In 1709 (or was it 1710?) the Statute of Anne created the first purpose-built copyright law. This blog, founded just 300 short and unextended years later, is dedicated to all things copyright, warts and all.
In the US, the Obama administration has sided against Google and said the U.S. Supreme Court should not hear the company's appeal in a case against Oracle with wide implications for the technology industry, according to a court filing. The case involves how much copyright protection should extend to the Java programming language. At issue in Oracle v. Google is whether Oracle can claim a copyright on Java APIs and, if so, whether Google has infringed these copyrights. APIs (Application Programming Interfaces) are, generally speaking, specifications that allow programs to communicate with each other.
Overturing Judge William Alsup the Northern District of California who ruled that APIs are not subject to copyright, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the Java APIs are copyrightable, with the appellate court saying "We conclude that a set of commands to instruct a computer to carry out desired operations may contain expression that is eligible for copyright protection" but leaving open the possibility that Google might have a fair use defense. Its important - Google used Java to design its Android smartphone operating system, and unsurprisingly Googe then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Google maintained that the code at issue is not entitled to copyright protection because it constitutes a "method of operation" or "system" that allows programs to communicate with one another.
In January SCOTUS asked the Obama administration for its opinion on whether it should take the case because the federal government has a strong interest. Previously the Electronic Frontiers Fooundation (RFF) had filed an amicus brief on behalf of a group of 32 prominent computer scientists which urged the Supreme Court to reverse the appeals court decision saying "The Federal Circuit’s decision poses a significant threat to the technology sector and to the public" and "If it is allowed to stand, Oracle and others will have an unprecedented and dangerous power over the future of innovation. API creators would have veto rights over any developer who wants to create a compatible program—regardless of whether she copies any literal code from the original API implementation. That, in turn, would upset the settled business practices that have enabled the American computer industry to flourish, and choke off many of the system’s benefits to consumers." Now in the latest court filing, U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli said Google's argument that the code is not entitled to copyright protection lacks merit and did not need to be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Verrilli added that Google had raised important concerns about the effect that enforcement of Oracle's copyright could have on software development, but said those issues could be addressed via further proceedings on Google's separate "fair use" defence in San Francisco federal court. http://gadgets.ndtv.com/mobiles/news/obama-administration-asks-us-top-court-to-decline-google-copyright-appeal-vs-oracle-696634
Torrentfreak has released details from a report from the Motion Picture Association Of America which says that the US movie industry is unconvinced by the USA's graduated response programme for combating online piracy saying that it is having limited results, though the MPAA continues to endorse the so called Copyright Alert System and feel it is yet to reach an appropriate scale. The system sees ISPs send warning letters to suspected file-sharers identified by content ownesr. The programme launched in early 2013 - with increasing sanctions if users fail to comply in a 'six strikes' programme. Despite the lack of impact overall, the report says that there is evidence a substantial number of file-sharers sent warning letters do appear to stop using monitored file-sharing networks, though it is not sure if that's because those users are opting for licensing content services instead, or if they then switch to file-sharing platforms that are more difficult to monitor.
Rightscorp are back in the news - but this time its not from one of their own press releases - its a lot of angry Canadians who don't like the fact that with Canada's 'Notice and Notice' system just two weeks old, the U.S.-based anti-piracy firm "has been using the system to send notifications to subscribers that misstate Canadian law, citing inapplicable U.S. damage awards and the possibility of Internet termination to sow fear among Canadians so that they might pay a settlement fee." Torrentfreak reports that the letter to Canadians asks for a $20 settlement with the threat of a U.S. style $150,000 damages liability for each infringement. But the Canadian 'notice' approach does not feature any legal penalties for end users - no fines or damages, no internet slow down or suspension. Rather the notices are designed as educational tools to raise awareness of infringement allegations. what's more, when an ISP sends a notice, the personal information of subscribers is not disclosed to any third party. Of course if a copyright owner wants to proceed with further legal action they have the option of going to court to obtain an order requiring the Internet provider to reveal the identity of the subscriber but Canadian law now also limits potential liability for Internet users for non-commercial infringement, capping damages at C$5,000 for all infringements - although in an article in Billboard Michael Geist points to a loophole in the law that Rightscorp may be using - the 'notice and notice' scheme was launched in a bit of a rush - without accompanying (detailed) regulations. The Canadian Government seems less than impressed with Rightscorp and spokesman for Industry Minister James Moore said "These notices are misleading and companies cannot use them to demand money from Canadians”. That said, asCMU Daily opines "Rights owners might argue that it’s more than likely that recipients of these forms have indeed infringed, that a $20 fine is a fair deal, and that rights owners should be allowed to at least recoup the costs of running an anti-piracy programme" but adds "Though they still ought not bully that money out of alleged infringers by citing the wrong country’s law". The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) says it is preparing to have several "infringing sites" blocked at the ISP level in Singapore. The move, which will target The Pirate Bay should it come back online, follows new legislation introduced last year aimed at smoothing the way for High Court injunctions. The U.S. Supreme Court has asked the Obama administration to comment in on the huge copyright battle between Google and Oracle, which could develop into a major exploration of the legal boundaries of software protection. In an order the court asked the U.S. Solicitor General to submit a brief in the case, a common practice when the justices seek the federal government’s legal views in cases with national implications. Oracle has claimed Google’s Android operating system violated copyright protections by improperly incorporating parts of its Java technology. A federal judge initially found after a trial that the Java components in dispute (the so called APIs) could not be covered by copyright law, but the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals last year concluded that the technology could be protected.
The operators of Glasgow's now closed Avalon Bar in Glasgow have been ordered by the Court of Session to pay Sky more than £73,000 for unlawfully showing football matches. This copyright infringement award was described by Sky's lawyers as the largest award ever made against a pub landlord in actions of this kind. The Court of Session ruled in February 2014 that the pub owner was in breach of Sky’s copyright by showing a Celtic v Ross County game without a commercial agreement. The pub then flouted an injunction preventing them showing Sky Sports by playing the Scotland versus Belgium match in September 2013. Sky Business deputy managing director Alison Dolan said: "Copyright infringement creates an uneven playing field for thousands of hardworking licensees who legitimately invest in Sky Sports, which is why we are committed to visiting thousands of pubs, as well as investigating suppliers, to protect our customers and ensure they are not left short-changed by illegal activity. The court awarded £10,000 damages and combined court fines of £7,000 in respect of the charge of contempt of court. The remaining £56,328.32 was awarded as costs. The Copyright Clearance Center has announced its findings from Open Access roundtable discussions with UK Institutions and Publishers - perhaps unsurprisingly the independent report finds a shared desire to simplify and standardise payment and tracking of article processing charges. The meeting was held at University College in London, and attendees examined a number of issues related to fragmentation, approach and processes, including ways vendors can play an expanded role in addressing the challenges. CCC published the group’s findings in a report written by Rob Johnson, Founder and Director of Research Consulting. More here.
A New York federal judge has largely rejected Sirius XM Holdings Inc’s request to reconsider her Nov. 14 decision in favour of members of the 1960s band The Turtles over the payment of royalties for songs made before 1972. U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon rejected Sirius’ arguments that Flo & Eddie Inc, controlled by founding band members Howard Kaylan and Mark Volman, did not own copyrights in The Turtles’ recordings such as “Happy Together,” or gave it an “implied” license to play Turtles songs. Judge McMahon did, however, agree with the New York-based satellite radio company that Flo & Eddie could recover damages for copyright infringement only for the three years before it sued on Aug. 16, 2013, not six years as she had previously suggested. More here. And finally, actor-director Steven Soderbergh has been getting a great deal of attention recently for posting his newly-edited versions of three classic films: Psycho, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and, most recently, 2001: A Space Odyssey. "Interesting and creative stuff, indeed". But as a number of commentators have pointed out, Soderbergh has been a prominent supporter of copyright in the past, testifying before Congress on behalf of the Director’s Guild of America in favour of the “three strikes and you’re out” policy for online copyright infringers and litigating against an unauthorised alterations and edits to his own work in Soderbergh et al v. Clean Flicks of Colorado et al. David Post has an interesting take here as does Mike Masnick on Techdirt here.
We have recently posted a couple of blogs looking at the position of hardworking professional photographers who feel somewhat let down by the current copyright regime. No, not the Getty Iamages of this world, but the likes of inspect photographer Alex Wild who takes brillant shots and just wants to make an honest living. Well, now we have Pixsy, a new automated copyright infingement software that looks to help photographers around the globe tackle an issue that plagues the industry and for the most part goes unresolved - "Fighting copyright infringement can be a long and costly ordeal and Pixsy hopes to be your one stop solution for fair compensation.". For a disfferent perspective, TechDirt have more to say on this.
A U.S. judge has thrown out a screenwriter's copyright suit accusing Academy Award-nominated director Neill Blomkamp of stealing his screenplay and turning it into the 2013 movie “Elysium.”. U.S. District Court Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granted Blomkamp and co-defendants Sony Pictures, TriStar Pictures and others a summary judgment against writer Steve Wilson Briggs, who claimed that Blomkamp read his screenplay called “Butterfly Driver” online and turned it into his film starring Matt Damon. Both stories are set in a futuristic world in which the protagonists leave Earth for a satellite space city, but the shared aspects are only abstract, Hamilton wrote in her decision. More here.
In Nigeria a group of copyright owners under the auspices of Concerned Copyright and Intellectual Property Owners (CCIPO) have decried "the monopoly imposed on the business of collecting societies in the copyright sector of the economy" by "a cabal in the Nigerian Copyright Commission (NCC)". CCIPO says this negates the spirit of President Goodluck Jonathan’s Transformation Agenda, which centres on the observance of the rule of law and opening up of the nation’s economy to enable all Nigerians participate. The group also called for the implementation of the December 18, 2013, House of Representatives’ resolution directing the NCC to immediately de-monopolise the collective administration of copyright, particularly the business of royalty collection in the entertainment industry. And more from Nigeria - Linda Ikeji, owner of one of the top ten most visited websites in Nigeria, is seemingly facing being taken offline by Google because her site allegedly contains infringing images and recycled text. A social commentator on Twitter (@MrAyeDee) tweeted that Google had responded to his complaints about Ikeji using his content without compensating him or giving recognition to the original author. Ikeji responded to the news in a blog post titled "To the guys that want to take down LIB, here's a message to you...lol" saying "I admit that I take content from other sites. Plenty of it sef, but the question is, which website in the world doesn't?" before adding "So Mr Aye Dee, Mr EE, Mr #bringmedown or whoever you are and Jeremy Weate (look who is talking ..lol) and all the others talking, I am not afraid of you! You didn't bring me this far and you're not enough to bring me down" and commenting that the reason she was being attacked was because of the success of her blog - which earns her an estimated $900,000 per annum (N140M).
Rights holders could lose even more control over their content if they take cases to court to test new copyright exceptions, Professor Ian Hargreaves, the Cardiff Ubiversity academic whose proposals prompted the new laws has exclusively told Out-Law.com. As this theor exclusive why not head over to thier website to see more.
In Canada it seems that the Conservative government is planning to change Canada’s copyright law to allow political parties to use content published and broadcast by news organisations for free in their own political ads. An internal Conservative cabinet document obtained by CTV News details an amendment to the Copyright Act which would allow “free use of ‘news’ content in political advertisement intended to promote or oppose a politician or political party.” The amendment would also remove “the need for broadcasters to authorize the use of their news content.” And it would force media outlets to run political ads even if their own footage and content was used in a negative message to voters. More from CTV News here and CBC here. Heritage Minister Shelly Glover was reported as saying "There is a public interest in ensuring that politicians are accountable for their actions and accountable for what they say in public settings" and "Major television networks should not be able to censor what can and cannot be broadcast to Canadians. We believe this has always been protected under the fair dealings provisions of the law, and if greater certainty is necessary, we will provide it." Comments from Michael Geist and video footage from both sides of the argument here. Reuters report that Google has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to wade into the contentious litigation against Oracle Corp, arguing that the court must act to protect innovation in techology. Google is seeking to overturn an appeals court ruling that found Oracle could copyright parts of the Java programming language, which Google used to design its Android smartphone. The three-judge U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington reversed this decision of Judge William Alsup in the District Court saying "We conclude that a set of commands to instruct a computer to carry out desired operations may contain expression that is eligible for copyright protection". The EFF had previously gathered together 32 computer scientists and tech industry leaders to support an amicus brief to the appellate court arguing that APIs should not be copyrightable because they are critical to spurring innovation and inter-operability in the tech world. In its filing this week, Google said the company would never been able to innovate had the Federal Circuit's reasoning been in place when the company was formed. More on this here.
And finally: the citizens' initiative in Finland to amend laws regarding copyright violations, which was partly spurred on by the 2012 police raid on the home of a young girl who had illegally downloaded music onto her 'winnie-the-pooh' computer is likely to fail. The 'Common sense for copyright' proposal, which 50,00 citizens signed up to, would water down sanctions for illegal downloading of both music and movies by private individuals (although penalties for 'commercial' sharing and wholesale downloading would be retained). Format shifting woulld be legalised and other exceptions to copyright rewritten, and these would include a 'fair use'exceptionThe Finnish Parliament's Education and Culture Committee is proposing that a citizens' initiative on making copyright laws more lenient be rejected. More here.