Sunday 30 October 2011

Copyright Debate: Is NLA v Meltwater the end of browsing?

Making a debating point --
or hailing a London taxi ...?
It all seems a bit sudden, but in not much more than two weeks from now there will be a free-to-attend copyright debate on the motion "Is NLA v Meltwater the end of browsing?"  The date is Tuesday 15 November 2011 and the two sides will lock horns from 5.15pm to 7.00 pm. The venue is the London office of Baker & McKenzie LLP.

1709 Blog team member Jeremy will be taking the chair. Speaking for the motion are Professor Andrew Murray (London School of Economics) and Dr Neil J. Wilkof (head of Intellectual Property, Herzog Fox & Neeman).  Ranged against them are Dominic Young (blogger and former director and chairman of the Newspaper Licensing Association) and Justine Pila (lecturer at Oxford University).

Why should you attend this debate? As the hosts explain:
The Court of Appeal for England and Wales recently upheld the High Court's judgment that users of commercial news aggregation services infringe copyright when they click on links to articles (The Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd and others v Meltwater Holding BV and others [2011] EWCA Civ 890, 27 July 2011, on which see earlier 1709 Blog posts here, here and here). As a result anyone who clicks on an internet link creates an infringing copy of the webpage on their computer screen unless they have a licence. 
The Supreme Court's decision as to whether they will accept an appeal from this decision is eagerly awaited, but in the meantime the question that arises is: Is NLA v Meltwater the end of browsing as we know it?
To attend, email Naomi Harrison here and hope there's still room since space is limited.

The debate is CPD-accredited for 1 hour and 30 minutes - Solicitors Regulation Authority Authorisation 009/BAMC

1 comment:

Howard Knopf said...

Maybe this will help you out in merry England:

The Supreme Court of Canada has just ruled in a defamation case that "a hyperlink, by itself, should never be seen as “publication” of the content to which it refers".

There is no reason not to look at this reasoning in an infringement action - since mere linking doesn't seem to invoke the use of any copyright rights by the linker anymore than does a footnote...which our courts seem to have have accepted.

See Crookes v. Newton:

and my quick take on it:

Wish I could join you, Jeremy, Neil et al.

Any chance of a webinar or at least a Skype hook up?

Best regards