How Bow Wow Wow Row Now Concluded

Several readers have drawn my attention to this feature in The Tripwire (why, I ask, are they reading this when there are so many earnest copyright publications gathering dust on the shelves ...?): entitled "George Clinton Wins Landmark Court Battle Over “Bow Wow Wow, Yippie Yo Yippie Yea”", it reads (in relevant part):

"Whether or not you believe George Clinton was actually the first (along with two fellow songwriters) to pen the phrase in 1982’s “Atomic Dog” may be another story altogether. No matter what your feelings on the matter, we wouldn’t suggest using the phrase in your lead single anytime soon, or you will probably be paying Bridgeport Music a large sum of money. The suit was filed against Universal Music Group for their group, Public Announcement, using the phrase in their 1998 release “D.O.G. In Me” that a panel of federal judges ruled to be in violation of Clinton’s copyright ...".

Have you noticed, by the way, how almost every legal decision is now deemed to be a landmark ruling?

Illustration above: Nipper learning the "bow wow" lyrics ...

New deal proposed for Third Sector and not-for-profit bodies

A press release today from the Intellectual Property Office announces proposed amendments to UK copyright law in favour of the so-called Third Sector. It runs as follows:

"Government announces change in copyright law for Third Sector and not-for-profit organisations

The Government today announced its response [37 pages, here] to the consultation on changes to exemptions for charitable, not-for-profit and other Third Sector organisations in relation to licences required for the public playing of sound recordings and broadcast music.

The changes involve repealing existing exemptions [Duly noted. Repeals mean finding Parliamentary time. If time is given over for these repeals, perhaps it will be possible to tag other bits of legislative copyright reform on to them]. This will simplify the law and help greater understanding of the rights of music users and those who own the copyright.

Following the consultation, Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) the collecting society whose members this affects, have agreed a number of initiatives, working with PRS for Music to help Third Sector organisations that will require PPL licences when the repeals take effect next year. They aim to ensure a joined up approach from PPL and PRS for Music.

The key initiatives are:

• A new joint licensing scheme: this aims to simplify the process for a Third Sector organisation obtaining a licence for playing sound recordings and broadcast music. This will cut down on administration costs for both users and collecting societies. [This looks sensible and is a good advertisement for what can be done by talking and negotiating]

• A code of practice and independent complaints mechanism: The code will detail the service customers can expect. Where disagreements do occur, music users want an independent, quick and affordable complaints mechanism. With PRS for Music already having implemented this in July 2009, PPL will also develop a code of practice linked to an independent complaints reviewer. [It will be good to see what happens to the role of the Copyright Tribunal and to find out whether the independent complaints mechanism can be used as a model for other sectoral special cases]

• PPL consulting Third Sector organisations with the Community Sector Law Monitoring Group (CSLMG) to agree affordable tariffs" [If affordability is the only criterion, rights holders might have a rough ride here. Presumably there will be countervailing criteria such as fairness ...].

Telenor won't be ordered to block The Pirate Bay, says Norwegian Court

Thanks to Stine Helén Pettersen and Rune Opdahl (Wiersholm, Mellbye & Bech, advokatfirma AS, Oslo), here comes news of a 6 November decision by a Norwegian District Court which concluded that there were no grounds for ordering internet service supplier Telenor to block internet access to The Pirate Bay. According to our informants:

"In June 2009 the music and film industry filed a petition for a preliminary injunction requiring Telenor to block its customers’ access to The Pirate Bay. The Asker og Bærum District Court delivered its decision 6 November in favour of Telenor. The court concluded that Telenor did not unlawfully contribute to copyright infringements that take place by its customers’ use of The Pirate Bay. Accordingly, the court held that that there was no legal basis for ordering Telenor to block access to the website.

Telenor has repeatedly emphasized that it does not support infringements that take place through use of The Pirate Bay. On the contrary, Telenor co-operates closely with rights holders by establishing solutions for legal downloads and streaming of content. The case did not concern the question of whether customers of Telenor infringed copyright by using The Pirate Bay, but whether Telenor -- by granting access to The Pirate Bay -- committed an illegal act.

... In its assessment the court emphasized the unfortunate consequences of imposing blocking obligations on internet service providers. The decision is not yet legally in force. The music and film industry are considering appealing against the decision".

Wiersholm's team of John S. Gulbrandsen and Rune Opdahl, who acted for Telenor in this action, has kindly provided the 1709 Blog with an English translation of the court's decision which you can read here.

Substantial 'a difficult word' says Court of Appeal

Gilham v R [2009] EWCA Crim 2293, 9 November 2009, is a decision of the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal, England and Wales (Stanley Burnton LJ, Penry Davey and Sharpe JJ). Put simply, between October 2003 and January 2006 Gilham ran a business selling components and devices for games consoles marketed by Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony. Those companies used protective technological measures to prevent counterfeit or 'pirate' copies of games from being played on their consoles. Gilham sold modification chips (modchips), either by themselves or pre-inserted into games consoles together with the equipment needed to fit them. In some cases, a purchaser would have had to download software and install it.

Once installed, the modchips enabled counterfeit games to be played on the consoles. The running of the games had the following effect: during the playing of DVDs and CD-ROMs on which games were sold for use with the games consoles, data was transferred from the disk into the console's random access memory (RAM). At the point at which the game was played, the data in the RAM was overwritten by different data from the disk. The screen would display images of scenes, characters and objects which had been created by those responsible for the composition of the game.

Gilham was charged with offences arising out of his dealing with modchips. According to the prosecution, the modchips were devices, products or components which were primarily designed, produced or adapted for the purpose of enabling or facilitating the circumvention of effective technological measures within the meaning of section 296ZB of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 as amended. He was also charged with money-laundering offences relating to the proceeds of sale.

In order for the prosecution to prove an offence contrary to eg section 296ZB(c)(i), it had to prove that (i) the game was, or was included in, a copyright-protected literary work; (ii) the playing of a counterfeit DVD on a games console involved the copying of such a work; (iii) such copying was of the whole or a substantial part of the work; (iv) the games console and/or genuine DVDs (ie copies of the copyright work or works created by or with the licence of the owner of the copyright) included effective technological measures within the meaning of section 296ZF which were designed to protect those works and (v) Gilham, in the course of business, had sold or let for hire a device, product or component which was primarily designed, produced or adapted for the purpose of enabling or facilitating the technological measures.

Convicted, Gilham appealed. The matter before the Court of Appeal was whether the playing of a counterfeit DVD involved substantial copying of a copyright work. According to Gilham, the trial judge had wrongly directed the jury as to the meaning of 'substantial', arguing that a display on a screen could not be a substantial copy of a copyright work.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Gilham's appeal, holding as follows:

* 'Substantial' was a difficult word to pin down. It could mean 'not insubstantial' or 'of ample or considerable amount, quantity of dimensions'.

* The key issue was whether, in creating Gilham's work, substantial use had been made of the skill and labour which had gone into the creation of the copyright work and thus of those features which made it an original work.

* The quality or importance of what had been taken was much more important than the quantity: it depended therefore not just on the physical amount taken but on its substantial significance or importance to the copyright work, so that the quality or importance of the part was frequently more significant than the proportion which the borrowed part bore to the whole.

* The recitals to Directive 2001/29 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society emphasised the importance of protecting copyright and related rights in multimedia products such as computer games. Accordingly, if devices such as modchips could be sold with impunity, the United Kingdom would not be conferring the protection of those rights required by the Directive.

* It also accorded with common sense to say that a person who played a counterfeit DVD on his games console, and saw and heard the visions and sounds which were the subject of copyright, did make a copy of at least a substantial part of the game.

* In this case the game as a whole was not the sole subject of copyright; rather, the various drawings which resulted in the images shown on the screen or monitor were themselves artistic works protected by copyright. The images shown on the screen were copies, and substantial copies, of those works.

* Even if the contents of the RAM at any one time were not a substantial copy, the image displayed on screen was: what was shown on-screen when the pause button on a game console was pressed was a still image, a copy of an artistic work, generated by the digital data in the RAM. The fact that players did not normally pause the game was immaterial, since it was sufficient that a transient copy was made.

* On the basis of the foregoing, Gilham was rightly convicted of the offences charged under the Act and of the money laundering offences relating to the proceeds of his sales.

At paragraph 30 the Court added this comment:

" ... we repeat with emphasis what Jacob LJ said in Higgs about the trial of cases involving recondite issues of copyright law before a jury. Cases that, for example, involve determination of difficult questions whether a copy is of a substantial part of a copyright work, can and should be tried in the Chancery Division before specialist judges. They can be so tried much more efficiently in terms of cost and time than before a jury, and questions of law can if necessary be determined on appeal on the basis of clear findings of fact. In appropriate cases, the Court will grant injunctive relief, and a breach of an injunction will lead to punishment for contempt of court. If the facts proven against a defendant show that he has substantially profited from criminal conduct, proceedings for the civil recovery of the proceeds of his crimes may be brought under Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002".

Perpetual motion?

The 1709 Blog receives all sorts of fascinating information about new online services. The latest of these is Motionbox, which has just offered

"to waive the pro-account setup fee for you or any of your readers who sign up - it's a $50 value. There are now 3 levels of Motionbox service - Basic, Premium, and PRO".

To explain further,

"Motionbox PRO is a comprehensive video hosting solution and includes archival storage, web-based editing, streaming and embedding, all in up to 1080p HD quality".

Indeed, it looks very impressive. But the thing I like best about services such as this is the easy accessibility of the terms and conditions under which they're offered -- you're never more than a couple of mouse-clicks away from the literary output of a fellow lawyer. The Ts and Cs here are by no means unique, but they are a sobering proposition for would-be users to consider. Thus, under Grant of Rights the text reads:

"You hereby grant to Motionbox a non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual [shucks, I'd hoped the licence might terminate when the copyright did ...], world-wide, irrevocable, transferable license with the right to grant sublicenses through multiple tiers of sublicensees (including, without limitation, licensing your User Content to our Partners [who currently include Bebo and AOL]) to publicly display, publicly perform, distribute, store, transcode, syndicate, broadcast, reproduce, edit, modify, create derivative works, and otherwise use and reuse your User Content (or any portions or derivative works thereof) in any manner, in any medium, for any purpose. Motionbox and its Partners reserve the right to display advertisements in connection with your User Content and to use your User Content for advertising and promotional purposes. If you mark your Content as "Public User Content", you acknowledge that any Motionbox user may exercise the Motionbox User Rights with respect to such Public User Content as set forth below. For more information on User Content, please review our Privacy Policy".

Er, perhaps not.

"Give it back!". "Shan't!". Court of Appeal rules ...

Back in July, when this blog was but a young pup, we posted an item ("When lawfully seized goods can't be retained") on Scopelight Ltd and others v Chief Constable of Northumbria and the Federation Against Copyright Theft [2009] EWHC 958 (QB) in which Mrs Justice Sharp (Queen's Bench Division, England and Wales) ruled that the police had no power to retain property under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 s.22 against the wishes of the person otherwise entitled to possession of it, once a decision not to prosecute has been taken, in order that a private body could consider whether to bring a prosecution, or indeed while that private prosecution was being brought.

Right: the picture looks grim -- unless it's an infringing teddy

The facts were simple: Mr & Mrs Vickerman, who ran a video search engine website, provided thousands of links to third party websites which hosted videos. Following a complaint by FACT, a private commercial organisation representing the interests of the audio-visual industry, that this website was hosting two third party file sharing websites, the police obtained a warrant to enter the Vickermans' premises on the basis that there were reasonable grounds for believing that offences of conspiracy to defraud and money laundering had been committed. The police lawfully seized internet server equipment and associated documents, which was later released by the police into the possession of FACT for the purposes of the police investigation.

After the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decided not to prosecute, the Vickermans asked for the return of the seized property. The police said they couldn't, since FACT was considering whether to bring a private prosecution. The Vickermans then sued for delivery up of the seized property and damages for conversion, while FACT began a private prosecution (which at the time of the trial was still proceeding) in respect of various copyright offences.

The police and FACT both argued that retention was permitted because it was for use as evidence at a trial and forensic investigation for an offence which was the subject of an ongoing prosecution. Sharp J disagreed. In her view, (i) the power of the police to seize, use and retain property was conferred on them for the better performance of their public functions and for law enforcement purposes: those purposes did not include the seizure, use or retention by the police of private property to assist private interests; (ii) Parliament never considered whether private property, once seized by the police, could be used by a private body for its own purposes (including considering whether it should bring a private prosecution or bringing a private prosecution); (iii) while the right of private bodies or individuals to bring a private prosecution was well established, it did not carry with it the automatic right to override private property rights in the absence of an order of the court, nor did it carry with it the powers conferred by Parliament by the police.

Today the Court of Appeal (Lords Justices Ward, Wilson and Leveson) in [2009] EWCA Civ 1156 allowed the appeal and remitted the case for further submissions as to the continuation of the interim order. Giving judgment for the Court, Leveson LJ said, at paras 50 to 54:

"The position can be tested by reference to FACT. It is not suggested that there is not a public interest in the prevention of copyright infringement. The real concern is that commercial organisations have formed FACT to protect their own commercial interests and can use criminal prosecution as a club with which to protect those interests. That is clear from the way in which the matter was put in Scopelight's skeleton argument, which criticises FACT's failure to commence civil proceedings, having observed (at paragraph 20):

"It is difficult to see where the public interest lies in prosecuting such a difficult case in the criminal courts, clogging up a great deal of court time, simply to satisfy the commercial ends of various multinational companies."

Quite apart from the fact that the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 provides for criminal sanctions (meaning that Parliament has determined that criminal proceedings are appropriate in these cases), the premise reveals precisely the difficulty which holders of copyright are likely to face in pursuing cases through the police and the CPS. These cases are complex, specialist knowledge will inevitably be required to pursue them, and each case is likely to be difficult, time consuming and expensive ... In a time when allegations of terrorism and other extremely serious crime take up more and more time and involve ever increasing resources, it is inevitable (and appropriate) that the CPS will have to be selective. For my part, I see no reason why the CPS should not be entitled to conclude that it is unnecessary for them to embark on another prosecution while issues of law are being resolved ... If there is no merit in the prosecution, that will no doubt be revealed. A preparatory hearing under Part III of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 can, if it is thought appropriate, generate an early resolution of legal issues (particularly if determinative). If the power to prosecute is being used in bad faith, or inappropriately with the true aim of preventing Scopelight or the Vickermans from pursuing a legitimate commercial venture, as I have indicated, there are various mechanisms available to the court to prevent an abuse of its process.

...

What then should be the approach? ... , in my judgment, the phrase "anything which has been seized by a constable ... may be retained so long as is necessary in all the circumstances" requires the police to consider each case on its own individual facts, at each stage in the process of investigation and prosecution. If the CPS is prosecuting the case, whatever is required for forensic investigation or the prosecution will obviously be retained but, even then, consideration will have to be given to ensuring that no more than is necessary for the case (either to pursue it or to rebut a potential defence) is kept. If a prosecution is not to be pursued by the CPS but some other public or private body wishes to pursue a private prosecution, the relevant circumstances include (but are not limited to): the identity and motive of the potential prosecutor; the gravity of the allegation along with the reasoning behind the negative decision of the CPS and thus the extent to which, in this case, the public have a legitimate interest in the criminal prosecution of this conduct; the police view of the significance of what has been retained; and any material fact concerning the proposed defendant. All this falls to be considered so that a balanced decision can be reached upon whether retention is necessary "in all the circumstances". Such a decision would be capable of challenge on traditional public law grounds.

I add only this. Mr Purvis [for Scopelight] raised the spectre of the police having to search for anyone interested in pursuing a private prosecution before reaching a decision on retention. I reject that suggestion. In the normal course, it will be perfectly obvious whether anyone is interested in mounting a private prosecution in the event of an adverse CPS decision but there is no obligation on the part of the police to look for a candidate. A request to return property will obviously have to be dealt with timeously and I echo the suggestion of Carnwath LJ in Gough v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police [2004] EWCA Civ 206 at para 44-5 (with which Potter LJ, as he then was, agreed) that if civil proceedings are commenced for return of the property, the police will have to give careful thought as to whether they are in practice able to defend the proceedings and whether section 22(1) enables them to retain the property "for a short period while they consider the position". He later suggested that, in normal circumstances, that should be "at or about the time for serving their defence"".

For good measure, the Court rejected the argument that the failure to return the Vickermans' property infringed their human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.

This decision will be welcomed by all those who are involved in the grubby, mundane day-to-day side of enforcement, who sometimes feel that, whatever the law on infringement may and however powerfully it protects copyright owners' interests, it's what happens at this level which determines whether high-flown principles of protection have any real guts to them.

Belgian SatCab questions head for Luxembourg

Thanks to Dirk Visser (an advocaat with Klos Morel Vos & Schaap and professor of Intellectual Property law at Leiden University) I have some hot news concerning a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Communities of a series of copyright-related questions for preliminary rulings. The reference emanates from Brussels Court of Appeal, 27 October 2009, in Airfield v Agicoa and Airfield v Sabam.

The questions concern the service offered by TV Vlaanderen in Belgium, an affiliate of the Dutch Canal Digitaal. The questions relate to the following two situations at hand which involve the following:

Situation I

1. A broadcasting organization sends an encrypted signal, or a signal through a fixed connection, to an independent satellite TV provider.

2. The provider of a satellite TV service has that signal (with the consent of the broadcasting organization) encrypted (once more or differently) elsewhere in Europe and linked up to a satellite by an affiliate.

3. The signal is then, with the consent of the broadcasting organization, linked down as part of a package of television channels to the subscribers of the satellite TV provider who can watch it by means of a decryption card.

Question (summary):

• Does the satellite TV provider communicate to the public (and should therefore pay to Agicoa et al.) in the country where it offers the decryption cards (and therefore has its subscribers/viewers)? Or does only the affiliate (and/or broadcasting organization) communicate to the public in the country where the affiliate uplinks to the satellite?

Situation II

1. A broadcasting organization links up in conformity with the instructions of an independent satellite TV provider an encrypted signal elsewhere in Europe to a satellite.

2. The signal is next (with the consent of the broadcasting organization) linked down as part of a package of television channels to the subscribers of the satellite TV provider who can watch it by means of a decrypting card.

Question (summary):

• Does the satellite TV provider communicate to the public (and must therefore pay to Agicoa et al.) in the country where it provides the decrypting cards (and therefore has its subscribers/viewers)? Or does the broadcasting organization only communicate to the public in the country where it links up to the satellite?

The SatCab Directive (Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission) requires some scrutiny for the purpose of addressing these questions. The relevant provisions are Article 1(2)(a-c):

(a) For the purpose of this Directive, 'communication to the public by satellite' means the act of introducing, under the control and responsibility of the broadcasting organization, the programme-carrying signals intended for reception by the public into an uninterrupted chain of communication leading to the satellite and down towards the earth.

(b) The act of communication to the public by satellite occurs solely in the Member State where, under the control and responsibility of the broadcasting organization, the programme-carrying signals are introduced into an uninterrupted chain of communication leading to the satellite and down towards the earth.

(c) If the programme-carrying signals are encrypted, then there is communication to the public by satellite on condition that the means for decrypting the broadcast are provided to the public by the broadcasting organization or with its consent.

Recital 14 to the SatCab Directive reads as follows:

(14) Whereas the legal uncertainty regarding the rights to be acquired which impedes cross-border satellite broadcasting should be overcome by defining the notion of communication to the public by satellite at a Community level; whereas this definition should at the same time specify where the act of communication takes place; whereas such a definition is necessary to avoid the cumulative application of several national laws to one single act of broadcasting; whereas communication to the public by satellite occurs only when, and in the Member State where, the programme -carrying signals are introduced under the control and responsibility of the broadcasting organization into an uninterrupted chain of communication leading to the satellite and down towards the earth; whereas normal technical procedures relating to the programme-carrying signals should not be considered as interruptions to the chain of broadcasting;

Dirk comments are as follows:

1. Article 1(2)(b) of the SatCab Directive is clear in my view: in this trajectory there is only one instant of communication to the public, i.e. in the place and moment of the uplink to the satellite. This is the system and purpose of the SatCab Directive.

2. It necessarily concerns maximum harmonization: the Member States are not free to characterize the downlink and/or making available of decrypting cards also as communication to the public relevant to copyright law. After all, the intended legal certainty, as appears inter alia from recital 14, would not be achieved in that way.

3. The satellite TV provider therefore does not communicate to the public in my view (and so does not have to pay to Agicoa et al.) in the country where it offers the decryption cards (and therefore has its subscribers/viewers).

4. Only the affiliate or broadcasting organization communicate to the public in the country where the affiliate links up to the satellite and it should ensure all ights there, also for the other European countries where decrypting cards are made available to the public with the consent of the broadcasting organization.

The full text (in Dutch) of the two more or less identical decisions (one against Agicoa and one against Sabam, the Belgian performing rights society) can be found here and here.

Media Law and Practice

Media Law and Practice, edited by David Goldberg, Gavin Sutter, and Ian Walden, was published just a week or so ago, and I've just had a chance to make it look a little less new by riffling the pages a few times and sampling the contents. The editors are not merely editors: they have written a good proportion of the text themselves, supplementing their own efforts with those of a team of colleagues, suitably qualified by their experience, their status and/or their scholarship to complete the spread of topics under discussion.

To some, the notion of a work of this nature being written by a "team" may conjure up the image of a benign group of lawyers discussing each point among themselves and patiently recording the fruits of their consensus. To others it may convey the vivid image of a pack of huskies trotting obediently to the crack of the editorial whip. In modern publishing, particularly with editors and contributors scattered across a large geographical swathe, most teams have little chance to meet one another other than through the electronic media which are the subject matter of much of this book, or through the cherished but decreasingly-practised ritual of the launch party.

The team includes John Enser, an author of this weblog and this reviewer's comrade-in-arms at Olswang LLP (where he is a Partner in the Media, Communications and Technology Group and Head of Music). John's chapter, 'Commercial Communications', makes gripping reading for anyone puzzled by current attitudes towards product placement or TV without frontiers (O for Frontiers without TV!). Other members of the team include Irini Katsirea (Lecturer in Law, University of Middlesex), whose chapter on 'Cultural Diversity in Broadcasting' introduced me to a new vocabulary and set of legal concepts that simply did not feature during my formative years as a lawyer. More familiar territory was covered by Rosalind McInnes (Principal Solicitor, BBC Scotland) in her chapter 'Contempt of Court': the law, at least, seemed familiar, though it seems that the judiciary are more prudent/squeamish about putting the boot in than they used to be.

According to the OUP web-blurb, this tome offers the following delightful prospects:

"* Wide-ranging coverage of the law regulating both traditional and new media, including newsgathering and broadcasting in those formats;
* ... giving in-depth analysis of how the various forms of intellectual property law interact with media law;
* Written by a team of academics and practitioners, combining rigorous academic discussion with analysis of genuine practice issues.

This book is a reference guide for practitioners to the major legal and regulatory issues in the field, but could also be used as a media law textbook for a course of academic study. Each chapter is written by an expert in the field. Throughout the book, the authors cover the relevant aspects of law governing the media in its many forms, with an emphasis on the practical operation of the law in this sector. It not only discusses the theoretical basis of legal concepts such as defamation, but also analyses the application of the law in the high paced environment of daily newspapers, the changing reality of what constitutes "broadcasting", including the regulation of distribution channels, and the regulation of material distributed via those channels, and examines the implications for defamation law of the online, borderless world. Amongst other things, the book also covers intellectual property issues in the media, with a specific emphasis on copyright works, trade marks and the exploitation of intellectual property via licensing. The work primarily discusses the identified themes in the context of UK and EU laws.

Readership: Practitioners (barristers and solicitors working in media law); in-house lawyers for international, national and local media organizations; judges, especially (but not restricted to) those who may be asked to determine matters involving the media; academics who research or teach media law; post-graduate/advanced students whose study involves issues relating to the media and undergraduate law and media students whose degree includes a course on media law".

This seems, in keeping with OUP's policy of being reasonably honest about its titles, to be a fair description of the book which, this reviewer believes, will provide valuable information about law, practice and, above all, contemporary attitudes for the short period between now and the publication of the second edition -- which you can hasten by making sure to buy the first!

Bibliographic details. 634 pages, ISBN 978-0-19-955936-7, Paperback. Published by Oxford University Press, October 2009. Price: £75. Web page here.