WebProNews

Tag: Copyright law

  • Aereo On Last Leg Following Supreme Court Ruling

    The Supreme Court has spoken and popular streaming site Aereo will likely be kaput very soon.

    The site was the subject of a lengthy copyright battle due to the website’s ability to allow its users to watch and record television shows. At a price range of $8 to $12 per month, it was a steal for fans of the site.

    In addition to watching shows on television and recording with DVR devices, customers could also access the content through smartphones, tablets, and personal computers.

    The highly accessible Aereo was making a great deal of money off of content the website simply did not own.

    Needless to say, the affected cable providers and content owners were anything but thrilled.

    Despite the conflict, it wasn’t easy to determine just how to approach Aereo’s wrongdoing.

    For instance, broadcasters claimed that the website violated the Copyright Act by providing audiences paid access to content the site itself did not own or have permission to share.

    Aereo defended itself by saying it only provided users a means of accessing television. The website claimed its services were no more illegal or harmful than a television antenna.

    The problem with this argument is that Aereo is broadcasting paid content; a great deal of money was spent to make the content available through cable providers. The site itself pays nothing while charging customers for its service.

    Making a profit in such a manner is just too unscrupulous to avoid running into legal trouble.

    It was the opinion of the Supreme Court that Aereo was, by virtue of its paid service, a cable provider. As such, the company is subject to copyright law.

    The court ruled that the laws were meant to protect cable providers from the “unlicensed activities of Aereo” and similar lawbreakers.

    Does the court’s ruling necessarily spell the end of Aereo?

    Well, not immediately.

    The amount of content that Aereo typically shares is going to cost a GREAT deal of money should the website “go straight”. Perhaps more money than the website can afford to spend and stay afloat.

    It will most likely shrink to a “manageable” level of content, which may drive users elsewhere. If that doesn’t test customer loyalty than the inevitable price hike surely will.
    In any case, it doesn’t look good for Aereo.

    The case is also expected to have heavy ramifications when it comes to online streaming.

    Since the Supreme Court has made a ruling with regard to copyright laws and violations through streamed content, it will only be a matter of time before certain websites feel the heat.

    Paid streaming or not, a bevy of lawsuits probably were filed within minutes of this landmark ruling.

    Image via Wikimedia Commons

  • Supreme Court Upholds First-Sale Doctrine On Items Bought Overseas

    Does the first-sale doctrine apply to items bought overseas? That was the question before the Supreme Court in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. It was an extremely important case that bode poorly for the consumer if the Court were to side with the publisher, but thankfully it proved to be pro-consumer in this case.

    For those new to this particular case, it’s rather easy to breakdown. A student was sued by John Wiley & Sons after he had purchased the publisher’s textbooks overseas, at a much cheaper price, and sold them in the states for a profit. The student argued that his right to sell the textbooks fell under the first-sale doctrine that allows consumers to sell copyrighted materials after they have been purchased. In other words, used book stores and libraries are legal because of the first-sale doctrine.

    The publisher, on the other hand, argued that the first-sale doctrine only applied to items produced in the U.S. It didn’t matter if the work, like a textbook, was written in the U.S. If it was printed overseas, the first-sale doctrine didn’t apply under their interpretation of the law. Under their interpretation, it would be a violation of copyright for a consumer to sell any copyrighted item sold overseas in the U.S. without the publishers or manufacturers permission.

    The Supreme Court, in a six to three decision, ruled in favor of Kirtsaeng’s argument saying that the first-sale doctrine applies to any copyrighted work regardless of its geographic origin:

    In our view, §109(a)’s language, its context, and the common-law history of the “first sale” doctrine, taken together, favor a non-geographical interpretation. We also doubt that Congress would have intended to create the practical copyright-related harms with which a geographical interpretation would threaten ordinary scholarly, artistic, commercial, and consumer activities…. We consequently conclude that Kirtsaeng’s nongeographical reading is the better reading of the Act.

    As you can imagine, this is an incredibly important ruling. There was far more at stake than just the ability to resell books or CDs. Computers, software and other technology also fall under the ruling, and the market for reselling these items would be all but demolished if the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of the publisher.

    As TechDirt points out, the Supreme Court ruling is not the end of this particular fight by a long shot. Publishers were pushing hard for a ruling in their favor, and will now focus their collective attention on Congress to pass laws that limit what the first-sale doctrine actually covers. There’s also a chance that we’ll see limitations on the first-sale doctrine pop up in new international trade treaties.

    Until then, however, we can rest easy knowing that one of the few protections we as consumers enjoy is safe for now.

  • Canadian Bill C-11 Committee Review Concluded

    A special legislative committee of the Canadian Parliament concluded it’s clause-by-clase review of Bill C-11 Tuesday, and now the bill heads to the House of Commons for a third reading. In total, eight government-sponsored amendments were added to the bill.

    In this latest round of amendments, the bill’s “enabler clause” was expanded, holding ISPs, social networking sites, and filesharing hosts more accountable for the content their users share online. But “virtually all other copyright lobby demands – website blocking, notice-and-takedown, iPod tax, copyright term extension, disclosure of subscriber information – were rejected,” reports University of Ottowa Law professor Michael Geist, who live-tweeted updates of the entire proceedings. Meanwhile, consumer- and education-group-backed provisions were left intact. These included provisions regarding:

    • User-generated content
    • Time shifting
    • Format shifting
    • Backup copies
    • The degree of Internet provider liability, and
    • Statutory damages

    The bill’s fair dealing was also left intact, despite pressure from publishers and copyright collectives.

    The major sticking point for Canada’s ruling Conservatives, however, was the issue of digital locks. The Tories–with direct backing from Prime Minister Stephen Haper, as well as support from the U.S.–refused to budge on digital lock restrictions, and so in its current reading Bill C-11 will rendering the breaking of digital locks illegal for any reason. Future regulation may open the door for exceptions to this provision–especially for consumers with perceptual disabilities–but for the moment, at least, the bill (if passed) would prohibit all digital lock-breaking, even if consumers break the locks in order to access legally purchased content. There’s a chance that NDP Members of Parliament may even base constitutional challenges to the bill on this provision.

    Following a third reading in the House of Commons, the bill will also need Senate review and royal assent before being enacted into law, but all this could be done and Bill C-11 (in its final form) enacted into law sometime within the next few months.

    Photo Source: ImmigrationinCanada.ca

  • Amendments to Canadian Copyright Law on Table

    I have some potential bad news for our filesharing neighbors up North. New amendments to the Copyright Act of Canada could soon affect the future of online filesharing in that country and elsewhere. Today a special House of Commons committee is expected to review a series of technical amendments to Canada’s proposed Bill C-11, also known as the “Copyright Modernization Act”. (That’s Canadian for “SOPA.”)

    At the moment, copyright laws in The Great White North are viewed by many lobbyists and government officials as some of the laxest in the western world. These new proposed amendments to the laws come at the pressure both of content industry lobbyists and the United States government. In its current form, the Copyright Modernization Act is supposed to strike a balance between the rights of content owners and consumers, but the adoption of any or all of the new amendments could tip that balance even further in favor of copyright holders.

    The new amendments would:

  • Expand the “enabler” provision of the build. As a result, ISPs and hosting services would be more accountable for their users transmission of copyrighted material.
  • Narrow the definition of the term “safe harbor” in the bill, with the same implications as above.
  • Narrow the bill’s “non-commercial user-generated contented exception,” known also as the “YouTube Exception”. Rightsholders complain that the current “YouTube” exception is too broad, and allows a range of user-generated content that content owners feel strips them of control of their work.

    • The Copyright Modernization Act also includes a controversial “digital locks” provision prohibiting the breaking of digital locks by consumers. Under this provision, it will be illegal for consumers to break digital locks for any reason, even if they do so in order to access media purchased legally overseas, or to transfer or backup copies of legally purchased content.

    While authors and supporters claim they are making mere “technical amendments” to the bill, concerned researchers like Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, believe the scope of the amendments is far greater than “technical.”

    “Almost everything that’s been put forward are not technical amendments — rewriting fair dealing, expanding the enabler provision, website blocking,” said Geist, quoted by Postmedia News. “I don’t think any of that could be fairly described as technical amendments,” he continued.

    The Copyright Modernization Act is Canada’s third attempt at more stringent copyright laws since 2008. If it is successful, the Tory government may learn that the more they tighten their grip, the more fileshare systems will slip through their fingers.

    Imagesource: Exclaim.ca. Paraphrase of Leia’s speech to Tarkin constitutes “fair use” and is protect as parody under the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976.Thank you, George.

  • UK Court Rules The Pirate Bay Illegal

    UK Court Rules The Pirate Bay Illegal

    In what could be a major hit for The Pirate Bay, a UK high court has ruled the Web site violates copyright law on a major scale.

    The Guardian is reporting that Justice Arnold of the London High Court has ruled that both the Web site, The Pirate Bay, and its users “unlawfully share copyrighted music.”

    Record labels are wanting to use this momentum to get UK ISPs to block access to the Web site. Those same record labels claim that The Pirate Bay generated $3 million last year by making copies of music and movies available for its users to download.

    Justice Arnold laid out his verdict in a written statement:

    In my judgment, the operators of [The Pirate Bay] do authorise its users’ infringing acts of copying and communication to the public. They go far beyond merely enabling or assisting. I conclude that both users and the operators of [The Pirate Bay] infringe the copyrights of the claimants … in the UK.

    Despite their ability to do so and despite the judicial findings that have been made against them, the operators of [The Pirate Bay] take no steps to prevent infringement. On the contrary … they actively encourage it and treat any attempts to prevent it (judicial or otherwise) with contempt.

    The court will make a verdict by June on whether or not The Pirate Bay will be blocked in the UK. We’ve reached out to The Pirate Bay for comment. We’ll update this story if we hear back.

    Geoff Taylor, chief executive of the British Phonographic Industry, was absolutely pleased with the verdict:

    The High Court today ruled that The Pirate Bay is illegal. The site defrauds musicians and causes huge damage to the music industry and wider creative industries.

    The ruling helps clarify the law on website blocking and we will now proceed with our application to have the site blocked to protect the UK’s creative industries from further harm.

    This may just be another stumbling block for the world’s largest torrent site as its founders had their sentences upheld in court recently, but the site isn’t letting any of the recent rulings against it stop them. Its recent changes to make the site more secure against such attempts to shut it down, such as its change to a new domain name or its use of magnet links, should keep the site going for many more years.

    Not to mention, if taking down MegaUpload didn’t hurt piracy, what is blocking The Pirate Bay going to do? The use of proxies and alternative services will keep piracy going until the content industries evolve or die.

  • Pirate Bay Founders’ Appeal To Sweden Supreme Court Rejected

    Pirate Bay Founders’ Appeal To Sweden Supreme Court Rejected

    After a long battle, it looks like The Pirate Bay faces its first major loss today.

    TorrentFreak is reporting that the Sweden Supreme Court rejected the appeal of the four founders of The Pirate Bay. The current prison sentences and fines levied against Peter Sunde, Fredrik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm and Carl Lundström will stand.

    For a bit of background information, three of the four men were found guilty of criminal copyright infringement offenses in 2010. Previously, they had their sentences decreased in a 2009 trial, but were ordered to pay increased damages.

    Sunde was given eight months in prison, Neij was given 10 months and Lundström will face four months. Svartholm was absent on medical leave during the appeal hearings. The ruling made in District Court in 2009 of one year in prison and a share of the damages is permanent. All four will have to pay a share of $6.8 million in damages.

    Lundström’s lawyer called the verdict “absurd.” He is disappointed in the court and their disinterest in “dissecting and analyzing the legal twists and turns of the one of the world’s most high-profile legal cases of all time.”

    One of the defendants told TorrentFreak that they are going to appeal to the European Court of Justice. This does not, however, prevent their sentence from being carried out in Sweden.

    The men may not go to prison though as the Swedish justice system commonly deducts 12 months from prison sentences on cases over five years old. Their case meets the criteria, but the final decision is up to the court.

    Sunde spoke to TorrentFreak about the decision:

    Sweden speaks well about caring about the Internets. They spend a lot of money and time on helping activists all around the world. But who are these people that they’re so proud of helping? TPB has been one of the most important movements in Sweden for freedom of speech, working against corruption and censorship.

    All of the people involved in TPB at some time have been involved in everything from famous leaks projects to aiding people in the arab spring. We’ve fought corruption all over the world. We’ve promoted equal opportunities to poor nations around the globe. We’ve crushed the monopoly on information. Our close ones, many who have helped building TPB, have been mentioned as possible winners of the nobel peace prize.

    I’m not bragging – I’m saying this to make sure that people understand who’s doing the right thing here. I haven’t seen the entertainment industry help anyone but themselves.

    The Pirate Bay Web site is still online as it was not part of the legal proceedings. The Pirate Bay Web site, however, now redirects to a .se domain, fearing that the U.S. will pull a MegaUpload on them.

    The Pirate Bay Web site proper also posted a statement about the decision calling 2012 “the year of the storm.” They reiterate a lot of what Sunde said, but it’s still worth a read:

    What binds us all together is a strong belief that what we do is good. That it is something we one day can tell our grandchildren about with pride. People from all over the world confirm this. We read testimonials from people in Syria longing for freedom, thanking us for what we provide. We receive more than 100 visits daily from North Korea and we sure know that they need it. If there’s something that will bring peace to this world it is the understanding and appreciation of your fellow man. What better way to do that than with this vast library of culture?

    But what enrages us to our inner core is that the system, the empire, the governments, are still allowed to try to boss you and us around with one law crazier than the other. Do you think they will stop with SOPA/ACTA/PIPA? They will not. Because you won’t stop sharing those files. Because we will not stay down. Because no one can turn back time. Together, we are the iron that hardens with each strike.

    In this year of the storm, the winners will build windmills and the losers will raise shelters. So flex your muscles, fellow pirates, and give power to us all! Build more sites! More nets! More protocols! Scream louder than ever and take it to the next level!

    What do you think? Is The Pirate Bay here to stay? Or is this one more nail in the coffin of the world’s most popular torrent tracker? Let us know in the comments.