Group items tagged

"I think the trend is now clear. There have been a number of cases in the last five years and if you look at the way they have been decided - the Kazaa case in Australia clearly referred to the American [Grokster] decision and just tweaked the law in a way that suited the rights holders. In Belgium, an ISP [Scarlet] was forced to implement filtering [June 2007, Belgian Society of Authors Composers and Publishers (SABAM) v Scarlet, Brussels Court of First Instance, currently under appeal]; there was a case in Finland [June 2008, Finnish Court of Appeal, where administrators of P2P site Finreactor were sued on an individual basis and 21 people were jointly fined €500,000 ($647,284) for copyright infringement and assisting copyright infringement; 14 are appealing] where the BitTorrent super-users were found guilty and they pleaded they were only linking. So I do see that trend." [...] "The big frustration is that we act for all these legal services who pay lots of money to the rights holders, and it's almost impossible to get licenses. They are so expensive and the process is so slow. Two or three years can go by and you can throw millions at trying to get a compelling service launched, and there are obstacles in the way all the time. Pandora is a great example, it's just not possible [to operate it in Europe]. We also advise Last.fm and MySpace, it's just so much hard work. This is the irony: they [labels] complain about piracy and then you walk in the door with a new service with some VC funding and an amazing bit of software that is essentially promoting and selling their content. But they say 'we are not moving unless you give us an advance of $5 million plus equity."

The government recently released Decree 47, raising the maximum fine for copyright infringement from 70 million to 500 million dong. The highest fine will be imposed in the following cases: appropriating copyrights, directly or indirectly copying shows, directly or indirectly copying visual and audio recording works, copying broadcasting programmes, appropriating related rights. The decree also stipulates supplementary forms of punishment and measures to repair damages. Vietnam Literary Copyright Centre Director Doan Thi Lam Luyen said: "The new decree is harsher but it is insufficient if only a fine is applied. While someone who steals a chicken or a cow faces imprisonment, stealing intellectual products only results in a fine." The new decree will take effect on June 30, 2009.

China's largest Internet search engine, Baidu, was said to be "responsible for the vast majority of illegal downloading of music in China, deriving significant advertising revenue." But last month China issued an IPR protection plan involving 28 ministries and organizations that had 170 concrete measures to fight copyright infringement. Also, the Supreme People's Court raised compensation for victims from 500,000 yuan ($73,000) to more than 1 million yuan ($146,000). Last year, China closed 192 websites that profited from copyright infringement and uncovered 5719 cases of copyright infringement, Commissioner of the State Intellectual Property Office Tian Lipu said.

"In this article the author examines the impact that copyright law has on the issue of censorship and government regulation of mass media. The author states that copyright legislation pits international media conglomerates that control the availability of their products, against the consumer right to have access to information resources at a reasonable charge. It is suggested that the court cases Huntsman v. Soderbergh and Universal Studios v. Reimerdes tilted the advantage toward the proprietors of mass media outlets and away from consumers."

Repository of Spanish cases on hyperlinking to copyrighted material. In Spanish.

Anti-piracy groups and lawyers across Europe are unmovable - they say that since they logged a copyright infringement from a particular IP address, the bill payer is responsible. Now a court in Rome has decided that on the contrary, an IP address does not identify an infringer, only a particular connection.

But, where PRS really shines is in threatening tons of small businesses. Over the years, we've had stories on PRS threatening car repair shops, because mechanics in the garage were playing their radios loud enough that customers in the waiting room could hear them. That's a public performance, according to PRS. Then they went after a police station because some cops were listening to radios. Then they went after a children's charity for singing Christmas carols without paying up. The group has even been known to call up small businesses and if they hear music in the background, demand payment, including one case involving a guy working at home with his dog. Apparently, that constitutes a "public performance." The latest (sent in by a few folks) is that PRS has now threatened a woman who plays classical music to her horses in her stable to keep them calm. She had been turning on the local classical music station, saying that it helped keep the horse calm -- but PRS is demanding £99 if she wants to keep providing such a "public performance." And it's not just a one-off. Apparently a bunch of stables have been receiving such calls.

"This [three-strikes law] is such a good idea that it should be applied to other media as well. Here is my modest proposal to extend three-strikes to the medium of print, that is, to words on paper. My proposed system is simplicity itself. The government sets up a registry of accused infringers. Anybody can send a complaint to the registry, asserting that someone is infringing their copyright in the print medium. If the government registry receives three complaints about a person, that person is banned for a year from using print. As in the Internet case, the ban applies to both reading and writing, and to all uses of print, including informal ones. In short, a banned person may not write or read anything for a year."

So maybe Coldplay is not a group of plagiarists; rather, it is a group of pop hacks working on tropes that the entire pop music industry since the 1950's has stolen from elsewhere. Originality is a tricky thing. Just ask Shepard Fairey.

"There have been several Shanzhai mobile cases exposed recently, including India's expulsion of China Shanzhai mobiles. China's Shanzhai culture has got a pretty bad reputation the world over, to the point where other Shanzhai manufactures complain: "copycatting shouldn't be so unscrupulous; law breaking can't be that obviously extreme. HAFF-COMM forces all of us into the international spotlight.""

The Barbie parody case, which was a) thrown out as being frivilous, with b) an attorney's fee order of millions!