Legal experts decipher Oracle-Google copyright verdict
http://cnet.co/J9Ycz5
Was the jury qualified? See Washington Post.
More details here.
How to Muddy Your Tracks on the Internet
Legal and technology researchers estimate that it would take about a month for Internet users to read the privacy policies of all the Web sites they visit in a year. So in the interest of time, here is the deal: You know that dream where you suddenly realize you’re stark naked? You’re living it whenever you open your browser.
...
“Companies like Google are creating these enormous databases using your personal information,” said Paul Hill, senior consultant with SystemExperts, a network security company in Sudbury, Mass. “They may have the best of intentions now, but who knows what they will look like 20 years from now, and by then it will be too late to take it all back.”
See NY Times
...
“Companies like Google are creating these enormous databases using your personal information,” said Paul Hill, senior consultant with SystemExperts, a network security company in Sudbury, Mass. “They may have the best of intentions now, but who knows what they will look like 20 years from now, and by then it will be too late to take it all back.”
See NY Times
info graphic - The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)
A Technical Examination of SOPA and PIPA
By Spencer Belkofer. LLRX.com, April 29, 2012
SOPA is the Stop Online Piracy Act, and PIPA is the Protect IP Act.
Copyright Loss For Optus TV
National Rugby League Investments Pty Limited v Singtel Optus Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 59 (27 April 2012)
"The two primary issues raised in the appeals can be stated shortly. The first is: When a cinematograph film (or copy) and a sound recording (or copy) were made when a television broadcast of one of the AFL or NRL matches was recorded for a subscriber, who, for the purposes of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) was the maker of that film, sound recording or copy? Was it Optus or the subscriber (or both of them jointly)? The primary judge’s answer to this was that the maker was the subscriber.
Ours is a different conclusion. The maker was Optus or, in the alternative, it was Optus and the subscriber. It is unnecessary for present purposes to express a definitive view as between the two. Optus could be said to be the maker in that the service it offered to, and did, supply a subscriber was to make and to make available to that person a recording of the football match he or she selected. Alternatively Optus and the subscriber could be said to be the maker for Copyright Act purposes as they acted in concert for the purpose of making a recording of the particular broadcast which the subscriber required to be made and of which he or she initiated the automated process by which copies were produced. In other words, they were jointly and severally responsible for the act of copying. That is our preferred view.
The second question is: If Optus’ act in making such a film would otherwise constitute an infringement of the copyright of AFL, NRL or Telstra, can Optus invoke what we would inaccurately, but conveniently, call the “private and domestic use” defence of s 111 of the Act? The primary judge did not have to consider this, given his answer to the first question.
Our answer is that Optus cannot either as maker alone or as a maker with a subscriber bring itself within the scope of the s 111 exception on its proper construction."
Domain names
Discussion for this week's lecture will include:
- what is a domain name?
- who ultimately controls domain names - what roles do ICANN, auDA play?
- what legal rights do you have in a domain name?
- how much are domain names worth?
- what is cybersquatting?
- how can you resolve domain name disputes? Please be familiar with the elements of the UDRP and the auDRP. Are these processes preferable to court? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each option?
- how would you go about judging a domain name dispute under the UDRP? Are the decisions consistent?
- what other policies and legal issues impact on an entitlement to domain names?
- new GTLDs
German Court case fails to settle YouTube copyright controversy
A
German court has ruled that YouTube must erase seven contested videos
over copyright issues. However, the decision has failed to settle the
protracted copyright row raging on the Internet.
Hamburg's State Court ruled on Friday that YouTube will have to take
seven videos offline, including "Rivers of Babylon" by Boney M.
The verdict strengthens the position of Germany's royalty collections body GEMA which has been battling Google-owned YouTube over copyright issues for years.
The last agreement expired in 2009 and the conflicting parties have since been at loggerheads over the proper method to collect copyright fees. However, Friday's verdict is not the landmark ruling which some had hoped would once and for all settle the contentious issue of copyright protection in the Internet.
Limited culpability
The Hamburg court decided that Internet platforms like YouTube are not directly liable for the breach of copyrights committed by users uploading protected material. However, the platform is now obliged to "deactivate immediately any illegal videos" once alerted by those holding the copyright.
Notably, the ruling does not oblige YouTube to check all content that has already been uploaded to its site – a key GEMA demand.
The judges said YouTube was not the main culprit because it does not upload or steal any content. Rather it facilitated the copyright breaches by offering and operating the online platform.
In order to prevent further copyright breaches, the judges called on YouTube to employ specific software capable of detecting songs in videos.
The verdict strengthens the position of Germany's royalty collections body GEMA which has been battling Google-owned YouTube over copyright issues for years.
The last agreement expired in 2009 and the conflicting parties have since been at loggerheads over the proper method to collect copyright fees. However, Friday's verdict is not the landmark ruling which some had hoped would once and for all settle the contentious issue of copyright protection in the Internet.
Limited culpability
The Hamburg court decided that Internet platforms like YouTube are not directly liable for the breach of copyrights committed by users uploading protected material. However, the platform is now obliged to "deactivate immediately any illegal videos" once alerted by those holding the copyright.
Notably, the ruling does not oblige YouTube to check all content that has already been uploaded to its site – a key GEMA demand.
The judges said YouTube was not the main culprit because it does not upload or steal any content. Rather it facilitated the copyright breaches by offering and operating the online platform.
In order to prevent further copyright breaches, the judges called on YouTube to employ specific software capable of detecting songs in videos.
Business Method Patents
For tonights class, in addition to the reading listed below, the following recent Australian Patent Office decisions are relevant:
- Celgene Corporation [2012] APO 12
- Discovery Holdings Limited [2011] APO 56 (9th August 2011)
Jail time for Facebook Photos
A New South Wales man has been jailed for six months for posting nude pictures of his former lover on Facebook, Fairfax media has reported.
In the first social networking-related conviction in Australian history, Ravshan ”Ronnie” Usmanov posted six nude photos of his ex-girlfriend on Facebook shortly after they broke up.
The photos showed his ex-girlfriend "nude in certain positions and clearly showing her breasts and genitalia."
"I put the photos up because she hurt me and it was the only thing (I had) to hurt her," Usmanov, 20, was quoted by the Sydney Morning Herald as telling the police.
According to the report, Usmanov also emailed his girlfriend after posting the pictures, saying, “Some of your photos are now on Facebook."
The woman, who cannot be identified, requested Usmanov to take the pictures down but called the police when he refused.
In 2010, a New Zealand man was sentenced to four months in jail for posting a naked photo of his ex-girlfriend on Facebook.
His act was described as one of "irresponsible drunken rage" by presiding judge, who also said, "Technology can't be used in this way. You would do incalculable damage to someone's reputation."Source: Yahoo website
iiNet High Court of Australia Decison - iiNet Wins
The High Court of Australia today handed down judgment in favour of iiNet in the copyright appeal, dealing with whether an ISP should be liable for copyright infringements of the ISP's customers. Unanimous dismissal. French, Crennan and Kiefel
in one judgment and separate judgment of Gummow and Hayne also dismissing appeal.
"Today the High Court dismissed an appeal by a number of film and television companies from a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The High Court held that the respondent, an internet service provider, had not authorised the infringement by its customers of the appellants' copyright in commercially released films and television programs."
Summary:
http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2012/hcasum16_2012_04_20_iiNet.pdf
Judgment:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2012/16.html
My commentary in The Age
"Today the High Court dismissed an appeal by a number of film and television companies from a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The High Court held that the respondent, an internet service provider, had not authorised the infringement by its customers of the appellants' copyright in commercially released films and television programs."
Summary:
http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2012/hcasum16_2012_04_20_iiNet.pdf
Judgment:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2012/16.html
My commentary in The Age
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)