NEWS Rugby joins the game
In other gTLD news, the International Rugby Board (IRB) confirmed that it has applied to operate the .rugby domain. IRB chairman Bernard Lapasset said the domain would promote the sport and uphold its values. He also hinted that the move was defensive, saying it was to protect the sport’s trademarks and its followers’
interests. Chief executive Robert
Brophy said if the application were successful, the domain would be available to the “rugby family”—including players, tournament owners, organisers and fans.
Te first new gTLDs are expected to go live on the Internet by February 2013.
YouTube loses GEMA court battle
A German court has forced YouTube to remove seven copyrighted music clips and said it is responsible for content posted by users.
German royalty collecting body GEMA, which represents about 60,000 musicians, argued that YouTube infringed some of its members’ copyright. YouTube said it merely provided the technical framework to publish content, and was not responsible for monitoring music clips and videos.
Te Hamburg District Court ruled otherwise and has asked YouTube to install filters to detect
when users are posting content whose rights are held by GEMA.
Its decision could force YouTube to pay large royalty bills for the seven clips owned by GEMA’s members. GEMA said it does not want further court action but for YouTube to sign a contract covering royalties. YouTube told the BBC it was committed to finding a solution to the “music licensing issue” in Germany.
Tis is not the first victory for GEMA against websites accused of using music without paying royalties. In 2009, a court ruled that file-sharing
iiNet not liable for online piracy
Copyright owners have lamented a decision by the Australian High Court, which ruled that Internet service provider (ISP) iiNet did not authorise copyright infringement by its users.
Te case, beginning in 2008, centred on claims that iiNet did not do enough to prevent the use of BitTorrent file-sharing soſtware, which led to copyright infringement. US and Australian film and television studios wanted iiNet stop consumers downloading pirated material.
But the court ruled unanimously that iiNet did not have the technical ability to prevent its users from using BitTorrent. It said that although iiNet was notified about possible infringement, its failure to act did not amount to authorising piracy.
Te Australian Federation Against Copyright Teſt (AFACT), which represents movie studios such as Disney and Universal, sued iiNet in 2008. Te Federal Court dismissed its claims in a 123-page
www.worldipreview.com
ruling in 2010, and in the most recent ruling, the High Court dismissed the appeal in a 5-0 decision.
Following the ruling, iiNet chief executive Michael Malone reaffirmed that the claims made against the company were unfounded. “iiNet has never supported or encouraged unauthorised sharing or file downloading,” he said. “iiNet is not liable for ‘authorising’ the conduct of its customers who engaged in online copyright infringement.”
On its website, AFACT said the decision exposed the failure of copyright law to keep pace with online changes. Managing director Neil Gane added: “Both judgments in this case recognise that copyright law is no longer equipped to deal with the rate of technological change we have seen since the law of authorisation was last tested. Tey both point to the need for legislation to protect copyright owners against person-to-person (P2P) infringements.”
Trademarks Brands and the Internet Volume 1, Issue 2 7
website Rapidshare had to begin filtering songs. And Grooveshark, a music-streaming website, stopped doing business in Germany because it said GEMA imposed licensing rates that made it impossible to make a profit there.
Te ruling follows another setback for YouTube, whose court battle against media company Viacom reignited in April 2012. Te Manhattan- based Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said a “reasonable jury” could find that YouTube executives did know that users were posting material that infringed Viacom’s copyright.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68