across the bar

google victory in the you tube copyright lawsuit

by Steve - Posted 26 June 2010

Google have successfully defended the lawsuit brought against them by Viacom and its co-plaintiffs for direct and secondary copyright infringement involving copyright protected material being uploaded to You Tube. The New York district court ruled that Google were entitled to safe harbour protection under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, and that general knowledge of copyright infringement on its site did not disqualify it from such protection. Viacom have said that they will appeal the decision.

Check out the ruling.  

permalink | comments (0) | back to top

first decided case involving ISP liability for copyright infringement

by Steve - Posted 11 February 2010

Judgment was handed down by the Austrailian Federal Court on 4 February 2010 in the landmark case of Roadshow Films (Pty) Limited v iiNet Limited. 

The case raised the question whether an internet service provider or ISP authorises the infringement of copyright by its users when they download copyrighted movies and TV shows on the internet. The general principle In Australian copyright law is that a person who authorises the infringement of copyright is treated as if they themselves infringed copyright directly.

The court found that the ISP did not authorise copyright infringement for the following reasons:

• The infringement of copyright was done using the BitTorrent system and not simply from the internet services provided by the ISP. The ISP did not create or control the BitTorrent system.
• The ISP did not have the relevant power to prevent those infringements occurring.
• The ISP did not sanction or approve copyright infringement.

The judge said that he could not be compelled to make a finding against the ISP simply because "something had to be done" about internet piracy, which on the evidence presented appeared to be occuring on a large scale worldwide.

He also said that an ISP provides a legitimate communication facility which is not intended to infringe copyright. It is only when users choose to make use of file sharing tools such as BitTorrent that copyright infringements take place.

This judgment will have persuasive authority if a similar case comes before a South African court. Although copyright holders may be disappointed by the outcome, it looks like common sense has prevailed in a situation which could have had dire consequences for the ongoing development of the internet if the decision had gone the other way.

A summary of the case is available here (we are trying to access the full judgment which is a 200page monster).

permalink | comments (0) | back to top

don't lose face on facebook

by Steve - Posted 10 February 2010

Word from the social media experts is that you need to be open and honest on sites like Facebook and MySpace to win friends and influence people. Personally I think its like being in a big room with loads of people standing on their own individual soapboxes seeing who can be the wittiest, most interesting or the loudest. But in striving for social media stardom, remember that while all these sites laud their privacy policies, they are still public websites where what you say can come back to haunt you.

Tokyo Sekwale's niece recently landed in hot water over comments she made about our good president's extra-curricular activites on her Facebook page.

Thinking that her comments were private, they were leaked by someone on her friend list to the media causing huge embarrassment for Uncle Tokyo who is a member of the president's cabinet.

If you are not yet a member of a social media site, you are probably reading this in Kleindorpfontein (picture tumble weed, skew teeth and banjo's)  If you do hail from one of these places, just be very careful what you say about your beloved town or its good people.

Take the case of Cynthia Moreno, a small town girl turned university student. Not being content with simply moving away from the metropolis of Coalinga, California, Ms Moreno proceeded to dis her hometown on her MySpace page, saying how much she despised it and listing a number of reasons why it was a dump.

Her rant, which only stayed on her page for 6 days, was read by the headmaster of her old school.

Mr Grumpy, obviously not taking kindly to the criticism, decided to make an example of Morena by alerting the local newspaper to her comments. The editor of the newspaper published the rant verbatim in the next edition.

Unfortunately, Moreno's family, who still lived in the town, started receiving death threats and were eventually forced to close down their business and leave town.

Moreno sued the principal who leaked the rant to the paper for infringement of privacy. However, because she had posted the rant on a public website, she had no legitimate right to privacy and her claim failed.

This serves as a warning about being too honest on social media sites.

It may not lead to you or your family being railroaded out of town. But you could lose your job or even some friends.

For more information on the legal risks of social media, give us a call on (021) 465 9175.

permalink | comments (0) | back to top

Journalism is dead, long live journalism

by Steve - Posted 18 July 2005

Citizen journalism has once again proved its worth with the on-the-spot coverage of the recent London bombings. As with the September 11 attacks and last year's Asian tsunamis, spectators with camera phones were able to capture important images as the events unfolded. With big media companies realising the potential, citizen journalism represents a major paradigm shift in the way news is reported.    

But what about the legal implications? Citizen journos are not subject to the same rules and code of ethics as normal journalists. The risk of inaccurate or defamatory reporting rises without the benefit of the normal protections and privileges enjoyed by journalists. Limitation of liability clauses and disclaimers will need to be used by media companies wanting to enjoy the fruits of citizen journalism.

Who owns the copyright in the material produced? Unlike traditional journalism, where material is often commissioned or the journalist is an employee, the efforts of the citizen journalist are spontaneous and solicited after the fact to interested parties. The copyright in their work will remain with them unless they have assigned their rights in writing to the media company wanting to use the material. Media companies not wanting the copyright will still need to make sure that there is a proper legal agreement setting out the permitted use of the material. The BBC for one does not demand copyright, but it doesn't pay for any material either. The creator's moral rights may also need to be taken into account and the source of the material may need to be acknowledged in the bulletin or article carrying the original material.

Finally, the issue of censorship will become important. Apparently some of the images from the London bombings were too gruesome to be used in the mainstream media. However this will not always be the case and certain graphic images or material may be aired (a'la SABC beheading insert during supper time viewing).

The authenticity of citizen journalism may be a major drawcard, but a degree of care (and skeptism) will need to be maintained. There may not be too many real journalists joining the breadline just yet. Cream always rises to the top.

permalink | comments (0) | back to top

Ever heard of a cyber-lynching?

by Steve - Posted 12 July 2005

Check out this story which ran in the washington post recently about a woman who refused to pick up her dog's doo doo on a subway in South Korea. One of her fellow travellers  took a picture on his camera phone and published it on a popular website. Other users soon sent out a call across the internet for more info on the culprit and pretty soon they had a dossier on her. The women became known as Dog Poop Girl and she was soon recognised around her native town.  The negative exposure ultimately resulted in her quitting her university.

Did the mob go too far? Did they infringe her right to privacy?

In SA law, the right to privacy includes the right not to have people who know you revealing your identity or disclosing your personal information to others who don't. Reporting the event and her conduct in that situation may have been okay, but publishing the other information probably crossed the line.

Whatever the verdict, what happened to Dog Poop Girl really stinks!

permalink | comments (0) | back to top