Litigation
in cra-briefings38 · September 15, 2006
THE MUSIC INDUSTRY in the UK SUES AllofMP3
The British Phonographic Industry (“BPI”) is suing the Russian downloading service AllofMP3 which charges approximately $1.87 per downloaded album vs. an average fee of $14.85 charged by iTunes. Thought AllofMP3 charges a fee for downloads, the BPI alleges that the Russian company does not pay any royalties to artists and is trying to take AllofMP3 to court through the British system. Despite this lawsuit the BPI has indicated that it won’t be taking users to task, but rather will be going after the service provider. To underscore the seriousness of this issue, the BPI pushed the British government to raise the issue at the G8 conference in Russia in July. For more information on this case and government lobbying please see www.silicon.com or news.bbc.co.uk.
ONLINE JOURNALISTS CAN PROTECT THEIR SOURCES
The California Court of Appeal has held that online journalists have the same right to protect sources as offline reporters. Apple Computers brought the case against several “John Does” who had allegedly leaked information about Apple’s products. In attempting to identify the “John Does”, Apple had subpoenaed the e-mail records of the reporter from NFox, the reporters internet service provider. The court held that the records did not need to be disclosed as the reporter involved had the right to protect his sources. The summary of the outcome of this case was provided in the Effector, Vol 19, NO 20 May 30, 2006 and the full text of the decision can be found at www.eff.org’s site.
CLEAN FLICKS LOSE COPYRIGHT SUIT
Previously we reported that Clean Flicks along with several other movie “cleaning” companies were being sued by the Directors Guild of America. Clean Flicks’s business, as the name suggests, involves taking mainstream movies and removing explicit, violent or sexual content to make them family friendly. In early July, the American Courts ruled that Clean Flicks and the other companies were engaged in a business that violates copyright. In his ruling district court justice Richard Matsch made clear that the business was illegitimate and stated that “The right to control the content of copyright work …is the essence of the law of copyright”. This is seen as a victory for copyright holders in the United States, where the moral right to the integrity to a work that exists in Canada is not explicitly written into the law. For more information on this case see www.news.com.com.
A NEW CAUSE FOR COPYRIGHT USERS?
In an unusual case, the estate trustee and the grandson of the Irish writer James Joyce are being sued for improperly withholding access to material that scholars feel should be accessible for research purposes. The Joyce Estate is known to be one of the most aggressive in protecting the copyright of the works created by their ancestor and has historically withheld all access, including scholarly access, to his letters and other papers. They have also restricted what can be used in publications and readings. The question before the court is whether or not the heirs can withhold access to both published and unpublished materials in situations where users wish to exercise fair dealing or some other authorized use in respect to those works. Though James Joyce’s works are already in the Public Domain in Canada, this decision will have an impact on scholars in the United States and other countries that have a copyright term spanning life of the artist plus 70 years. It should also help clarify when and how a work can be presented on the Internet when it is in the public domain in the posting country but still subject to copyright protection in others. This case is receiving a lot of attention on the Internet and has been reported on in the Globe and Mail, July 8, 2006.
DUTCH COURT RULES ON LINKING
A Dutch website that linked to thousands of MP3 files has been taken down following an Appellate Court decision which stated that www.zoekmp3.nl, the defendant in the law suit, had to stop promoting infringement of copyright. Similar to past decisions from Australia, the court held that the manner in which the site operated encouraged individual users to infringe copyright. If the company does not respect the court order and infringement over the website continues, the court can impose penalties that include fines of 10,000 per day or 1,000 per infringing file. For more information on this case see http://www.techweb.com.