The Copykat

This CopyKat from Tibbie McIntyre

The Britain Copyright Officers survey – deadline 3^rd April

If yous locomote at a Britain library as well as educational/cultural institution, your arrangement is warmly invited to accept component inwards a survey most copyright officers as well as copyright education here. The survey is available until 3^rd April.

The argued that platforms that create goodness from the prophylactic harbour dominion facilitate nearly one-half of all music consumption on the meshing but stand upward for alone approximately 4% of the revenue generated past times the industry.

Also, platforms are alone nether an obligation to take away infringing content when notification is given past times the rights-holder. This leaves copyright holders inwards the seat of eternally having to search YouTube, Facebook et al. for instances of infringement – an eternal game of ‘whack-a-mole’. This theme is coveredhere and argued that platforms that create goodness from the prophylactic harbour dominion facilitate nearly one-half of all music consumption on the meshing but stand upward for alone approximately 4% of the revenue generated past times the industry.

Also, platforms are alone nether an obligation to take away infringing content when notification is given past times the rights-holder. This leaves copyright holders inwards the seat of eternally having to search YouTube, Facebook et al. for instances of infringement – an eternal game of ‘whack-a-mole’. This theme is coveredhere, as well as reports on controversial measures proposed past times the European Union to overcome the ‘value gap’ tin hold out found here.

TorrentFreak reports that “Due to what some believe amounts to a drafting mistake inwards Australia’s implementation of the Commonwealth of Australia – U.S. Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA), so-called prophylactic harbor provisions alone apply to commercial Internet service providers.” This way that platforms allowing the upload of user-generated content may be establish liable for infringing content uploaded past times 3^rd parties.

Communications Minister Mitch Fifield confirmed inwards a statement that the amendment had been dropped: “Provisions relating to prophylactic harbour were removed from the neb earlier its introduction to enable the regime to farther consider feedback received on this proposal whilst non delaying the passage of other of import reforms”.  

Lobbying from a consortium on copyright holders to driblet the prophylactic harbour amendment has been intense. The Australian has published a serial of articles against implementation of the prophylactic harbour rule, arguing that Google et al. are “ruthlessly exploiting” prophylactic harbour rules inwards the U.S. as well as Europe (no links are available equally the content is behind a paywall).

What are the implications for platforms that allow 3^rd parties to upload content?

There is legal dubiousness – platforms may be establish liable for whatsoever acts of infringement past times their users. There are a number of options from which the platforms tin choose;

1.      Run the run a endangerment of existence establish liable of copyright infringement because of the actions of 3^rd party users, having to pay penalties to copyright holders.

2.      Enter into agreements alongside copyright holders on a pre-emptive basis, licensing content that 3^rd party users mightiness upload onto the platform.

3.      Implement filtering technology, identifying as well as blocking infringing content when it is uploaded. (This is too a live issue in Europe.)

4.      Exit the Australian marketplace altogether.

The exemption from liability enjoyed past times platforms is an of import number worldwide, as well as it should hold out interesting to uncovering how events unfold inwards Commonwealth of Australia inwards the coming months.

There are more stairs? – Stairway to Heaven saga continues

This saga has previously been reported on the 1709 blog argued that platforms that create goodness from the prophylactic harbour dominion facilitate nearly one-half of all music consumption on the meshing but stand upward for alone approximately 4% of the revenue generated past times the industry.

Also, platforms are alone nether an obligation to take away infringing content when notification is given past times the rights-holder. This leaves copyright holders inwards the seat of eternally having to search YouTube, Facebook et al. for instances of infringement – an eternal game of ‘whack-a-mole’. This theme is coveredhere and on the  IPKat argued that platforms that create goodness from the prophylactic harbour dominion facilitate nearly one-half of all music consumption on the meshing but stand upward for alone approximately 4% of the revenue generated past times the industry.

Also, platforms are alone nether an obligation to take away infringing content when notification is given past times the rights-holder. This leaves copyright holders inwards the seat of eternally having to search YouTube, Facebook et al. for instances of infringement – an eternal game of ‘whack-a-mole’. This theme is coveredhere. This example deals alongside the potential infringement of a vocal past times Spirit, ‘Taurus’, past times Led Zeppelin inwards their ‘Stairway to Heaven’.

A 90 page brief was latterly filed to the 9^th Circuit Appeals courtroom past times the agent of Michael Skidmor, trustee of Spirit guitarist, Randy Woolfe (California). The brief asks the courtroom to contrary the previous finding, where the jury found unanimously in favour of Led Zeppelin inwards June 2016. This brief too asks for remand for a novel trial, including striking the neb of costs.

Copykat volition number updates equally as well as when they come.

By Alf van Beem (Own work), via Wikimedia Commons

Compulsory Licences for “cable systems” create non apply to TV streamers

The 9^th Circuit delivered its ruling in the Fox Television Stations v Aereokiller case on 21 March. The example relates to the TV streaming services provided past times FilmOn.

FilmOn provides a service that uses antennas to capture over-the-air broadcast programming – much of it copyrighted – as well as and then uses the meshing to retransmit this programming, utilising both subscription as well as ad-based methods of revenue generation. Essentially, it enables yous to spotter TV on your computer.

The dispute centred on department 111 of the U.S. Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 111), which provides that a “cable system” is eligible for a compulsory license. Such a compulsory licence allows “cable systems” to retransmit “a surgical procedure or display of a work” originally broadcast past times mortal else without having to secure the consent of the copyright holder.

In social club to hold its compulsory licence, the “cable system” must pay a statutory fee to the Copyright Office – equally good equally complying alongside other regulations.

FilmOn contended that its services autumn nether the “cable system” Definition as well as it should thence hold out granted a compulsory licence.  

A grouping of broadcasters (including, inter alia, Fox, NBC Universal, ABC, CBS as well as Disney Enterprises Inc.) argued that the services provided past times FilmOn create non autumn nether the Definition of “cable system” equally provided nether § 111 as well as it should thence non hold out granted a compulsory licence.

A declaration on page seven the ruling sheds farther calorie-free on why this number was so hotly contested past times the parties:

“Compulsory licences are highly coveted, inwards no minor component because, according to the Copyright Office, the royalty payments the Act requires cable companies to pay are “de minimis” when compared to the gross receipts as well as revenues the cable manufacture collects, a gap suggesting that the government-set rates autumn good below marketplace levels.”

Unfortunately, courtroom establish itself at an impasse: “The text of § 111 is written inwards broad terms, as well as both sides tin brand plausible arguments most the statute’s purposes as well as legislative history.”

The courtroom goes on to Blue Planet “that the important of § 111 is ambiguous on the precise inquiry earlier us”.

To overcome this impasse, the determination hinged on arguments brought past times the Copyright Office as well as the weight the courtroom was willing to give those arguments. The courtroom utilised the Skidmore framework (precedent that allows the courtroom to rely on the arguments of a regime agency inwards cases where at that topographic point is no clear law).

The Copyright Office argued that FilmOn’s services create non autumn nether the Definition of “cable systems”. Historic Copyright Office arguments possess got posited “that a provider of broadcast signals [must] hold out an inherently localized transmission media of express availability to qualify equally a cable system.” Significantly, Congress has for years been aware that the Copyright Office views internet-based retransmission services as not falling nether the Definition of “cable systems” as well as has never moved to amend or comment upon this view.

The arguments presented past times the Copyright Office were thence afforded important deference inwards this case, since the statute was establish to hold out ambiguous on the issues at stake as well as the Copyright Office proffered cogent arguments to address matters. The courtroom noted that “To the extent the legislative history provides relevant prove of § 111’s meaning, nosotros would defer to the Copyright Office’s interpretation of it, seeing equally the Copyright Office has a much to a greater extent than intimate human relationship alongside Congress as well as is

institutionally meliorate equipped than nosotros are to sift through as well as to brand feel of the vast as well as heterogeneous area that is the Act’s legislative history.

In summary, it was on the forcefulness of the arguments brought past times the Copyright Office, that courtroom establish that “a service that captures copyrighted plant broadcast over the air, as well as and then retransmits them to paying subscribers over the Internet without the consent of the copyright holders, is non a “cable system” eligible for a compulsory license nether the Copyright Act.”

This story volition continue, equally FilmOn is arguing 2 like cases at the D.C. Court of Appeals as well as the 7^th Circuit Court of Appeal.