The Constable on September 25th, 2008
Ars Technica has an article about a recent letter to Congress from the Department of Justice regarding to Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act of 2008 (EIPRA). Basically, the wording of the Act made it so the DoJ was responsible for all civil and criminal cases of copyright abuse, thereby putting the burden on the taxpayer to fund such cases (but money won from the cases would go the rights holders).
In our opinion, cases of copyright abuse are clearly legal arguments that can and should go to the courts, and theft is theft (and those cases are mostly criminal), but when it comes to civil suits those really should be on the burden of the individual bringing the suit. After all, if something is worthy of going to court over in an actual lawsuit, it had better be something you are likely to win - which means groups like the RIAA could easily fund such lawsuits.
The article at ArsTechnica has more information on the letter, but it also has quite a bit of opinion inserted in the article as well - so take what you read with a grain of salt, since this is Ars after all.
The Constable on September 22nd, 2008
Activision, the publisher behind the Guitar Hero and Call of Duty games, are taking the battle over piracy to the courtroom, reports Edge.
Court filings uncovered by the European news organization allege that New Yorker James R. Strickland has “violated Plaintiff’s exclusive rights of reproduction and distribution” by illicitly copying and distributing Activision’s titles — an act that the firm characterizes as “willful and intentional.”
read more | digg story
The Constable on September 9th, 2008
According to an article over at p2pnet, JK Rowling has won her lawsuit against the Harry Potter Lexicon (who’s website appears to be gone?), barring them from publishing their reference as a hardcover book.  The author of the lexicon claimed fair use, which was dismissed by the courts.
Author JK Rowling has won her legal battle in a New York court to get an unofficial Harry Potter encyclopaedia banned from publication,” says the BBC.
“Judge Robert Patterson said in a ruling Ms Rowling, 43, had proven Steven Vander Ark’s Harry Potter Lexicon would cause her irreparable harm as a writer.”
The Constable on September 9th, 2008
Just how similar does something have to be to something else in order to be considered copyright infringement? We may find out a bit more of the answer to this question now that Dreamworks is being sued by the trust who owns the rights to the story that inspired Rear Window.
What the defendants have been unwilling to do openly, legitimately and legally, (they) have done surreptitiously, by their back-door use of the ‘Rear Window’ story without paying compensation,” the lawsuit said.
Digg Description:
Steven Spielberg and major Hollywood studios stole the plot from Hitchcock’s classic 1954 film “Rear Window” in making last year’s “Disturbia,” a lawsuit filed in Manhattan federal court on Monday said. Dreamworks is accused of infringement and breach of contract for making Disturbia without first obtaining permission from the copyright holders.
read more | digg story
The Constable on August 27th, 2008
Yeah… I’m lazy on this one and am just copying the press release about the news.
A Bristol man has been sentenced to 15 months in prison after pleading guilty to a total of 23 offences relating to the possessing for sale of illegally copied games, films, music and pornography on recordable discs. He also requested that a further 144 offences be taken into consideration and was ordered to pay £12,000 towards prosecution costs. Gary Boulter, 51, of 15 Knapp Road, Thornbury, Bristol, appeared before Bristol Crown Court on August 26 to be sentenced for offences under the Trade Marks Act (1994) and the Video Recordings Act (1985) as a result of a prosecution brought by South Gloucestershire Trading Standards. In addition to this, a confiscation order for £10,500 was made under the provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Act (2002), requiring that the outstanding money be paid within six months or he would be face a further nine months in prison.
Boulter was origionally investigated by South Gloucestershire Trading Standards following a tip-off alleging that he was involved in running a copying factory from his premises. A warrant was subsequently executed in December 2005 involving Avon and Somerset Police, Trading Standards, ELSPA (the Entertainment & Leisure Publishers Association) undercover investigators and representatives of the British Phonographic Industry (BPI), which revealed that Boulter had a room dedicated to copying games, film, music and pornography.
Several computers and copying equipment was seized, as well as over 2300 copied discs including PlayStation®2 and Xbox® games, feature films, music and pornographic films. In addition, nearly 500 blank DVD-R discs and 173 copied inlays were removed.
The legitimate market value of the detained games, films and music is estimated to be in excess of £50,000.
Forensic examination of his computer established that Boulter was copying in response to orders that were being regularly placed with him by friends and contacts. During interview Boulter claimed that he did the copying as a hobby and gave the discs to friends and family at no cost despite the fact that it was costing him to do so. However, evidence retrieved from his computer clearly demonstrated that he was receiving payment for his efforts.
The maximum penalty upon conviction for offences under the Trade Marks Act is an unlimited fine and/or up to 10 years imprisonment.
In passing sentence, Judge Darwall-Smith commented that Boulter’s operation was a large commercial venture and that his illegal use of trademarks debases the industries affected.
Michael Rawlinson, managing director of ELSPA, said: “ I congratulate South Gloucestershire Trading Standards and local Police for successfully shutting down Gary Boulter’s criminal operation. ELSPA would like to thank the efforts of everyone concerned in their attempts to protect legitimate local traders and remove illegal products from the marketplace.”
Neil Derrick, Senior Enforcement Officer for South Gloucestershire Trading Standards, said: “ Mr Boulter has been dealt with severely by the court and this should stand as a stern warning to others who are tempted to engage in this type of activity. He has not only lost his liberty, but now also has to pay significant sums of money in costs and under the confiscation order, as well as having all of his discs and associated equipment forfeited. He obviously had no regard for the local retailers whose businesses are badly affected by counterfeiting and he was supplying pornographic films, which are age restricted and the content of which means they should only be sold by a licensed sex shop.”
The Constable on August 25th, 2008
Dear Grooveshark:
Are you serious? You’re actually selling songs that you know you don’t have rights to, and just putting the money into a slush fund so you can pay the record labels, etc. when you get the deal done? Seriously?!
recent twitter conversation:
In my experience, if there is one way to kill any chances of going legit, it is to do exactly what you are doing. Your system of posting songs and paying ASCAP / streaming rights is more than likely fine, but to sell content that you know you don’t have rights to is extraordinarily risky.
From the deals I’ve worked on, one thing has stood out - and that is that there are many publishers and labels out there who simply will not work with a business if they have openly violated copyright law.
The simple fact that you have songs from The Beatles available for sale on your service, when not even iTunes has gotten this, is an extraordinarily bad move on your part, if your goal is to be a legal service with actual licenses. It’s one thing to hold royalties if you don’t know if you have rights. That’s debatable, but to hold royalties when you KNOW you don’t have rights….
All I can say is good luck, and I hope you have a good lawyer on retainer.
The Constable on August 21st, 2008
No, this has nothing to do with Sid Meier.
According to the Times Online, several publishers, including Atari, Codemaster, Techland and others are going to be serving notice on 25,000 individuals who they believe have downloaded their intellectual property illegally. Each of these people will have the option of settling out of court for just over $550, but they will be choosing 500 of the individuals who don’t respond and directly taking legal action against them.
Strangely, EA games is the one company who is speaking out against this action. EA Sports president Peter Moore told gamesindustry.biz:
“I’m not a huge fan of trying to punish your consumer … Albeit these people have clearly stolen intellectual property, I think there are better ways of resolving this within our power as developers and publishers.”
