• Doug Chase

    Careful ^^^^ !! I nearly clicked on that Luxury Lifestyle thing. Professor Lessig might need to take more measures against the spambots.

  • http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/ Matthew Skala

    Ah, but was the Luury Lifestyle thing “made available” to you?

  • http://www.yourcopyrights.blogspot.com ACS

    I read the case summary and it was very interesting.

    It appears that this Napster decision was very strong in line with the usual central server decisions on secondary copyright infringement. However, it appears that a different angle was taken on determining liability.

    Links were provided to popular music with well-known artists, and Bruvik
    must have known that the music was uploaded without the right-holders` consent. Thus,
    Bruvik is liable and must pay compensation for damages primarily due to the fact that
    some of the users of the website otherwise would have bought CDs. There is causality
    between his acts and (TONO`s) loss. In addition, the Supreme Court states that liability is
    not incompatible with the freedom of speech. (paragraph 67 to 70)

    In reality this gets us no closer to understanding Grokster or Kazaa because Bruvik (the guilty party) was the uploader. I guess the information was held on his (or an associated) server.

    But I do like S 55 Copyright Act where it state the secondary infringement standard

    If the right of an
    author or a performing artist has been infringed willfully or by gross negligence,
    the court may also award him a sum of money as redress for damage of a noneconomic
    nature

    Would peer to peer represent a wilful infringement or gross negligence by not creating some architecture in the software that required the uploader to provide a licence?

    I guess it would when you consider author rights as held by the court the exclusive right to make the copyright available to the public
    covers the making available in any way by any mean (paragraph 42).

    But still doesnt address file sharing software – the court obviously came close to considering lack of communication of licences as infringement
    Thirteenth, the Supreme Court refers to what the parties contend as the consequences if
    linking is considered as the �making available to the public� being that linking to legally
    and illegally published copyright protected material require authorization from the rightholder.
    The party appealing the case contend that making available implies authorization.
    The Supreme Court states that such an understanding of the law could probably solve a
    lot, but could lead to difficult question as to delimitation of such an authorization, which
    in turn cold lead to doubt and initiate and increase the number of court proceedings.

    Thats probably a really good remark on the next round of techno IP debates.

    Still it was a solid judgement despite the fact we all read this sort of thing in the last few years.

    I did note this one thing that raised an eyebrow though:-

    Links were provided to popular music with well-known artists, and Bruvik
    must have known that the music was uploaded without the right-holders` consent. Thus,
    Bruvik is liable and must pay compensation for damages primarily due to the fact that
    some of the users of the website otherwise would have bought CDs. There is causality
    between his acts and (TONO`s) loss. In addition, the Supreme Court states that liability is
    not incompatible with the freedom of speech. (paragraph 67 to 70)

    Junichiro Ito must be annoyed.