29 May 2011

CopyPorn


Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Image: Bloke Having A Fag Outside A Sex Shop by Mike Serigrapher on Flickr

2057478603_acc39ae491_z

“Are porn films copyrightable and hence covered by copyright protection?” a friend asked me yesterday. His concern was that “immoral” films often face statutory limitations with respect to their distribution.

“That is a very good question”, I thought and gave him a short answer.

Basically, my answer relied on that pornographic films are works in the first place, more precisely – cinematographic works and that as such they will very likely qualify for copyright protection. I further opined that any limitations to their distribution should not prejudice their character as works of copyright and hence their protection under copyright law.

In this blog post I will give a more profound answer thereby covering the Berne Convention as well as the national laws of three countries. I chose those countries because they not only have a long-established and prominent copyright protection, but they have also a well-developed entertainment industry and, as a part thereof, production and consumption of pornographic films.

Good, let me will start with the

Berne Convention

Article 2 of this treaty, also referred to as the mother of copyright, reads as follows

(1) The expression “literary and artistic works” shall include every production in the literary, scientific and artistic domain, whatever may be the mode or form of its expression, such as books, pamphlets and other writings; lectures, addresses, sermons and other works of the same nature; dramatic or dramatico-musical works; choreographic works and entertainments in dumb show; musical compositions with or without words; cinematographic works to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to cinematography; works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving and lithography; photographic works to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to photography; works of applied art; illustrations, maps, plans, sketches and three-dimensional works relative to geography, topography, architecture or science.

Convention’s Article 2 bis leaves it to the members states to decide whether certain categories of works are to be protected, but limits the categories only to (i) speeches, (ii) lectures and addresses and (iii) collections of (i) and (ii).
Anyway, the convention remains silent on the question whether moral deliberations should prevent a work from copyright protection.

United Kingdom

The United Kingdom (UK) ratified the Berne Convention with effect from 5 December 1887. Even though films have since then represented a single branch of copyright works, courts on the British Islands may nevertheless refuse to recognise copyright protection for policy reason such as immorality.
In a somewhat older case from 1916 Younger J ruled that there was no copyright in a film because it constituted a “sensual adulterous intrigue”. The House of Lords has cited this ruling with approval as far back as 1990, though not necessarily in conjunction with pornography.
In the very recent case of Media C.A.T. that involving the copyright infringement in pornographic films, however, Birss QC did not question the copyright character of the pornographic works in suit.

What remains to say is that there is still some doubt as to the exact effect of immorality under UK law. It is unclear whether immoral works lack copyright at all, or that equity will not enforce the copyright.

USA

Although the United States acceded to the Berne Convention as late as 1989, their federal copyright law has always protected motion pictures and other audiovisual works. However, the same has not always been true with respect to pornographic works.
According to the PrawfsBlawg, “obscene” (=hardcore) pornography could not qualify for copyright protection until 1979. It was the Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit which declared obscene films protected by copyright law. This ruling led to the FBI copyright warnings now found at the start of videotapes or other media carrying a film.

Germany

With respect to the copyrightability of films, the German Copyright Act more or less repeats Article 2 of the Berne Convention. The Copyright Act likewise remains silent on (im)morality driven exclusions of copyright.
However, Article 184 of the German Penal Code reads as follows:

1) Whosoever with regard to pornographic written materials (section 11 (3))

  1. offers, gives or makes them accessible to a person under eighteen years of age;
  2. displays, presents or otherwise makes them accessible at a place accessible to persons under eighteen years of age, or which can be viewed by them;
  3. offers or gives them to another in retail trade outside the business premises, in kiosks or other sales areas which the customer usually does not enter, through a mail-order business or in commercial lending libraries or reading circles;
    3a. offers or gives them to another by means of commercial rental or comparable commercial supply for use, except for shops which are not accessible to persons under eighteen years of age and which cannot be viewed by them;
  4. undertakes to import them by means of a mail-order business;
  5. publicly offers, announces, or commends them at a place accessible to persons under eighteen years of age or which can be viewed by them, or through dissemination of written materials outside business transactions through the usual trade outlets;
  6. allows another to obtain them without having been requested to do so;
  7. shows them at a public film showing for an entry fee intended entirely or predominantly for this showing;
  8. produces, obtains, supplies, stocks, or undertakes to import them in order to use them or copies made from them within the meaning of Nos 1 to 7 above or to facilitate such use by another; or
  9. undertakes to export them in order to disseminate them or copies made from them abroad in violation of foreign penal provisions or to make them publicly accessible or to facilitate such use,

shall be liable to imprisonment of not more than one year or a fine.

What does it mean? It means that porn films are copyrightable under German law, but their distribution, basically to persons under 18, is criminalised.

Conclusion

It appears that pornographic films are capable of attracting copyright protection under the relevant jurisdictions of the United Kingdom, the United States and Germany.
While the UK and the US have interlinked copyrightability with public morality and their courts have certain powers to determine whether copyright should subsist in obscene films, Germany follows a clear-cut approach stating that even pornographic films are copyrightable, albeit their distribution might be subject to morality or other public policy driven limitations.

Want  to tell how your jurisdiction deals with the copyrightability and/or distribution of pornographic works?
Simply use the comment section below.

26 May 2011

One Breach To Compromise Them All


Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Image: Demon Dog by Samuel Cockman on Flickr

5416537777_ed546d8bf9_z

This is a watchdog. A very cute one.
Its job is, nevertheless, to bark to alert its owner of an intruder’s presence and scare away the intruder.

France, the country which advertised the three strikes rule on a large scale and did eventually adopt it, has also a watchdog.
A dog to watch for file-sharing and online piracy of any kind.
Not a very cute one.

In fact, the French government represented by HADOPI, the executive agency established to enforce the three strikes rule, has commissioned the private company Trident Media Guard (TMG) to scan file-sharing networks and gather the IP addresses of alleged copyright infringers.

However, this watchdog was hacked and suffered a massive

Data Breach

some ten days ago.

I found the information about the breach on Ars Technica which have been continuously covering (click and click) the issue.
It appears that not only the unguarded servers were TMG’s Achilles’ heel. Their anti-piracy software was full of faults as well.

What a negligence, huh?

But that would not be all!

Imagine that this poorly managed company, empowered by the order of a special government agency and, employing a software that would very likely fail during a diligently conducted acceptance test, has the means to count your three strikes and

Send You Off

the digital playground?

The good news is that HADOPI must have considered this state of affairs unacceptable and has thus (temporarily) suspended TMG’s authorisation to collect the IP addresses of French Internet subscribers.

If the Court of the European Union follows Advocate General’s opinion in Scarlet vs SABAM, it could rule such Internet scanning outdated.

Either way, TMG’s data breach did its deed – it managed to harm the three strikes policy’s image and to (hopefully) ultimately and entirely compromise it.

21 May 2011

Tattooing Copyright


Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Image by shelbysdrummond on Flickr

5527028856_8cb317bc9a_z

I guess that it is needless to introduce the character on the image above. He has the image of a scandalous guy and he was featured in more or less such light in the film The Hangover. Did you watch it? I did and found it entertaining.

By the way, do you belong to those eagerly expecting The Hangover Part II? Well, do not be impatient if this blockbuster takes somewhat longer to come in a theater near you.

You will not believe it, if I tell you why this is likely to happen!
Ok, here I go.  The thing is that Mr S. Victor Whitmill, a tattoo artist, claims that Warner Bros

Have Infringed His Copyright In A Tattoo

Yes, you are reading this correct! Well, it is not just some tattoo – it is the tattoo Mike Tyson is wearing on his face and the same arguably worn by an actor in The Hangover Part II. While Mr Whitmill gave its permission to Mr Tyson to lawfully wear the tattoo, this has not been the case with Warner Bros.
The New York Times has brought this amusing story and it truly deserves a read.

Ok, let me address the main question here: can copyright subsist in a tattoo?

Section 102 (a) of the US Copyright Act 1976 states that

Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.
Works of authorship include the following categories:
(1) literary works;
(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;
(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;
(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
(7) sound recordings; and
(8) architectural works.

I would say that once Mr Whitmill establishes that his tattoo meets these criteria it will be protected under US copyright law.
What do you think, is this completely impossible? Let us have a closer look at it!

Work

First of all Mr Whitmill will have to prove that his tattoo is a work. I believe this will cause no problems – a tattoo is not different from a painting, which is definitely a (pictorial or graphic) work.

Fixation

Fixation is an essential criterion for protection under US copyright law. Section 101 of the US Copyright Act gives us the definition of what fixation is:

A work is “fixed” in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration.

Having read the definition, would you express any doubts as to whether Mr Whitmill’s tattoo is sufficiently fixed in Mike Tyson’s face? In my view, one could hardly speak of a tangible medium that is more stable than that gentleman’s visage.

Originality

Originality is the third main criterion for the copyrightability of a work. It is not defined in the Copyright Act, but can be derived from the plenty of judicial authority.
If the tattoo is a Maori-inspired design, as the NYT newspaper article tells us, can Mr Whitmill have authored it then? Following the leading case of Feist v Rural, Mr Whitmill’s tattoo shall be considered original once he establishes that

the work was independently created by the author (as opposed to copied from other works), and that it possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity

Hmm, could Mr Whitmill succeed on this point? In my view originality will be the very issue, provided, however, that the matter will be eventually fought before a Court of competent jurisdiction.

Final Thoughts

Despite my legal interest in the copyrightability of a tattoo, I would ask the same question as did the Harvard Info Law Blog:

Would this be a lawsuit, let alone a front-page NYT article, if the accused infringer wasn’t a big movie studio with a tentpole summer movie on the brink of release?

What do you think?

9 May 2011

Copyright Notice: What Is Next To The C In A Circle?


Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Have you ever visited Quora? It is a questions and answers site with some social network characteristics. I visit it twice to thrice a week, mostly on weekends.
When I am there, I look for questions concerning subject matters I believe to be competent in and write corresponding answers.
Why am I saying this all?
Well, because during my visit today, I encountered a question regarding the institute of the copyright notice, particularly what the years’ entries following the © stand for.

I agree, this is something that not many are aware of, but do not worry – I did write this blog post to provide you with the answer!

Let me start spending some words on copyright notices in general.

The copyright notice is a formality developed under US copyright law. It is placed on copies of a work of copyright and basically serves to claim the copyright in such work. Copyright owners were obliged to apply copyright notices on their works in order to attract copyright protection, but since 1 March 1989 this mandatory regime has turned into a voluntary one.
By contrast, the vast majority of authors’ rights countries never relied upon copyright notices.
Hence, all you need to know about them is that they are no mandatory

Conditions

to attract copyright in a work.

Despite, there is a practical effect one should not underestimate: the defence of innocent infringement shall not succeed if the defendant had access to copies bearing a copyright notice.
Thus owing to the emerging globalisation and knowing that the US represent the largest market for works of the mind, even non-US copyright owners apply a copyright notice to their works. What is nowadays’ copyright notices’ primary field of application? I would say it comprises of websites and computer software.

Good, but what does the year following the copyright symbol (that would be the year 2007 in the sketch above) stand for?

This is the

Date Of First Publication

of the work.

Why is this date important? Because under the Berne Convention this is the date that activates a work’s copyright protection. Since copyright is subject to a certain duration, the counter for that work’s protection starts ticking on the date of its first publication.

But sometimes there is another date applied to the copyright notice and it follows the date of first publication, somewhat like the year 2011 in the burlesque sketch above – what is it?

Well, now you are about to enter an area that is reserved only for specialists.

The second date is the date on which the author or copyright owner (or someone authorised by the author/copyright owner) has completed a

Derivative Work

out of the original work.
Derivative work? What is this?

17 US Code, Section 101 defines the derivative work as a work based upon one or more preexisting works. In the realm of a website, for instance, this may be a major update incl. new pictures added, design changes and so on.

Why is the date of completion important? Because derivative works also qualify for copyright protection. Applying the date of their completion equals the signal gun announcing their duration’s countdown.

That would be my answer.
I have not missed something, have I?

24 February 2011

The Images Of Your Fairness


Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

All Rights Reserved*photo © 2009 Paul Gallo | more info (via: Wylio)

I bet you are pretty much familiar with the sign above, are you not? On the Internet, you can see it almost everywhere, but particularly with respect to images.  Why is this so? Well, it indicates that the work it applies to is protected by copyright. Nevertheless, rights in images are just too often infringed and misappropriated on the Internet.
This is not surprising, since images, photographs and pictures are considered impressive addenda especially to weblogs. The famous blogger Mack Collier has written a blog post on the marketing power of pictorial content. However, I will leave the marketing to Mack and stick to my last, that is the legal perspective of utilizing images on weblogs.
I would start addressing this question:

What is the legal nature of images?

Images or photographs represent a protected subject matter under copyright law. They are works. Generally, works must fulfil some requirements in order to qualify for copyright protection, but the threshold relating to images has often been said to be rather low.
The British, for instance, have never scrupled to place every variety of photograph within copyright. Once produced with a sweat of the brow, a photograph needs not show an artistic quality.
Albeit not identical, the test under US law is similar to the one under UK law. It differs in that it requires a minimal degree of creativity.
Authors’ rights systems such as France and Germany tend to give copyright only to photographic works, that is the results of careful and distinctive arrangement, involving an element of aesthetic judgment.
But be cautious – in those jurisdictions the law on unfair competition provides for a “catch-all” protection, hence even images that do not qualify for copyright protection are not free-for-all.

What does the copyright protection of images mean?

Copyright owners (or right holders) are granted exclusive economic and moral rights in their works. While moral rights seek to protect certain non-pecuniary interests of authors, the economic rights enable them to control the economic exploitation of their works. In my view, the most important economic rights relating to images on the Internet are

– the right to make copies of the image;
– the right to distribute such copies to the public, and
– the right to communicate the copies to the public by means of an electronic transmission.

The general rule is that, whoever undertakes one of the above activities without author’s or right holder’s permission, is liable of copyright infringement. As a consequence, an infringing user is likely to be liable for tort or, depending on the jurisdiction, even for a criminal offence.
I wrote “the general rule” above, because copyright legislations usually seek to strike a fair balance between copyright owners’ and users’ interests. Hence, in some occasions even the unauthorized use of copyrighted images would not result in an infringement – it could be prejudiced by doctrines of limitation.

What are the limitations or defences you may rely upon with respect to images?

While Internet users under an author’s right jurisdiction may rely on narrowly statutorily defined limitations, users in either the United Kingdom or the United States are bound to the underlying notion of fairness.

In other words, if a user under an author’s right jurisdiction copies, distributes or communicates an image on the Internet and such copying, distribution and communication to the public falls within a statutory limitation, it is exempt and does not constitute infringement.
By contrast, a user in the US may benefit from a general fair use defence when accessing and using images. Fair use covers different purposes and applies to both commercial and non-profit use. A user in the UK may rely on something that is half-a-way between the author’s right and the US systems. UK copyright law is akin to author’s right laws in that it provides users with a defence, if their use relates to statutorily defined purposes. By the same token, it shows  similarities with US law in that there is a requirement that such use be fair. The defence under UK law is referred to as fair dealing.

How can you apply the limitations or defences to your use of images online?

Applying the limitations or defences to images will not each time be easy. For instance, the limitations under the laws of France and Germany as well as the fair dealing defences under UK law are comparatively narrow and are enumerated exhaustively. The US fair use doctrine, albeit not exhaustively legislated, also covers just specific purposes.
One could summarize those to the following:

– private or individual use (author’s law systems only);
– criticism, analysis, cultural discourse;
– news coverage and
– research.

Which of the above would be beneficial to a blogger? Hmm, not many. The private or individual use, for instances,  applies only to the act of copying, whereas the copied image may be used only within the private sphere. Uploading an image on a weblog is far more than just copying and once put on a weblog, the copied image leaves the private and enters the public sphere.
If you upload images on your blog for the purpose of criticism and analysis, then your outlook is bright. The same is almost true with respect to news coverage: unfortunately, using images for that very purpose does not qualify as fair dealing under UK law. Researchers among the bloggers (and I would figure myself belonging to them) have again good perspectives and, given their fairness, may rely on limitations and defences in all of the abovementioned jurisdictions.

Well, not very promising, huh? There must be another way to design your blog with pictures in a compliant and lawful manner.

What do you know about Creative Commons?

Creative Commons (CC) licenses were developed to create a more flexible copyright model, replacing “all rights reserved” with “some rights reserved”. Among them there are some which are rather permissive, thereby requiring a mere attribution to the author of the work. Others are really restrictive and forbid modifications to and/or commercial use of the work. In any case, the CC licenses call upon the fairness of the users.
You can search for images licensed under a CC license on Flickr or access them directly via Wylio.

Final thoughts

As you could see, there are some ways to lawfully access even “all rights reserved” photographs and communicate them on your blog. Besides there are innovative and culture distribution friendly license models that also allow you to use pictorial content on the Internet, albeit with “some rights reserved”.
What you should bear in mind is to be fair towards the authors and copyright holders, because the pictures on your blog represent the images of your fairness!

 

Did you find this article informative or helpful? If yes, you might want to share it by pressing one of below buttons or to otherwise tell your friends about it.

4 January 2011

Warden calls DMCA for help against briskly Glider


Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Blizzcon 2008photo © 2008 Oracio Alvarado | more info (via: Wylio)

I must take the chance to win World of Warcraft (WoW) players as readers of the Reguligence Weblog! Believe it or not, but in MDY Industries vs Blizzard Entertainment and Vivendi Games the US Court of Appeals for the ninth Circuit delivered an interesting decision that deals with some copyright aspect of this successful role-playing game. In particular, the Court had to determine whether MDY’s level-up enabling software called Glider infringed Blizzard’s copyright and other rights under DMCA’s sections 1201 et seq.

Everyone who has played either of Blizzard’s computer games knows that they are based on a so called “leveling-up“. The latter is both, desirous and quite time-consuming for players. Since Glider’s purpose is to play WoW for its owner and level him or her up, it represents an add-on computer game bot to WoW. On the grounds of their End User License Agreement (“EULA”) and Terms of Use (“ToU”) as well as on the introduction of Warden, an anti-bot technology, Blizzard served MDY with a cease-and-desist letter demanding that MDY immediately ceased selling Glider. As a response, MDY brought an action for declaratory judgment to establish that Glider does not infringe Blizzard’s copyright or other rights.

In the first instance the District Court for the District of Arizona found MDY liable for secondary copyright infringement, violations of DMCA §§ 1201(a)(2) and (b)(1), and tortious interference with contract.

However, the 9th Circuit reviewed de novo and found that

  • the ToU’s forbiddance against bots were covenants rather than copyright-enforceable conditions, hence MDY did not infringe Blizzard’s copyright, and
  • since Warden effectively controlled access to WoW’s dynamic non-literal elements, MDY was liable under § 1201(a)(2) with respect to WoW’s dynamic non-literal elements.

In spite of the above, the 9th Circuit denied MDY’s liability under § 1201(b)(1) for Glider’s circumvention of Warden since Warden did not effectively protect a right of Blizzard under the Copyright Act.

The Court reasoned this result with the textual differences between §§ 1201(a) and (b).

§ 1201(a)(2) prohibits the circumvention of a measure that “effectively controls access to a work protected under this title,” whereas § 1201(b)(1) concerns a measure that “effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or portion thereof.”

Accordingly, the 9th Circuit read § 1201 (a) as extending a new form of protection distinct from traditional copyright infringement, i.e., the right to prevent circumvention of access controls to copyrighted works.

Finally, why is this decision of a legal significance?

I suggest that we honour it for its clear-cut between § 1201’s two distinct types of claims.

Last but not least, it should read like a warning to all developers of computer game bots: creators of computer games are given an extra weapon to fight you!

 

Did you find this article informative, helpful or entertaining? If yes, do not forget to share it by pressing one of below buttons or to otherwise tell your friends about it!

12 December 2010

Of Media Cats and Pirating Mice


Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

 

The cases on copyright infringement where P2P is involved are endless, virtually interminable. Within this variety of cases, there are those concerning unsecured WiFi connections. Some jurisdictions like Germany have already developed an authority, thus providing for a better legal certainty. Others, like England and Wales, appear to be in a process to establish theirs.

About a week ago, the England and Wales Patents County Court, presided by Judge Birss, delivered a judgment in such a case. The claims were brought by ACS:Law.

Anyway, why is this worth mentioning?

Well, this is a law firm currently having to deal with a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as a result of the numerous complaints against their methods of work, in particular the dunning letters that firm is known to send to alleged intellectual property infringers.

But back to facts: claimant, assisted by a specialist data monitoring company, did identify eight individuals and accused them to have uploaded “R 18 restricted” films through peer to peer file sharing networks. The defendants, so the Particulars of Claim, “have operated, at the time of the identified infringement an internet connection router that was not secured either adequately or at all, so as to enable another to carry out an act of copyright infringement of the claimant’s Work via the internet connection of the defendant.” Put it another way, the defendants were all owners of WiFi access points that they had not secured. In claimant’s view, these “defendantswere liable for authorising others to infringe the right owners’ rights in the above films.

Since a copyright case can be brought by the owner of copyright or an exclusive licensee and claimant is neither of these, judge Birss started his judgment expressing some doubts as to claimant’s right to be a claimant in the fist place. The court then admitted to be aware “of no published decision in this country which deals with this issue in the context of copyright infringement.” Nevertheless, the court did not upheld claimant’s plea that “allowing others to infringe” equated “authorising others to infringe”. Not even the authority of the German Federal Supreme Court in the case “Sommer unseres Lebens”, stating that owners of unsecured access points have a duty to safeguard their devices to prevent others from using them without permission, was capable of proving persuasive to His Honour. He mentioned the German case “simply as an illustration of the complex and significant legal issues arising.”

So, what is the moral of the story? It seems that under the jurisdiction of England and Wales and, assumingly, under that of the entire United Kingdom, owners of unsecured WiFi internet connections should not be held responsible for any copyright infringement that third parties might cause over that connections. Judge Birss’ reasoning is in fact a very simple one: section 16 (2) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act requires that one, without the licence of the copyright owner, does any of the acts restricted by copyright or authorises others to do them. Falcon vs Famous Players is still an authority in terms of “authorisation” and accordingly, “authorise” means to sanction, countenance or approve, or alternatively to grant or purport to grant to a third person a right to do an act. No doubt, an owner of an unsecured WiFi connection does none of the foregoing.

Frankly, one should take the above cum grano salis since the Patents County Court is just a lower court in the judicial system of England and Wales. Nonetheless, this court’s decision clearly addresses the legal weak point in claims aiming to rather generate earnings than to prevent abuse.

 

Did you find this article informative, helpful or entertaining? If yes, do not forget to share it by pressing one of below buttons or to otherwise tell your friends about it!

8 July 2010

Men infringing copyright at work


Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Do you come from a land down under? Where music labels are keen to plunder?

I guess my readers will excuse this little joke with Men At Work’s “Down Under” lyrics, but it fits quite good in the context of this posting. I believe it is needless to introduce “Down Under” – you hardly cannot know the unofficial anthem of Australia!
Despite its fame, since yesterday it is official – Men At Work’s song has been found to infringe the copyright in “Kookaburra”, a camp fire song written by Marion Sinclair in 1934 and currently owned by Larrikin Music Publishing Ltd Pty.
“Down Under” was written and composed in 1978 by Colin Hay and Ronald Strykert, members of Men at Work, and was first published in about 1979. In 1981 the song was re-recorded for Men At Work’s “Business as Usual” album.

 

Men At Work. Courtesy to Simon Alenka.

In 2007 Larrikin became aware that two bars of “Kookaburra” were reproduced once in the flute riff contained in the 1979 sound recording of “Down Under” and three times in the one of 1981. Alleging that “Down Under” infringed their copyright in “Kookaburra”, Larrikin started proceedings against Colin Hay and Ronald Strykert  as well as against EMI Songs Australia and EMI Music Publishing Australia, being the owner and licensee of copyright in “Down Under”. Larrikin further demanded a 60% share of the earnings “Down Under” has made since 1982.

On trial, Justice Jacobson accepted that the songs were objectively similar. Jacobson J based this finding on the cases of, inter alia, Francis Day & Hunter vs Bron and Austin vs Columbia Gramophone Co Ltd. Accordingly, objective similarity of musical works was not to be determined by a note for note comparison but by the eye as well as by the ear. Jacobson J further found that the portion reproduced in “Down Under” constituted a substantial taking from “Kookaburra”. Justice Jacobson achieved this finding referring to the judgment in Ice TV Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd, pursuant to which the determination of “substantial part” should be qualitative rather than quantitative.

Curiously, Larrikin did not claim damages for past performance on the ground of copyright infringement, but on passing off that in Australia is legislated in the  Trade Practices Act of 1974 and the Fair Trading Act 1989. In these proceedings, however, the court did not assess the quantum of damages or royalties to be paid to Larrikin.

In its very recently delivered ruling, Jacobson J referred to Larrikin’s 60% demand on “Down Under”‘s earnings as “excessive, overreaching and unrealistic”. Instead, his Honour ordered EMI to pay a percentage interest amounting to 5%.

Why is this case of any relevance at all?

Access to copyright works has never been so convenient as in the information society of today. Albeit inspiring for creators of later and ostensibly independent works, such access may turn to a risk for such creators. I am convinced that this Kookaburra decision shall be a far-reaching one and shall influence the judiciary in other common law jurisdictions such as England and Wales, New Zealand and Canada. Some aspects might be persuasive also for US Justices, although I guess that this very case would be decided by an US court rather on the grounds of fair use as “Down Under” is transformative to “Kookaburra”. My message to creators would be then: be cautious, if you are keen not to infringe copyright law at your work.

 

Did you find this article informative, helpful or entertaining? If yes, do not forget to share it by pressing one of below buttons or to otherwise tell your friends about it!

25 June 2010

Do not misappropriate the law, guys.


Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

 

 

Locked books. Courtesy to presscafe.org

It has been a long time since I wrote my last posting related to Bulgaria. During the last days, however, a police campaign or even a raid directed against the online content provider www. chitanka.info (chitanka meaning an alphabet book in Bulgarian) achieved a huge medial attention and, particularly, that of the Bulgarian blogosphere. While the police claimed a success over a group engaged in “Internet piracy”, journalists and bloggers saw an attack against the knowledge society in Bulgaria.

What was the problem in the first place?

Chitanka.info had digitised numerous printed books and made them available on the Internet to the world at large. In legal terms, chitanka.info had copied and adapted (mainly literary) works and subsequently communicated those to the public. On the grounds that, the foregoing acts represented acts restricted by copyright law, publishers and right owners’ associations argued that chitanka.info had infringed the copyright in the works, because they acted without the consent of the respective copyright owners. Apparently, these very right owners instructed the police to raid chitanka’s premises and to seize the equipment hosting the arguably infringing materials.

 

Top police investigator Yavor Kolev seizes one of chitanka's servers. Courtesy to bnews.bg

The operators of chitanka.info raised several defences, some of which were legal by their nature and some that were not. Regarding the latter they argued that their offering addressed school kids and thus served to satisfy primary educational needs. They further argued that some of the books they offered to download represented sold-out editions, not re-published since then and thus no longer available in bookstores. Eventually, they stressed on the misery reigning in public libraries and on the fact that today’s consumers demanded an online access to books, but publishers yet failed to (legally) satisfy this demand. Chitanka.info’s legal defences grounded on Art 24 (9) of the Bulgarian Act on Copyright and related Rights (Copyright Act) and on the fact that their offering was merely altruistic as it did not depend on a payment.

I would like to focus on chitanka.info’s legal defences in this posting. Art 24 deals with the free (fair) use of works for which users neither need tot obtain the copyright owners’ consent nor owe they any payments in connection with thei use of those works. Subsection 9 of this Article regards – as the Bulgarian and hence legally binding version of the act calls them –  the “publicly accessible” libraries. Please observe that the English translation of the act accessible via the link above refers to “public libraries”. This ostensibly unimportant distinction, displayed by the translation and of later relevance, might prove decisive for chitanka.info’s case.

To the best of my knowledge, neither the Bulgarian Copyright Act nor other legislation in force in Bulgaria defines the term of a “publicly accessible” library. By contrast, the Bulgarian Public Libraries Act delivers a definition of the term “public library”. Accordingly, a library needs to comply with certain requirements set out in Art 8 of said act, in order to be deemed a “public library”. There is no doubt that chitanka.info does not comply with those requirements. The Public Libraries Act was, however, delivered in 2009, whereas Art 24 (9) of the Bulgarian Copyright Act was last amended in 2005.

The issue suggests a few logical questions:

  • What did the lawmakers have before eyes when they drafted the Public Libraries Act?
  • Did they consider the “publicly accessible” libraries as mentioned in the Copyright Act, and
  • Are public libraries to be equated with publicly accessible libraries at all?

Depending on the answer of these questions, there might be following solution approaches:

  1. The terms public library and publicly accessible library are identical. Since chitanka.info does not qualify as a public library it likewise fails to qualify for the limitation under Art 24 (9) granted to publicly accessible libraries.
  2. The terms are not identical and the lawmakers did not intend to curtail the limitation under Art 24 (9) to only public libraries. Moreover, the limitation should apply to any library that is publicly accessible. Chitanka.info would then qualify for the safe harbour provided by Art 24 (9). Public libraries would qualify as well as they are by their definition “publicly accessible”.

It will be up to a court of competent jurisdiction to decide somehow or other. I personally would support the second solution approach as I am of the opinion that copyright law is misappropriated when used to prevent the spreading of information, particularly for educational purposes. My friendly piece of advice to the police would then read: do not misappropriate the law, guys.

 

Did you find this article informative, helpful or entertaining? If yes, do not forget to leave a comment or share it by pressing one of the below buttons!

1 April 2010

ISO Hunted Down


Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/reguligc/public_html/reguligence.biz/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Stories involving file-sharing networks and copyright enforcers have become easily predictible: the latter commence court proceedings against the former and after a lengthy judicial argy-bargy (almost always) prevail thereby having the enabling network shut down. Unfortunately for all file-sharers among my readers, this post tells a story that makes no exception to the foregoing. It is dedicated to isoHunt and its legal battle against Columbia Pictures and its yesterday’s announced probable death.

 

Courtesy to Ars Technica

The first proceeding in which isoHunt and its founder Gary Fung took the role of the defendants commenced somewhere in 2006 and has brought some legal clouds over that network. Notwithstanding, in this post I would like to more properly address the last ruling of the US District Court for the Central District of California which is capable to eventually provide the defendants with their Hemlock cup.

In the instant case claimants had moved for a summary judgment against the defendants on the grounds that defendants’ users have infringed claimants’ copyrights and defendants are therefore liable for such infringement under the theories of inducement, contributory infringement, and vicarious infringement. Not surprisingly, Judge Wilson granted claimants’ motion for a summary judgment. What makes this ruling noteworthy is Court’s profound discussion of the torrent technology concerned and its findings on defendants’ liability.

A good starting point in the discussion could be made by the fact that the ruling in question was delivered by the Honorable Stephen Wilson – the judge who presided over the original Grokster case. Whether therefore or not, but his Honour seems somewhat exerted to make as many references to the Grokster cases as only possible. Thus, in his view, defendants’ torrent sites, albeit demonstrating a unique download process, represent an evolutionary modification of traditional “peer-to-peer” sharing sites such as Napster and Grokster. They would only differentiate in that the files, awaiting to be shared, are hosted locally on the file-sharers’ computers and not on a centrally operated server. In order to accesss the files, the file-sharers would need a “library” that maintains an index of torrent files available to download. These files do not contain copyrighted materials themselves, but the data used by a torrent client to retrieve copyrighted materials through a peer-to-peer transfer. Such files have been previously uploaded by (other) users who host the copyrighted materials locally. Once a user downloads a given content file, he also becomes a source for future requests and downloads.

In its liability analysis the Court found that defendants’ inducement liability was so overwhelmingly clear, and that a discussion on the remaining two liability theories, ie secondary and vicarious liability, would be unnecessarily duplicative.

The Court stated that claimants have used IP-address data to locate defendants’ users and show that particular infringing downloads took place in the United States. Further, claimants have provided, in Court’s view, sufficient evidence that, contrary to defendants’ wholly unsupported (arg!) assertions, torrent files downloaded from defendants’ sites correspond to and automatically cause the downloading of claimants’ copyrighted materials.

In determining defendants’ inducement liability, Judge Wilson quoted one of US Supreme Court’s dicta in MGM vs Grokster, according to which “one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties.” In citing the Supreme Court in Grokster anew, the Court stated that the classic instance of inducement was by advertisement or solicitation that broadcasts a message designed to stimulate others to commit violations. By the same token, claimants, in Court’s determination, presented a variety of undisputed evidence that defendants disseminated a message “designed to stimulate others” to commit infringements. Thereafter, the Court found, defendants’ liability for inducement was no longer open to any doubt. Moreover, claimants engaged in “purposeful, culpable expression and conduct” aimed at promoting infringing uses of the torrent websites.

In a next procedural step, the defendants had raised a defence based on the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) that favours providers of certain internet services. However, upon stating that claimants had established defendants’ knowledge of their users’ infringing activities and, as defendants (i) failed to show they were not aware of facts or circumstances relating to infringement, and as defendants (ii) failed to evidence that they had removed the infringing material once they became aware of an infringing activity, the Court dismissed the defence and denied claimants’ entitlement to statutory safe harbour under the DMCA.

In its conclusion, the Court once again quoted Grokster and ruled that defendants’ technology is nothing more than “old wine in a new bottle”, consequently the outcome in the instant case could only be the same as in Grokster.

In my personal view, the above ruling is in full compliance with the currently applicable US legislation and judicial authority. Notwithstanding, developments such as in this case show at least two things. First, there is an ever-growing demand to access copyrighted material online and the shutdown of, say, Grokster did not prevent the establishing of isoHunt and Pirate Bay and it is very likely that their shutdown shall be accompanied by new creations in the file-sharing realm. Second, the rights’ owners should more extensively and, within the boundaries of applicable law, consider opportunities that employ the new technologies and lead to, maybe less excessive, but still good earnings, instead of prosecuting its own prospective customers.

 

Did you find this article informative, helpful or entertaining? If yes, do not forget to share it by pressing one of below buttons or to otherwise tell your friends about it!