Transmission not accessible to the public "not a communication to the public", rules court

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) gave its ruling yesterday in Case C‑325/14, SBS Belgium NV v Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers (SABAM), on a reference for a preliminary ruling from the hof van beroep te Brussel (Brussels Court of Appeal, Belgium). The reference was received at the CJEU on 7 July 2014, so this ruling is quite a speedy one -- the sign of a case that the CJEU can handle with the need to break into a judicial sweat.

In short SABAM, a copyright administration society which is no stranger to litigation, represents authors in relation to the grant of permission for third party use of their copyright-protected works and in the collection of the fees for such use. SBS, a Dutch-language commercial broadcasting organisation, makes and markets TV programmes. as a broadcaster SBS runs several private commercial transmitters in Belgium. Its programme schedule includes both programmes which it has produced itself and those it gets from third parties.

SBS broadcasts its programmes exclusively by "direct injection", a two-step process by which programme-carrying signals travel ‘point to point’ via a private line to its distributors such as Belgacom, Telenet and TV Vlaanderen. At that stage, those signals cannot be received by the general public. The distributors then send the signals (encrypted or otherwise) to subscribers who view them on their TV sets, sometimes with the aid of a decoder made available by the distributor. Depending on the distributor, those signals are transmitted by satellite (TV Vlaanderen), cable (Telenet) or xDSL line (Belgacom). 8

Said SABAM, as a broadcasting organisation SBS makes a communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3 of Directive 2001/29 [the InfoSec Directive] by transmitting via the direct injection method. Accordingly SBS needs the authorisation of the copyright holders is required.  No way, said SBS: only distributors and other organisations of the same type make a communication to the relevant public in relation to copyright.

The rechtbank van koophandel te Brussel (Commercial Court, Brussels) allowed SABAM’s application and ordered SBS to pay close to a million euros in copyright fees for 2009. SBS appealed to the referring court, which decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court for a preliminary ruling:

‘Does a broadcasting organisation which transmits its programmes exclusively via the technique of direct injection — that is to say, a two-step process in which it transmits its programme-carrying signals in an encrypted form via satellite, a fibre-optic connection or another means of transmission to distributors (satellite, cable or xDSL-line), without the signals being accessible to the public during, or as a result of, that transmission, and in which the distributors then send the signals to their subscribers so that the latter may view the programmes — make a communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3 of Directive 2001/29?’

Yesterday the Ninth Chamber of the CJEU ruled thus (with the main message in bold):

Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 ... must be interpreted as meaning that a broadcasting organisation does not carry out an act of communication to the public, within the meaning of that provision, when it transmits its programme-carrying signals exclusively to signal distributors without those signals being accessible to the public during, and as a result of that transmission, those distributors then sending those signals to their respective subscribers so that they may watch those programmes, unless the intervention of the distributors in question is just a technical means, which it is for the national court to ascertain.

To quote the CJEU's own words:

"21 ... it is apparent from the Court’s case-law that the term ‘public’ refers to an indeterminate number of recipients, potential television viewers, and implies, moreover, a fairly large number of persons (see, to that effect, judgments in SGAE, C‑306/05, EU:C:2006:764, paragraphs 37 and 38, and ITV Broadcasting and Others, C‑607/11, EU:C:2013:147, paragraph 32).

22 However, in a situation such as that before the court in the main proceedings, as is clear from the question referred for a preliminary ruling, the broadcasting organisation in question transmits the programme-carrying signals to specified individual distributors without potential viewers being able to have access to those signals.

23 Consequently, the works transmitted by the broadcasting organisation, such as the organisation in the main proceedings, are communicated not to the ‘public’, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29, but to specified individual professionals.

24 Given the cumulative nature, referred to in paragraph 15 of this judgment, of the two criteria for a communication to the public, where the condition that copyrighted [this blogger does hope that this Americanism, inappropriate for works which are automatically protected by copyright without any need for formalities, will not catch on in Europe] works must be communicated to a public is not satisfied, the transmissions made by a broadcasting organisation, such as that in the main proceedings, does not, in principle, come within the definition of ‘communication to the public’, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29".

Fellow blogger Eleonora's more detailed analysis of this somewhat sparse 34-paragraph decision can be found on the IPKat here.

Video games and IP: The intricate relationship between Interactivity and Creativity

On the 2nd of December The City Law School are hosting a seminar with Dr Gaetano Dimita (Queen Mary University of London).

The seminar will provide an analysis of the legal status of video games  as complex IP products and will provide an overview of some of the core  IP issues in video games and virtual worlds, including copyright  protection of creative elements beyond the code, game design patents,  in-game use of third party trade marks and personality.

WHEN
Wednesday, 2 December 2015 from 12:30 to 14:30 (GMT) - Add to Calendar

WHERE
Room DLG03, Rhind Building, - City University London. Northampton Square. London EC1V 0HB GB - View Map

It's free, but you need to REGISTER HERE

Girl with the Light Blue Hair scoops award with educational copyright film

Last Thursday an animated film, The Adventure of the Girl with the Light Blue Hair, by Professor Ronan Deazley (right, Queen’s University Belfast) and CREATe researcher Bartolomeo Meletti won the AHRC [don't try pronouncing this: it's the Arts & Humanities Research Council] Research in Film Award for Innovation in Film. The panel of judges – consisting of industry and academic experts such as film director Beeban Kidron, Financial Times Arts Editor Jan Dalley, and actor and producer Diana Quick – described the film as 

“a well-constructed, quality animation addressing issues of creativity, IP and copyright for schools and undergraduates: lively, engaging, witty (à la Sherlock Holmes mode), informative and educating at the same time.”

Awards were doled out at the British Film Institute Southbank in London. The AHRC Research in Film Awards – designed to recognise the creative and innovative work being undertaken at the interface between research and film – attracted hundreds of entries including, animations, installations and gallery pieces, music videos, and documentaries. All the winners and full versions of the films can be seen here. Said Ronan: 

“We set out to make a film that would help explain fundamental concepts of copyright in a way that is thought-provoking but also entertaining. It is a privilege to receive an award for work that celebrates the possibilities of lawful, creative copying.”

Added Bartolomeo Meletti: 

“With this film we wanted to educate about copyright but also to highlight the crucial role that lawful copying plays in the way in which we all create and present ourselves, artistically and otherwise, to the world.”

Not yet showing at a cinema near you ...

The Adventure of the Girl with the Light Blue Hair is the first episode of The Game is On!, a series of short animated films that puts copyright under the magnifying glass of Sherlock Holmes [who is not copyright-protected, even though he has been regularly appearing in court], illustrating concepts of remix, reuse and the public domain for school-aged learners and other creative users of copyright. The film is accompanied by 12 Case Files, supplementary educational materials providing points of discussion about copyright for UK teachers and students. Drawing inspiration from well-known copyright and public domain works, as well as recent copyright litigation, the resource provides a springboard for exploring key principles and ideas underpinning copyright law and creativity, and the limits of lawful appropriation and re-use.

The CopyKat

A US charity called the Association for Childhood Education International has filed a motion to intervene in the 'Happy Birthday' case as music publisher Warner/Chappell ponder their next move(s) after federal judge George H King ruled that Warner/Chappell’s copyright claim was invalid as they seemingly did not control the rights to the lyrics to the song. ACEI’s lawyers claim that the organisation had been receiving one-third of all revenues generated from Happy Birthday for over 20 years – and is largely reliant on this money to continue operating. ACEI argue that the song’s original author, Patty Hill, and her sister, Jessica Hill, had directly assigned rights to Summy Co – which would make Warner/Chappell the song’s rightful controller. Patty Hill, says the motion, was both a founding member and ‘active participant’ in ACEI “As the beneficiaries of Jessica Hill’s estate [which benefited from Patti's estate] both ACEI and the Hill Foundation have a very real and present interest in this litigation" - because if Warner/Chappell don't hold the rights to the lyrics - they do as heirs! More on MBW here and on TechDirt here.

That leaked document that revealed the EU Commission's plans for copyright in 2016 has sparked a lot of comment in cyber space - most name checking the IPKat!  In addition to tackling the issue of content portability in the spring, the draft suggests the Commission will explore a "follow-the-money" approach to enforcement, clarify rules for identifying infringers, and examine the crosss-border application of injunctions. The EU Commission is currently working on proposals for the modernization of copyright with the aim of providing a framework more suited to the digital age. The EU’s plan was set to go public exactly a month from today but last week the purrrrrfectly wonderful  IPKat said it had obtained a leaked copy of the draft communication from a ‘Brussels insider’. The main worry seems to be about linking - and the SEM Post opines that the plan "shows a very scary route the EU wants to take with links on the web, one that would hold a site owner liable if they link to any content that infringes on someone’s copyright.  Yes, a site owner could be liable if someone else they happen to link to has stolen content on that page, even if they had no idea if was stolen.This means that publishers – or anyone who publishes anything online, whether it be for business or a personal blog – could also need to consult a lawyer for every link they make, to know it is “safe” to link to". Julia Reda, the Pirate Party member of the European Parliament representing Germany, wrote on her site about the leaked draft on copyright reform and it could have a profound affect on the entire internet.

U.S. House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) is right in the middle “listening tour” as part of an ongoing review of U.S. copyright law, and now he’s holding a hearing at UCLA that is aimed in part at Hollywood. Goodlatte has held 20 hearings on copyright law since announcing his review in 2013, with the focus on “determining whether our copyright laws are still working in the digital age.” More recently, he’s been travelling on a “listening tour” that takes him closer to key industries. Having started in Nashville,  Variety says he was recently at Santa Clara University in Northern California  to get a Silicon Valley perspective. The EFF says the main points raised by the technology companies were: (1) Statutory damages are far too high, and bringing them into rational territory could help solve other problems. (2)The Digital Millennium Copyright Act's DRM provisions urgently need reform. (3) Fair use has to do a lot of work, so it's a good thing judges have enabled it to do so and (4)  It's not just copyright—End User License Agreements have diminished our ownership rights. The line-up of experts and panellists in Santa Clara was diverse and impressive, and included people like Internet Archive founder Brewster Kahle, Ted Ullyot, who works for the technology investment firm of Andreessen Horowitz, musician Zoe Keating, iFixit CEO and DMCA activist Kyle Wiens, and of course EFF's own staff attorney Kit Walsh.

U.S. District Court Judge Gail Standish has dismissed a copyright lawsuit against Taylor Swift by using some lyrical terminology. Musician and songwriter Jessie Braham has accused Swift of stealing “Shake It Off” lyrics from his song “Haters Gonna Hate,” and attested that he had the song copyrighted back in February. Braham was suing Swift for $42 million in damages and a writing credit on her hit song. Standish wrote, “At present, the Court is not saying that Braham can never, ever, ever get his case back in court. But, for now, we have got problems, and the Court is not sure Braham can solve them.”

City Of London Police's IP Crime Unit (PIPCU) has arrested two people in Manchester on suspicion of being involved in the unlicensed distribution of music software online. PIPCU began investigating the arrested couple after being made aware of their online operation by record industry trade group the British Phonographic Industry (BPI). The accused allegedly ran a piracy operation that sold musical software - including digital products like backing tracks and pre-recorded instrumentals - at substantially reduced prices, without the permission of the owners of the works they are distributing.

And finally: readers are no doubt aware that on January 1st 2016, Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, will enter the public domain in Europe, where the term of protection ends 70 years after the death of a work’s author, despite concerns.  Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels' diaries will similarly enter the public domain. But what about the writings of one of the Nazis’ most famous victims, Anne Frank, who died the same year as Hitler – 1945? It may surprise readers that the Swiss-based foundation that is the heir to the Frank family says the copyrights for the various versions of her work won’t expire for decades. The Anne Frank Fonds, a non-profit organization located in the Swiss city of Basel, was set up in 1963 by Anne’s father, Otto. The Fonds administers the rights to all writings by Anne Frank and says that copyright is crucial to protect her work from unchecked commercial exploitation. It seems that the 'Diary' we all know  (see illustration) was an edited compilation of two earlier works by Anne Frank, and that edited version was put together by her father, Otto, and first published in 1947. And the Foundation say Otto is a 'co-author' because of his role of editing, merging and trimming entries from her diary and notebooks and reshaping them into “kind of a collage” meriting its own copyright. As Otto didn't die until 1980, the Foundation say this work is still protected by copyright and will be until 2050. The two original versions by Frank, and various later translations,  were not published until 1986, so again the Trust says these remain in copyright, as do the versions edited by the German writer Mirjam Pressler, who is still alive (and is credited as a co-author with Otto of the 'definitive edition'). The diary was first translated in English in 1952 by Barbara Mooyaart, who is now 96. In the United States, the diary’s copyright will still end in 2047, 95 years after the first publication of the book in 1952. More here and here.

The Paris Court of Appeals Gives Freedom of Expression the Ax in Favor of Droit Moral

The Paris Court of Appeal recognized on October 13 that the opera Le Dialogue des Carmélites, as staged by Dmitry Chernyakov for the Opera of Bavaria in 2010, had violated the moral rights of the composer and the librettist. The music for the Dialogue des Carmélites was written by Francis Poulenc and its libretto adapted the eponymous theatrical work of Georges Bernanos.

The opera tells the story of a young French aristocrat, Blanche de la Force, who is painfully shy and fearful. As the French Revolution is about to start, she decides to become a Carmelite, or rather, to seek refuge in a convent. After the Carmelites are forbidden by the revolutionaries to be nuns and are ordered to go back to their civil life, they take a vow of martyrdom. Blanche flees the convent. The nuns are later arrested and sentenced to death.

In the last scene of the opera, which is the only scene in contention in this case, the Carmelites go one by one to the scaffold, while singing Salve Regina, a choir which decreases voice by voice after the sound of the ax, repeated regularly by the orchestra, indicates that the blade of the guillotine has cut off yet another head. Blanche suddenly appears at the scene, serene, just before the last nun, the young Constance, is about to be guillotined. Constance dies knowing that Blanche has been able to overcome her fears. The opera ends with Blanche calmly climbing the steps to the scaffold while singing the Veni Creator, and dying. The orchestra then plays again the opera’s motif, first played in its opening, albeit more plaintively this time. The whole scene is chilling.

Dmitry Chernyakov chose to place the action of the opera in the contemporary world, not during the French revolution. There is no guillotine in the last scene, and the nuns are instead held prisoners in a shed, waiting to be gased. Blanche suddenly arrives at the scene, albeit not to share the nun’s martyrdom, but to save them one by one, each of the rescues being punctuated, rather oddly, by the sound of the guillotine. Blanche then goes back inside the shed which explodes, killing her. It is unclear whether it is an accident or a suicide.

The heirs of Poulenc and Bernanos, as holders of their moral rights, brought an action in France against the director, the editor of the DVD of the opera, published in France, and the Munich Opera in the person of the Länder of Bavaria. They argued that the staging transformed the end of the work so much that it had distorted it and thus had violated the moral rights of the authors. Under Article L. 121-1 of the French intellectual property code, authors of an original work have a moral right over it, which is perpetual and transferable upon death.

The Tribunal de Grande Instance in Paris rejected the request of the heirs in 2014, concluding that the changes made by the staging were not a distortion violating the moral rights of the authors.

On appeal, by the heirs, the Länder of Bavaria argued that neither the libretto nor the music had been changed, and that only the staging, as performed by the singers during the last scene of the opera, had been modified. The Länder further argued that Mr. Chernyakov’s staging had conferred to the work "a more universal significance and is consistent with the spirit of the original work, since it respects its essential theme, which is hope.” One of the DVD producers argued that the appellants themselves had recognized in their conclusions that neither the libretto nor the music had been modified by the staging, and, that therefore, "the debate is outside the moral right and the legal debate, but is about the interpretation of the work and the artistic and historical controversy."

The Court of Appeal stated:

"that if some freedom can be granted  to the director performing his staging, this freedom is limited by the moral rights of the author and  respect for his work, his integrity and his mind, and that this should not be distorted."

The Court of Appeals admitted that the final scene of the opera as directed by Mr. Tcherniakov does not change the dialogue which is not even spoken during the final scene, nor the music, as the orchestra dutifully played each sound of the falling guillotine even though there was no guillotine on stage. However, the Court noted that these changes are “enigmatic or incomprehensible, or imperceptible to the neophyte."

For the Court, even if Mr. Tcherniakov’s staging respected the central themes of the opera, which are hope, martyrdom and the transfer of grace, "it profoundly changes the end of the story as intended by [the authors] (...) and is the climax of the story, magnified in Poulenc's opera, where text and music come into perfect harmony."The Court of Appeals concluded that the staging had distorted the spirit of the work. 

The sale of the DVD is now banned in France, but the heirs have not obtained the complete prohibition of the representation on other stages. This must be welcomed, as it would be dangerous for freedom of expression, particularly freedom of artistic expression, if moral rights could thus become a universal instrument of censorship. 

Reprobel and fair compensation: CJEU rules on what the InfoSoc Directive does not allow

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) gave its ruling this morning in Case C‑572/13, Hewlett-Packard Belgium SPRL v Reprobel SCRL, intervener Epson Europe BV, a request for a preliminary ruling under from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Court of Appeal, Brussels, Belgium). Since Eleonora Rosati is preparing a commentary for the IPKat, readers are referred to that weblog for her thoughts on the ruling once they are published [Eleonora's post is now up and running here]. Below we offer a simple account of the facts, the questions posed and the answers that the CJEU gave to them.

In short, Hewlett-Packard (HP) imported reprographic devices into Belgium for business and household use, including ‘multifunction’ devices, the main function of which was the printing of documents at different speeds depending on the print quality.  Reprobel, a rights management company, collected and distributed sums corresponding to fair compensation under Directive 2001/29, the InfoSoc Directive's reprography exception in Article 5(2).

In August 2004, Reprobel told HP that its sale of ‘multifunction’ printers should entail, in principle, the payment of a levy of EUR 49.20 per printer. Following six years of inconclusive meetings and correspondence, HP sought a declaration that no remuneration was owed for the printers which it had offered for sale or that, if such remuneration was owed, the remuneration which it had already paid corresponded to the fair compensation owed under the Belgian legislation, interpreted in the light of Directive 2001/29. HP also claimed that Reprobel should be ordered to carry out within the year, on pain of a periodic penalty payment of EUR 10 million, a study consistent with that referred to in Article 26 of the Royal Decree of 30 October 1997 concerning the remuneration of authors and publishers for copies made for private or didactic purposes of works fixed on a graphic or similar medium and also concerning the number of printers in dispute and their actual use as copiers of protected works for the purpose of comparing that use with the actual use of all other devices for the reproduction of protected works.

In separate but subequently joined proceedings Reprobel summoned HP and sought an order that HP pay it the provisional sum of EUR 1 towards the remunerative payments which Reprobel considered were owed under the Royal Decree.

In November 2012 the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Court of First Instance, Brussels) ruled that the Royal Decree was incompatible with European law.  This sparked of appeals by both HP and Reprobel to the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Court of Appeal, Brussels). That court decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling:

‘1. Must the term “fair compensation” contained in Article 5(2)(a) and Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 be interpreted differently depending on whether the reproduction on paper or a similar medium effected by the use of any kind of photographic technique or by some other process having similar effects is carried out by any user or by a natural person for private use and for ends that are neither directly nor indirectly commercial? If the answer is in the affirmative, on what criteria must that difference of interpretation be based?

2. Must Article 5(2)(a) and Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 be interpreted as authorising the Member States to fix the fair compensation payable to rightholders in the form of:

(a) lump-sum remuneration paid by the manufacturer, importer or intra-Community acquirer of devices enabling protected works to be copied, at the time when such devices are put into circulation on national territory, the amount of which is calculated solely by reference to the speed at which the copier is capable of producing a number of copies per minute, without being otherwise linked to any harm suffered by rightholders; and

(b) proportional remuneration, determined solely by means of a unit price multiplied by the number of copies produced, which varies depending on whether or not the person liable for payment has cooperated in the collection of that remuneration, which is payable by natural or legal persons making copies of works or, as the case may be, in lieu of those persons, by those who, for consideration or free of charge, make a reproduction device available to others?

If the reply to this question is in the negative, what are the relevant and consistent criteria that the Member States must apply in order to ensure that, in accordance with European Union law, the compensation may be regarded as fair and that a fair balance is maintained between the persons concerned?

3. Must Article 5(2)(a) and Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 be interpreted as authorising the Member States to allocate half of the fair compensation due to rightholders to the publishers of works created by authors, the publishers being under no obligation whatsoever to ensure that the authors benefit, even indirectly, from some of the compensation of which they have been deprived?

4. Must Article 5(2)(a) and Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 be interpreted as authorising the Member States to introduce an undifferentiated system for recovering the fair compensation due to rightholders in the form of a lump-sum and an amount for each copy made, which, implicitly but indisputably, covers in part the copying of sheet music and counterfeit reproductions?’

In February 2014 the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles allowed Epson Europe BV - - another manufacturer of multifunctional devices -- to intervene in the dispute in the main proceedings.

Today the CJEU ruled as follows, the bits that refer to national Belgian law being emphsized in bold.:

1. Article 5(2)(a) and Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 ...must be interpreted as meaning that, with regard to the phrase ‘fair compensation’ contained in those provisions, it is necessary to draw a distinction according to whether the reproduction on paper or a similar medium effected by the use of any kind of photographic technique or by some other process having similar effects is carried out by any user or by a natural person for private use and for ends that are neither directly nor indirectly commercial.

2. Article 5(2)(a) and Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which authorises the Member State in question to allocate a part of the fair compensation payable to rightholders to the publishers of works created by authors, those publishers being under no obligation to ensure that the authors benefit, even indirectly, from some of the compensation of which they have been deprived.

3. Article 5(2)(a) and Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 preclude, in principle, national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which introduces an undifferentiated system for recovering fair compensation which also covers the copying of sheet music, and preclude such legislation which introduces an undifferentiated system for recovering fair compensation which also covers counterfeit reproductions made from unlawful sources.

4. Article 5(2)(a) and Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which introduces a system that combines, in order to finance the fair compensation payable to rightholders, two forms of remuneration, namely, first, lump-sum remuneration paid prior to the reproduction operation by the manufacturer, importer or intra-Community acquirer of devices enabling protected works to be copied, at the time when such devices are put into circulation on national territory, and, second, proportional remuneration paid after that reproduction operation and determined solely by means of a unit price multiplied by the number of copies produced, which is payable by the natural or legal persons who make those copies, in so far as:

– the lump-sum remuneration paid in advance is calculated solely by reference to the speed at which the device concerned is capable of producing copies;

– the proportional remuneration recovered after the fact varies according to whether or not the person liable for payment has cooperated in the recovery of that remuneration;

– the combined system, taken as a whole, does not include mechanisms, in particular for reimbursement, which allow the complementary application of the criterion of actual harm suffered and the criterion of harm established as a lump sum in respect of different categories of users.

Now it's all up to the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles!

Wiill the Poke be the test parody piggie?

The annual 'John Lewis' Christmas advert is much admired by some here in the United Kingdom - although loathed by others for the schamlatzy undertones  - but no one can deny its been an amazing marketing idea for the department store as its always a much anticipated and much talked about 'national event'. But every year the advert lends itself to parody - which of course in the past might have been a tad tricky here in the United Kingdom - but maybe not now, with our newly installed exception for parody, pastiche and caricature. This year's advert is based on the idea of the 'man in the moon' and a little girl's plan to cheer up a lonely old man by sending him the gift of a telescope. All lovely, and sent to a haunting version of rock band Oasis's "Half The World Away" performed by Norweigian teenage newcomer Aurora Asknes. Cue the Poke ...... whose strapline is 'time well wasted': 

With the imminent release of the new Star wars film 'The Force Awakens' on the cards - why not produce a 'Dark Side' version of the soft and gentle John Lewis tale - but this time replacing the Moon with the Empire's Death Star, and the old man with the evil Darth Vader. Cue a very different, and to this writer anyway, very humerous take on both the John Lewis advert and and Star Wars films. But how will the department store and the Disney and 20th Century Fox, who own various copyrights in the films, take this? The spoof  uses extensively uses footage from the advert itself, and also from the orginial 1977 Star Wars film and the 2015 latest outing - as well as the song and sound recording. So how will copyright owners take this - are we going to see 'take downs' gfrom YouTube and elsewhere  (none as yet I could find) - or even legal action? This writer suspects not - at least not from John Lewis who are surely benefitting from the publicity - and perhaps not even from the film companies - its all good publicity after all. But you never know. What do readers think. Your COMMENTS would be much appreciated. 

You can view the Poke's video here  - Topicalol's take here (which is a spoof of mars based science fiction outing with Arnold Schwarzenegger's Total Recall) and the original John Lewis ad here

EFF says ..... Victory! From Jailbreaking Phones to Fixing Your Car, Users' Rights to Tinker Reaffirmed

This from the EFF, updating the earlier and somewhat brief report by the CopyKat. 

"In a major victory for digital rights, the Librarian of Congress granted all of the DMCA exemptions that EFF and our supporters requested. Quick refresher: the DMCA as written creates legal uncertainty around circumventing technical restrictions on copyrighted works, and directs the Librarian of Congress to grant special, temporary exemptions every three years.

The new exemptions mean that the following types of technological tinkering are explicitly lawful, at least for the next three years:

- Jailbreaking cell phones, tablets, and other portable computing devices to run third party software;

- Ripping DVDs and Blu-ray video that you own in order to create fair use remixes and analysis;

- Preserving video games and running multiplayer servers after publishers have abandoned them;

- Security research and modification and repairs on cars (and tractors!).

We're thrilled with this outcome. At the same time, a critical long-term solution is to eliminate the need for this onerous rulemaking process by reforming the broken law that threatens these activities in the first place."

And even more here! https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/victory-users-librarian-congress-renews-and-expands-protections-fair-uses