LawFont.com

The decision in the Australian KaZaA case (Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Sharman License Holdings Ltd [2005] FCA 1242) has been published.

The New York Times has also published an article on the decision, and gives a useful history of KaZaA since its launch in 2001.

It is clear that this decision will have implications beyond Australia’s shores. For some detailed comments on the decision, see Kim’s post.

The Federal Court of Australia has ruled that the developers of peer-to-peer file sharing software infringes copyright in music recordings. Although the decision has not been posted yet, it has been reported on in the Australian press.

Interesting, Justice Wilcox has not ordered for the KaZaA system to be shut down, but for the technology to be modified so that instances of copyright infringement are reduced.

An article published in The Wall Street Journal Online (posted 31 August 2005) reports that a company has sued the owner of a blog for comments posted on his site by readers about the company. This case, should it proceed to trial, will raise very interesting issues that are similar to those recently raised in Australia in Universal Music v Cooper , which considered the liability of a website operator for links to infringing mp3s installed on his website by third parties. Although this case does not concern copyright law, but instead defamation and the misappropriation of trade sercrets, it considers the liability of a website operator for the actions of third parties. (more…)

On 13 July, the Court of Appeal ruled in BHB v William Hill, the long-awaited UK case applying the European database right. The judgment, which is the result of an appeal from Justice Laddie’s decision in the Chancery Division of the High Court, applied the findings of the European Court of Justice regarding the interpretation of the database right. The result was that the BHB database was ruled as not falling within the scope of the law’s protection, as it was not the result of a “substantial investment” in either the obtaining, verification, or presentation of the contents of the database, as required by Article 7(1) of Directive 96/9. (more…)

The New York Times has reportedthe increased use of tattooing technology to identify individual pieces of fruit with pricing and other information. Since 9/11, the United States government has been encouraging fruit suppliers to experiment with different ways to “track and trace” produce. Different ways of identifying fruit with “PLU” (price look-up number) numbers is being tested, among them tattooing and scannable bar-coding etched into the wax coating a piece of fruit. The idea is to replace those annoying little stickers.

In 2002, Georgia fruit grower and distributer Durand-Wayland bought the patent for a process that etches the PLU number and any other information directly into the skin of the fruit. The process permanently tattoos each piece of fruit, without piercing the skin.

Australia’s first decision involving the legality of linking was delivered last week. The good news for bloggers is that linking itself is not at risk. Providing links to infringing material is not such a good idea, though, especially when the material is owned by major music studios. (more…)

Australian Attorney-General Philip Ruddock announced yesterday the appointment of Andrew Greenwood as a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia. Greenwood is currently a partner of law firm Minter Ellison, where he leads their Competition and Regulatory Policy practice in Brisbane. He also has experience in the areas of intellectual property law and commercial litigation.

Greenwood is currently Queensland Chair of the Intellectual Property and Trade Practices Committees of the Law Council of Australia, and is an Adjunct Professor in the fields of intellectual property and competition law at the TC Beirne School of Law, University of Queensland. Greenwood is replacing Justice Richard Cooper, who passed away earlier this year.

The New York Times reports that business is booming for manufacturers of cheap DVDs. An increasing number of titles, typically old films and cartoons, are being priced in the US$0.99 to US$1.99 range, the low price a reflection of the fact that these works are no longer protected by copyright.

(more…)

The Supreme Court of the US has handed down its decision in the Grokster case. Kim has a good summary at Weatherall’s Law. In brief, the Court has reversed the 9th Circuit decision, in which it held that Grokster could not be liable for P2P file-sharing technology with substantial non-infringing uses. The case has been remanded for trial. The record companies that sued Grokster will have another chance, it seems.

GrokLaw recently posted a list, sorted by case name, law firm, and lawyer, of the litigation monitored on their website. It’s a handy list, at least for those of us interested in such things as SCO and open source.

Not everyone is very happy about Google these days. The Association of American University Presses believes that Google’s plan to digitise the libraries of Oxford University and others will result in widespread copyright infringement. And a journalist at Wired.com has warned readers that Google is doing its best to collect more and more information on its users, noting that “Google is big, bad, ubiquitous, and whipping Microsoft, the dominatrix of the desktop.”

Have things really become that bad? I for one do not mind the targetted advertising that I see when I check my Gmail account. If Google has a little information on me that it uses to create advertising, I don’t mind so long as it’s discreetly displayed on the side of my screen. It is certainly a far sight better than the pseudo-pornographic spam that I receive at Hotmail.