COPYCENSE

Noting that settlement talks with the Recording Industry Association of America and other entertainment firms had broken down, the company that owns the Morpheus online file-swapping software said late last week that it would fight copyright infringement allegations in court.

StreamCast Networks, the Australian company that owns Morpheus, had been trying to settle litigation with the music industry after the U.S. Supreme Court held nearly one year ago that StreamCast and other file sharing firms could be held liable for copyright infringement.

In reversing a federal appeals court in California, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc., et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al., determined that the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit mistakenly concluded that Internet-based file sharing services like Grokster and StreamCast’s Morpheus should be immunized from copyright liability for acts of copyright infringement that others commit on their networks. “We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties,” wrote Justice David Souter.

The judgment in the MGM case called for the Ninth Circuit to reconsider its decision in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling. Copyright lawyer William Patry opined in his blog after the decision was released that the Court “punted” and effectively decided the case on issues not at issue. The original case and controversy dates back to 2003.

StreamCast has decided to fight this case at the same time it has launched a lawsuit against Skype, the distributor of popular free Internet telephony software. StreamCast alleges in this lawsuit that it owns the underlying technology Skype uses in its business.

StreamCast has chosen to litigate its case against Skype under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), a United States federal law which provides for extended penalties for criminal acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization

Jim Welte. StreamCast To Fight Music Biz. MP3.com. April 7, 2006.

See also:

Alex Veiga. Copyright Talks Break Down. San Jose Mercury News. April 9, 2006.

Candace Lombardi. StreamCast Names Skype, Kazaa In Lawsuit. News.com. March 27, 2006.

CopyCense. Grokster Reflection. June 30, 2005.

CopyCense. Supreme Court Rules Against Grokster. June 28, 2005.

CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the law, business, and technology of digital content. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.

“A High Court judge ruled on Friday that Dan Brown did not steal the idea for his stratospherically successful thriller, “The Da Vinci Code,” from an earlier book, and he cleared Mr. Brown’s publisher, Random House, of accusations of copyright infringement.

“In issuing his opinion, Justice Peter Smith said Mr. Brown had indeed relied on the earlier work, “The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail,” in writing a section of “The Da Vinci Code.” But he said two of the authors of “Holy Blood,” Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, had failed in their effort to prove that Mr. Brown had stolen their “central theme” because they could not accurately state what that theme was.”

Sarah Lyall. Idea for ‘Da Vinci Code’ Was Not Stolen, Judge Says. The New York Times. April 8, 2006.

See also:

Nigel Reynolds. Brown Wins Battle Over Da Vinci Code. News.telegraph. April 8, 2006.

FT.com. Da Vinci Code Wins High Court Case. April 7 2006.

Guardian Unlimited. Brown Wins Da Vinci Code Case. April 7, 2006.

The Independent. Claim Against Da Vinci Code Rejected. April 7, 2006.

Updates:

Sarah Lyall. Puzzle Embedded in ‘Da Vinci Code’ Ruling. The New York Times. April 27, 2006.

CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the law, business, and technology of digital content. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.

“Traditional physical libraries, while indispensable in modern societies, suffer from the fragility of their contents, the scarcity of their shelf space, the inefficiency of their search and retrieval systems, and the exclusivity of their access policies. Libraries safeguard the culture and history of civilizations, provide free or reduced-price access to millions of books as a public good, and empower visitors to participate more fully in society and enrich their personal and creative lives. At the same time, physical libraries are vulnerable to war, revolution, and natural disasters, all of which together claimed well over 100 million books in the twentieth century alone.

“With the widespread use of personal computers and the Internet, it has finally become feasible to create open access, efficiently searchable, infinitely reproducible digital libraries on the scale of the world’s great physical libraries. Since the popularization of the World Wide Web in the 1990s, digital libraries have “exploded” in number and diversity. But the creation of universal digital libraries is still proceeding unacceptably slowly. Millions of Internet users who look to the Web as their “information source of first resort” are not accessing the best that world civilization has to offer. In the absence of digital access, many great works of literature and social commentary cannot be electronically searched for relevance to readers.

“This article will detail an agenda of copyright reforms to enable the rapid digitization and widespread dissemination of books, periodicals, and audiovisual materials, particularly those that are or should be in the public domain. As several high-profile disputes involving Google, the Internet Archive, and other digital libraries have illustrated, the potential of digital technology to archive and ensure easy access to all the world’s knowledge is being artificially impeded by overbroad statutory and judicial restraints on the Internet-enabled distribution of once-copyrighted material. The current regime for copyright protection of written and recorded works threatens to impede the building of universal digital libraries, especially cooperatively-produced open source and public domain libraries such as Project Gutenberg, and private projects to digitize and index entire libraries of books, such as Google Print.”

Hannibal Travis. Building Universal Digital Libraries: An Agenda for Copyright Reform. SSRN. Aug. 25, 2005.

CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the law, business, and technology of digital content. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.

“Recent announcements regarding electronic books have breathed fresh life into a seemingly moribund market. But some experts say e-books need to do more than move ink onto digital displays to go mainstream.

“Sony announced on Monday that its Sony Reader will be sold at Borders bookstores for between $300 and $400 and texts will be available for download from the Sony Connect online store this summer.

“But despite their promise, experts warn that electronic books won’t make a mainstream splash until more titles are available, prices drop and they do more than just replace ink and paper with a digital display.

“The news raises a question: Is there suddenly a market for what so far has been a novelty act?”

Elinor Mills. E-books, Has Your Time Come? News.com. April 5, 2006.

See also:

Reuters. Harry Potter Publisher Sees Magic In Digital Ink. News.com. April 4, 2006.

Candace Lombardi. Borders To Sell Sony Digital Reading Device. News.com. April 3, 2006.

CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the law, business, and technology of digital content. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.