Commission’s decision is well founded.
First, the Court observes that it is not disputed that Microsoft had a dominant position on the client PC operating systems market.
Second, the Court, noting that that the question as to whether products are distinct must be assessed by reference to consumer demand, finds that a number of factors based on the nature and the technical features of the products concerned, the facts observed on the market, the history of the development of the products concerned and also Microsoft’s commercial business practice, demonstrate the existence of separate consumer demand for media players. In that regard, the Court notes, inter alia, that the Windows operating system is system software, whereas Windows Media Player is application software; that there are independent companies, like RealNetworks, who design and supply competing products independently of operating systems; that Microsoft develops and markets Windows Media Player for other operating systems; that Windows Media Player can be downloaded independently of the Windows operating system; and that, in spite of the bundling, a not insignificant number of consumers continue to acquire competing media players separately.
Third, the Court observes that it is beyond dispute that, in consequence of the tying, consumers are unable to acquire the Windows operating system without simultaneously acquiring Windows Media Player. In that regard, the Court considers that neither the fact that Microsoft does not charge a separate price for Windows Media Player, nor the fact that consumers are not obliged to use that media player, is relevant for the purposes of the examination of that factor.
Fourth, the Court finds that the Commission clearly demonstrated in the contested decision that the fact that Microsoft offered OEMs only the version of Windows bundled with Windows Media Player had the inevitable consequence of affecting relations on the market between Microsoft, OEMs and suppliers of third-party media players by appreciably altering the balance of competition in favour of Microsoft and to the detriment of the other operators. The Court considers that that practice enabled Microsoft to obtain an unparalleled advantage with respect to distribution of its product and to ensure the ubiquity of Windows Media Player on client PCs throughout the world, thus providing a disincentive for users to use third-party media players and for OEMs to pre-install such media players on client PCs. The Court concludes that the Commission was correct to find that there was a significant risk that the tying would lead to a weakening of competition in such a way that the maintenance of an effective competitive structure would not be ensured in the near future.
Last, the Court finds that Microsoft has not demonstrated the existence of objective justification for the bundling and that the remedy imposed by the Commission is proportionate. On that point, the Court makes clear that Microsoft retains the right to continue to offer the version of Windows bundled with Windows Media Player and that it is required only to make it possible for consumers to obtain the operating system without that media player, a measure which does not mean any change in Microsoft’s current technical practice other than the development of that version of Windows. The Court therefore upholds the part of the decision concerning the bundling of Windows Media Player.
The monitoring trustee
The Court observes that if the Commission decides to seek the assistance of an external expert, it may communicate to him all the information and documents which it has obtained in the exercise of its powers. However, it considers that by establishing the mechanism of a monitoring trustee, with his own powers of investigation and capable of being called upon to act by third parties, the Commission went far beyond the situation in which it appoints its own expert to advise it during an investigation.
The Court criticises, in particular, the obligation imposed on Microsoft to allow the monitoring trustee, independently of the Commission, access to its information, documents, premises and employees and also to the source code of its relevant products. It observes that no limit in time is envisaged for the continuing intervention of the trustee. The Court finds that the Commission has no authority to compel Microsoft to grant to a monitoring trustee powers which the Commission itself is not authorised to confer on a third party.
Last, the Court considers that the Commission exceeds its powers in so far as it makes Microsoft responsible for all the costs associated with the monitoring trustee. There is no provision of Community law that authorises the Commission to require an undertaking to bear the costs which the Commission itself incurs as a result of monitoring the implementation of remedies. The Court therefore annuls the decision in so far as it orders Microsoft to submit a proposal for the appointment of a monitoring trustee with the power to have access, independently of the Commission, to Microsoft’s assistance, information, documents, premises and employees and to the source code of the relevant Microsoft products and in so far as it provides that all the costs associated with that monitoring trustee be borne by Microsoft.
The fine
The Court finds that the Commission did not err in assessing the gravity and duration of the infringement and did not err in setting the amount of the fine. Since the abuse of a dominant position is confirmed by the Court, the amount of the fine remains unchanged at EUR 497 million.
An appeal, limited to points of law only, may be brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities against a decision of the Court of First Instance, within two months of its notification
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2007/l_032/l_03220070206en00230028.pdf
http://www.curia.europa.eu/en/actu/communiques/cp07/aff/cp070063en.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT
Internet, record labels
eDonkey servers taken offline
Legal steps by the record industry in France, Germany and the Netherlands have cut off more than one million users of the one of the largest P2P networks – no doubt to the huge annoyance if music fans. Seven servers on eDonkey were shut down this week after court injunctions in Germany. This follows on from similar eDonkey server closures in Netherlands and France. eDonkey is a peer-to-peer file sharing network widely used to swap copyright infringing music files. The eDonkey network relies on servers for its effective operation and eDonkey servers are run by one or more individuals using software to enable users to find other users connected to the same server that have files the user wants to download. A series of legal actions by national groups of the International Federation of Phonographic Iindustries, representing the recording industry, have forced many eDonkey servers offline, significantly reducing the effectiveness and reach of the network. In the last few weeks the number of eDonkey users worldwide has been reduced by more than a million, knocking an estimated third of users off the network. Fresh actions will continue to target the remaining eDonkey servers. The new actions against servers are part of the recording industry’s multi-pronged strategy against illegal P2P file-sharing. This includes continuing legal actions against tens of thousands of individual uploaders, including users of eDonkey, who face civil or criminal action depending on national law. More than 50,000 actions worldwide have been announced to date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT
All areas
Germany makes personal copying illegal
The German government has approved an update to its copyright law that essentially makes it illegal to make copies of movies and music, even for personal use. Set to take effect in 2008, the law will make it a crime to copy DVDs and CDs, in addition to IPTV and TV broadcasts, without permission. The country's Green Party and consumer advocates lobbied for an exemption for personal uses, but to no avail.
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117972434.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT
Record labels and radio
ARTICLE LINK will radio income save the labels?
By Steve Gordon at the Register
Whilst sound Exchange collects for the digital use of sound recordings (maters owned usually by labels) a quirk in US law means there is no equivalent to PPL (Phonographic Performance Limited) collecting for the public performance of tracks. Is this going to change?
See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/20/steve_gordon_riaa_radio/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT
Television, internet
ARTICLE LINK Premier League wants law to tighten defences
By Roger Blitz, Financial Times
Having joined the fights against YouTube, the UK’s Premier League (FAPL) is now asking the UK Government to shake-up of copyright law amid concerns the government needs to do more to protect the increasingly valuable media rights the sport’s top flight is attracting – recent deals included UK TV deals with Sky and Setanta worth £1.7 billion, overseas deals worth £625 million and £400 million for mobile and internet rights. The League are concerned that the police, Customs and Excise and Trading Standards are not ‘exercised’ by copyright infringement and are also concerned that news services routinely use clips of football matches without payment under fair dealing (fair use) provisions in UK copyright law.
See the FT article at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ab8e97e4-6b7d-11dc-863b-0000779fd2ac.html
Other stories on FAPL see: More join infringement class action against YouTube and Google (Music Law Updates September 2007), MPS v Murphy: The legality of pubs using foreign satellite signal goes to the High Court (May 2007), MPS v Murphy : The Greek Nova TV signal is held to be a UK broadcast (April 2007) and the ARTICLE DoesSky have an enforceable a monopoly on live premiership football in the UK? (FACT v Gannon, MPS v Murphy) March 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRADE MARK
Internet
ARTICLE LINK New Nominet Consultation On An Important Change To Its Dispute Resolution Service
By Susan Barty and Phillip Carnell CMS Cameron McKenna
Nominet, the domain name registry for all .uk domain names, held an open consultation last year on reforming the Dispute Resolution Service (the "DRS"). In light of the responses to the original consultation, Nominet produced a paper which suggested a number of changes to the DRS. One of the proposed changes is the introduction of a default transfer system, which would provide an automatic transfer of domain names in the event a response to a DRS complaint is not received from the domain name registrant. See
http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=52610&email_access=on
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRADE MARK
All areas
ARTICLE LINKNew United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Rules Affect Owners Of European Community And Certain International Trademark Applications And Registrations
Article by Mintz Levin Intellectual Property Section
Beginning October 1, 2007, the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO), which covers the countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, will change its trademark examination practice with regard to prior-filed trademark applications and registrations.
http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=52542&email_access=on
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2007, Ben Challis