When the Royals Wed, it's time for the Peasants to Make Merrie ...

If you're planning a party in the United Kingdom, you may be thinking of holding it between 22 April and 6 May 2011 (inclusive), the dates between which music licensing body PRS for Music has temporarily waived the charges that would normally be incurred in securing a licence for the public performance of music.

This waiver applies to not-for-profit events organised by unpaid volunteers "in celebration of the Royal Wedding 2011" for the local community, where fewer than 300 members of the public are present. A further condition of the free licence is that the venue where such celebrations are held must "not otherwise require, or currently hold, a PRS for Music licence".

The 1709 Blog learns from Reuters that the objective of this exercise, according to Keith Gilbert (director of public performance sales) is to allow members of the public to hold street parties for the Royal wedding without having to worry about obtaining a licence (or the threat of penalty for failure to obtain a licence), so that they can play music at these public events.

This blogger sniffs at a larger plot.  The unusually generous period allocated for royal wedding celebrations covers both World Book and Copyright Day (23 April) and World Intellectual Property Day (26 April), both of which are are also dedicated to the celebration of "royalty" ...

Many thanks to Fredericka Argent for the link to this fascinating item!

Unfinished Business in Hungary!

I am writing this blog from my hotel room at the ultra posh and culturally stimulated Kempinski Corvinus hotel in Budapest, currently celebrating the 200th birthday of Franz Liszt and holding an exhibition of the photographs of Tomas Opitz in the Hotel’s own Gallery. All very apt, as I have been speaking at a one day conference with the (translated) title of New Ways and New Trends in Arts Management which was hosted by the British Embassy in Hungary and which launched a book of the same name, a book to which I have contributed a chapter on sustainability in the arts – nope, not on copyright – I do have another life although readers of this Blog may not be aware of the fact this! I work with two organisations in the world of green, the first simply called ‘A Greener Festival’ (www.agreenerfestival.com) which perhaps unsurprisingly works towards promoting environmentally friendly practices at music and arts festivals, and the second the more intriguingly named ‘Julies Bicycle’, the cross music industry initiative on climate change (more at www.juliesbicycle.com) which is a world leader in promoting sustainability in the arts.

After four presentations on sustainable development in the arts, the conference took an interesting look at the arts in the digital age and first up Marc Sands, Director of Media and Audiences at the Tate Gallery who gave a really interesting talk about what the Tate has been doing in the digital realm, beginning with the clarion call to museum and gallery staff “if your boss doesn’t have a Facebook account then make them open one”! Marc, and Barnabas Bencsik from the Ludwig Muzeum in Hungary, both explained how important the web, Facebook and Twitter has become not only in attracting new audiences to their physical world but also in allowing many many more people to enjoy experiencing the Tate and the Ludwig online. The Tate is going to launch a new website soon and the sheer detail and amount of well organised content looked fascinating – something to enjoy when it is launched.

The final session featured three speakers who were looking at preserving and making available culture in the digital age. First up was Agata Waclawik-Wejman, a policy counsel for Google based in Poland. Agata’s take on Google’s role in the arts was very positive and (of course!) she gave a very positive spin on Google Books, Google work with the visual arts (including the Tate) and Google’s role in digitising public domain literary works in Europe and making them accessible on the web. Perhaps most illuminating was Google’s role in the Yad Vashem project – Google has teamed up with Israel’s holocaust memorial Yad Vashem and is digitising and preserving thousands and thousands of photographs and document from the Holocaust. The project started three years ago in the Tel Aviv skyscraper that houses Google's research operations in Israel, partially inspired by a Google initiative encouraging employees to spend 20 percent of work time on projects they feel are important and Google has used experimental optical character recognition technology to make text within documents and photos searchable in multiple languages. In January 2011 the first 130,000 images hit the web.

E Corba Csilla from the Petrofi Literary Museum reminded me how easy it is for an English speaking London dweller working in the music industry to forget that Britain, and perhaps more importantly the USA, are at the forefront of cultural imperialism. Countries like Hungary, which has a vast cultural heritage, do not have the ‘advantage’ of having their literary works written in the English language and this adds another dimension to moving Hungarian literary works into the digital realm and making then available to a wider audience. One solution in Hungary is the Digital Literary Academy which has been set up In Hungary to promote digital access to works by Hungarian writers. The Academy currently has seventy two members, thirty two living writers and forty who have died and it reimburses members for allowing the Academy to take digital ownership of their works to reserve these and make them available, in effect paying living writers a stipend in return for digital access to their copyrights.

The final speaker was Hungarian copyright lawyer Dr Aniko Gyenge who gave an interesting review of the seemingy stalled Europeana Books project and Google’s onwards march to digitise everything and everyone – and the tensions with copyright – particularly in mainland Europe. Aniko touched on many topics which readers of this Blog will find familiar – including the need to find a solution to the ongoing problem with orphan works, and the need to promote copyright law as fit for purpose in the digital age – not least on a pan-European basis. With the need to harmonise European law, Aniko pointed that moves by both the Belgium presidency of the EU and now the current Hungarian presidency have not, as yet, brought about change, but Aniko remained hopeful that the forthcoming Polish presidency might promote change.

And Aniko’s talk reminds me that next week I will be joining Florian Koempal, Andrew Yeates and Don Glista on a panel hosted by the British Literary and Artistic Copyright Association (BLACA) considering recent review of copyright law with the aim of finding the ‘ultimate answer to all questions copyright’ ! Titled ‘Unfinished Business' its on Thursday March 10th at 18.15 at the offices of Berwin Leighton Paisner, Lower Thames Stree, London EC3R 6HE. www.blaca.org.

iinet avoid infringement liability in Oz

The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) has lost its appeal against Australian ISP iiNet. In the absence of specific legislation in Australia, AFACT, representing the TV and movie industries, had argued that net companies had an obligation under Australian copyright laws to take a proactive role in policing online piracy and that the Australian ISP was responsible for illegal content downloading by its users. The acts of copyright infringement in issue in the case were copies of films illegally accessed by iiNet users using the BitTorrent system of file sharing. Under the Australian Copyright Act an intermediary that authorises the infringing conduct is also liable for infringement. To be liable for authorisation, a party must sanction, approve or countenance the infringement. This will depend on the extent (if any) of the relationship with the infringer, its power to prevent the infringement and whether it took any reasonable steps to prevent or avoid the infringement (1).

Australian courts had previously found that Kazaa was liable for ‘authorising’ infringement (2) and clearly content owners were hoping that the courts would extend copyright law to include a duty on ISPs to monitor and filter unlicensed content on their networks, and/or to find that that a failure to do so would make them guilty of authorising. A majority of the three judge appeal panel in the Full federal Court dismissed the appeal from a lower court’s decision (Justce Cowdroy) holding that even though iiNet was dismissive of copyright infringement complaints, that fact alone did not mean it was liable for authorizing infringement. All 3 justices in the appellate court found that in appropriate circumstances it was appropriate to disconnect customers (one even outlined a potential termination strategy). In a dissenting judgment, Justice Jagot held iiNet liable for authorising users’ acts of copyright infringement and that the trial Judge had erred in holding that the relevant test was whether iiNet had provided the ‘means’ of infringement.

AFACT still have the right of further appeal to the Australian High Court. iiNet CEO Michael Malone welcomed the ruling, saying "Today's judgment again demonstrates that the allegations against us have been proven to be unfounded. We urge the Australian film industry to address the growing demand for studio content to be delivered in a timely and cost effective manner to consumers, and we remain eager to work with them to make this material available legitimately". In response to the judgment AFACT’s Executive Director Neil Gane told reporters "it cannot be right" that an ISP takes no responsibility for copyright infringements on its network.

Interestingly Google recently announced a number of new initiatives it says will help combat copyright infringement online, including a new promise of 24-hour turnaround on takedown requests, and preventing terms associated with piracy from appearing in its "autocomplete" search results – including terms associated with BitTorrent and utorrent, RapidShare and Megaupload. As the ‘dumb pipes’ start to look more and more clever the protection of ‘safe harbour’ provisions must surely look more and more unfair to content owners. Google recently concluded a deal with ISP Verizon where it seems Verizon agreed to prioritise certain internet traffic, Google also told the music industry that they could remove pirated material IF they got paid, and auction site eBay agreed to police their own site for London 2012 Olympics tickets – all signs that perhaps the dumb pipes aren’t that dumb after all.

http://www.freehills.com.au/6985.aspx

http://www.dlaphillipsfox.com/article/1016/iiNET-wins-but-the-door-is-left-ajar-for-copyright-owners

(1) http://www.swaab.com.au/publications/hollywood-studios-lose-to-isp-iinet-in-copyright-authorisation.html

(2) http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2005/sep/05/media.australia

Roadshow Films Pty Limited v iiNet Limited [2011] FCAFC 23

Who owns your voicemails? Phone-hacking Steve Coogan and Andy Gray

News of the World and private investigator Glenn Mulcaire are alleged to have intercepted the mobile-phone voicemails of football commentator Andrew Gray and comedian Steve Coogan. Civil proceedings have begun and the Met are considering whether to bring criminal proceedings.

Mulcaire wanted to rely on the privilege against self-incrimination in the civil proceedings – refusing to disclose information that had the potential to incriminate him in criminal proceedings. However, s. 72 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 provides that the privilege of self-incrimination does not apply in proceedings concerning the infringement of intellectual property rights. So are the voicemails intellectual property or not?

On Friday Mr Justice Vos held in [2011] EWHC 349 (Ch) that the definition of ‘intellectual property’ in the Senior Courts Act included any technical or commercial information that can be protected as such by action and therefore did include the claimants’ allegedly intercepted voicemail messages. Consequently Mulcaire was not excused by the privilege against self-incrimination from answering questions in the civil proceedings.

It is expected that the defendants will appeal as they have done in the parallel Nicola Phillips proceedings.

Could the claimants simply have relied on the argument that Mulcaire had in any case infringed copyright in sound recordings by recording and transcribing the voicemails? Copyright in sound recordings is owned by their ‘producer’, who is ‘the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the making of the sound recording are undertaken’. Would this be Steve Coogan and Andrew Gray – or would it be Vodafone?

A Copyright Battle of Epic Proportions?

A Japanese company, Sotsu Co., is assessing whether Floraland, a Chinese amusement park has infringed copyrights it manages by displaying a huge representation of a Gundam robot, which features in the Japanese anime series "Mobile Suit Gundam."

Apparently, the 30th anniversary of the comic series was celebrated in Japan with the display of an 18-meter Gundam robot replica. The replica was later moved to a location near Bandai Co, a toy-making unit of Namco Bandai, which manufactures toys based on Mobile Suit Gundam.

The Wall Street Journal reports that tourists in China alerted Sotsu to the existence of an extremely similar 15-meter Gundam robot replica.

Is this another instance of shanzai?

Be a copyright activist!

In a speech today WIPO Director General Francis Gurry set out his vision for the future of copyright:

History shows that it is an impossible task to reverse technological advantage and the change that it produces. Rather than resist it, we need to accept the inevitability of technological change and to seek an intelligent engagement with it. There is, in any case, no other choice – either the copyright system adapts to the natural advantage that has evolved or it will perish. Adaptation in this instance requires, in my view, activism.

I am firmly of the view that a passive and reactive approach to copyright and the digital revolution entails the major risk that policy outcomes will be determined by a Darwinian process of the survival of the fittest business model. The fittest business model may turn out to be the one that achieves or respects the right social balances in cultural policy. It may also, however, turn out not to respect those balances. The balances should not, in other words, be left to the chances of technological possibility and business evolution. They should, rather, be established through a conscious policy response.

He set out three guiding principles: neutrality to technology, simplifying copyright and a coherent policy response (including a key role for internet intermediaries, global licensing and inviting ‘pirates’ to share responsibility for the threat to the financial viability of culture).

Parasites in the FileSoup

The CPS decided yesterday not to continue with the prosecution of George Cartledge and Stephen Lanning, who had been charged with conspiracy to infringe copyright over their involvement in BitTorrent site FileSoup, the Telegraph and TorrentFreak report. A CPS spokeswoman said: ‘The Crown Prosecution Service advised the Court today that it is neither necessary nor appropriate to continue to pursue this matter in a criminal court.’

At the foot of the articles are strings of comments typical of those on file-sharing forums. As usual they have little good to say about the film and music industries, which are apparently populated by fat cats. A rational response to these comments might be to point out that most people in these industries aren’t earning a fortune. Yes, there are a few rich people, but so are there tycoons in the toilet-roll business and magnates in the marmalade industry.

But is it appropriate to read such comments literally? Here’s a selection:

psimin says, ‘i download free films and music if possible as i own my computer . the film or music industry has no say what i do with my computer, these greedy parasites if they had their way would also have us the public bowing down to them ! as far as im concern they are just scum that lord it over people , TOUGH !’

‘Good,’ thinks quinn, ‘success for the ordinary Folks over the Fat Cats who are still living in the past.’

unkledysfunktional argues, ‘If the spivs in the film and music industries charged a reasonable price for their wares, there would be no problem – however they're greedy fat cats and personally I'm having a good laugh that the case fell through.’

‘Amazing isn't it,’ Grumpytom complains, ‘they actually expect people to buy that crap, they think it has either merit or value. Talk about believing your own propaganda! Are they on drugs or something? (rhetorical)’

To Rob8rcakes, those who pursued the case are ‘greedy, over-zealous asswipes’.

‘fuck you hollywood !!!!’ proclaims gorehound.

The loathing that many pirates demonstrate for people in the film and music industries has a furious vitriolic intensity. What drives this extremism? After all, these industries are providing the entertainment that these people spend so much of their lives consuming. The endless repetition of these sentiments has a pathological, even psychotic quality. Perhaps they need to be considered from a psychological rather than a legal perspective.

Here’s a hypothesis: overwhelmed by the glut of content on P2P networks, file-sharers have lost control of their lives. Impotent with rage, they bite the hand that feeds them. They have made themselves the slaves of media-consumption – and who better to blame than the parasites, the scum, the spivs, the fat cats who ‘lord it over’ their screens?

Australian ISP iiNet off the hook

The Federal Court of Australia today dismissed an appeal in Roadshow Films Pty Limited v iiNet Limited [2011] FCAFC 23, so finding the ISP iiNet not liable for authorizing the copyright infringements of its customers.

The judgment says that iiNet ‘demonstrated a dismissive and, indeed, contumelious, attitude to the complaints of infringement’, but held that an ISP that doesn’t suspend an infringer’s account is not liable for future infringements unless right owners have first (a) provided a verifiable level of evidence for infringements in their notices, (b) undertaken to reimburse the ISP for its costs in investigating infringements and (c) undertaken to indemnify the ISP if customers’ services are suspended in error.

The claimants may appeal to the High Court.