Jonathan Bailey's List: Episode 139

• The Baidu case actually represents the IFPI's second go at the search engine—its first case, brought in 2005, was thrown out by the same court saying that the files were not infringing on anyone's copyright. The IFPI is surely unhappy with the latest decision, though, as China's Internet users are capable of pulling down more data in a day than OiNK's entire network combined. 

• The judge, obviously miffed that the labels had put Andersen through the wringer but couldn't prove their claims, awarded her $103,175 in attorneys' fees -- one of only two cases in which the labels have had to make such payments.
• The evidence gathered by the labels and MediaSentry "was strong enough to support 'a chance' that the defendants had correctly identified an individual engaged in wrongful activity," she wrote, citing the relevant legal standard.
• The labels won another round earlier this month when Judge Brown denied Andersen's motion for class certification -- eliminating, at least for now, the possibility of a huge judgment against them -- and also rejected her attempt to file a Fifth Amended Complaint to add new class representatives.

1 more annotation...

• Google competitor Amazon.com and an organization called Internet Archive, which is working on its own digital library, said the changes the parties made to the initial settlement were largely cosmetic, because the settlement still gave Google a de facto monopoly over out-of-print works whose copyright holder couldn’t be found.
• The Justice Department has until next week to weigh in on the revised version of the settlement.

• Using a 2001 case law where the judgement said that a court would be entitled to refuse to enforce copyright of work if the work is
   
   
   
   
  • immoral, scandalous or contrary to family life
   
  • injurious to public life, public health and safety and administration of justice or
   
  • incites or encourages others to act in a way referred to in the first point.
   
   
   
   
  Reading Police backed the paper by issuing a statement to the court explaining why they wished to talk to the “explorers”.

• This approach stands in contrast with that proposed in the Digital Economy Bill, which wants warning letters to be sent before any technical measures are used to combat unlawful file-sharing.
• Most people who receive such letters are not sued, according to solicitor Michael Coyle of Lawdit, who represents hundreds of recipients. He pointed out that recipients cannot be forced to pay without a claim being formally issued by the rights holder in court.

• One of the main problems is that sanctions cannot target the actual person responsible, but only the IP address responsible. For households that share Internet access, i.e. families, etc., this a rather important problem. There’s also the concern that households that rely on VOIP for telephone services could lose access to emergency services.
• Dunstone adds that the proposed legislation will only lead to the development of new tools and applications to circumvent any proposed anti-piracy measures. People and technology will not simply surrender and go home.

• Internet companies and civil liberty groups have voiced alarm over a proposed Italian law which would make online service providers responsible for their audiovisual content and copyright infringements by users.
• It comes as Google's YouTube unit is engaged in a legal battle with Mediaset (MS.MI), controlled by Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. Italy's largest media group wants 500 million euros in damages from YouTube for copyright infringement.