Category Archives: Case Law

Google vs. Viacom

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which has been discussed at various points throughout the semester, has recently played a key role in the ongoing legal battle between major companies Google and Viacom. Viacom’s claim is that Google is guilty of copyright infringement, with Youtube.com containing clips of many Viacom shows that were posted without permission. It seems however that Google has won a major victory in this struggle, for a U.S. District Judge has ruled that the “safe harbor” provisions of the Copyright Act protects Youtube videos in this circumstance. It is unclear if the issue is finally settled once and for all, but it seems that, for the time being, Google has the upper hand in this drawn-out power struggle.

http://business.time.com/2013/04/19/how-google-beat-viacom-in-the-landmark-youtube-copyright-case-again/

Future Developments in Copyright Law

It appears as if the United States will see a new major development in copyright law in the near future. On March 20, Maria A. Pallante, the register of Copyrights in the U.S. Copyright Office, gave a speech in the House of Representatives. In her speech, she stated that there will soon be new developments in U.S. copyright law, explicitly stating that the U.S. must begin “the next great copyright act”. This is in response to the increasing threats that illegal online distributors have posed to the creators of original works. As is to be expected, debate has begun on whether or not these reforms are necessary, and to what extent they will be expanded upon. As this speech was made relatively recently, it is early to begin coming up with conclusions as to what is the right course of action. We must wait and see what developments occur, as well what others have to say on the issue, before coming up with a correct conclusion.

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/04/10/comprehensive-copyright-reform/id=37826/

Important Supreme Court Ruling

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court made a ruling in the important case of Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, where a university student bought many copies of a textbook from an East Asian distributor at reduced prices, and then sold them for a sizable profit. Kirtsaeng, the student in question, tried to argue that since the transactions occurred overseas, he was not subject to the usual laws. However, the Supreme Court ruled against him, stating that copyright laws concerning material created in the U.S. hold true regardless of where transactions with such items are made. This case has gained much attention in recent weeks, and this ruling will likely set a very important precedent for the future of copyright laws.

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=48f95e15-a179-4741-9489-628967cebd8b

Online pirate websites in the courts again

It seems like every time I sit down to do these posts, another one of those pirate websites (Megaupload, The Pirate Bay, etc.) is losing a court case. This time, the unlucky party is BitTorrent. Recently, this website and its associates lost a major ruling against Disney, Fox, Paramount, and a slew of other major producers. The ruling was that BitTorrent was allowing for people to illegally download and distribute films and television shows. The ruling was unanimous, and charges will be named soon. It seems as if a new change is coming for the internet. These websites, which once were major powers on the internet, are now being slowly taken apart. It will be interesting to see how this long developments unfolds, and if the legal system is able to truly eliminate these entities.

http://www.deadline.com/2013/03/hollywood-studios-score-appeals-court-win-in-copyright-case/

Blog Prompt – The Pirate Bay

Recently, a situation arose in Europe involving the Pirate Bay, a website known for redistributing materials without regarding copyrights or authorship. A Swedish court had ruled that the website was guilty of making copyrighted work freely available without consulting the original authors. The result was a fine of 3.3 million euros. The founders of the website tried to have the European Court of Human Rights re-examine the case, claiming that the ruling was in violation of free-speech. However, this request was denied, with the reason being that the ruling in Sweden had already settled the matter. This relates to what has been discussed in class recently, specifically in Copyright’s Highway. Truly, the founders of the website were at fault here. Freedom of expression does not allow for the stealing of ideas.

http://rt.com/news/pirate-bay-case-rejected-strasbourg-240/

Recent Developments – Germany

In the past few days, a major development occurred in Germany that will have a profound effect on copyright laws over the internet going forward. Originally, the German parliament was sponsoring a bill that would have negative effects on internet search engines, particularly Google, who has links to various news sources scattered across websites all over the internet. The legislation would allow for newspapers and other news sources require search engines to stop showing these links unless the company agreed to pay licensing fees to the new source. However, heavy lobbying by Google has resulted in the bill being severely watered down. Now, the bill states that while news sources can now require charging search engines for the printing of full texts, the search engines still have free reign in using small snippets of text in advertising links. The bill has passed in the lower house of the German parliament and is awaiting a vote in the upper house. Google is calling this a victory for the free internet movement, but what effect this development actually ends up producing remains to be seen.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/02/technology/german-copyright-law-targets-google-links.html

The Non Cur

So the latest Non Cur came out today and it got me thinking about censorship. I’m buddies with two of the guys who run the Non cur and I’m familiar with the struggle they faced to get their paper started. If you read the school paper last semester they published an article from the administrations point of view, attacking the paper which at that point didn’t have any recognition by the school. The administration pointed out that as a private institution students don’t really have all the constitutional rights they would have at a public institution.  Thankfully the english department came to the rescue and saved the satirical paper from the administrations crackdown on anything “Underground” fraternities and otherwise.

Parodies

I was watching the latest episode of saturday night live and started to think about what constituted original content. Many of the saturday night skits are made from the parodying of other media and popular culture. In 1994 the Supreme Court justified a parody under fair use because a parody is the “use of some elements of a prior author’s composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author’s works.” Like other forms of comment or criticism, parody can provide social benefit, “by shedding light on an earlier work, and, in the process, creating a new one.” I never really thought about parodies, such as the ones Weird Al creates, in this way before.