International Law

These intellectual property themed links are once again from the month of August:

• An IP Checklist for Bloggers (v.1.1) Colette Vogele's blog - Colette Vogele has come up with a one page IP checklist for bloggers.
• YouTube Praises Dismissal of Copyright Suit Against Veoh (Bits) - "A federal court in California late Wednesday threw out a copyright infringement lawsuit filed by the IO Group, an adult entertainment company, against Internet video sharing site Veoh Networks, saying that Veoh was protected by the safe harbor provisions in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or DMCA ... Google wasted no time in praising the decision. ?It is great to see the Court confirm that the DMCA protects services like YouTube that follow the law and respect copyrights,? Zahavah Levine, YouTube?s chief counsel, said in a statement."
• Professor Slams European Commission For Ignoring The Evidence On Copyright (Techdirt) - "We were pretty surprised a few weeks back when the European Commission endorsed a plan for copyright extension, despite ample evidence that retroactive copyright extension is a bad idea. Soon after that announcement, a group of European academics sent a letter warning that such extension would harm innovation. The academics keep piling on, as Professor Bernt Hugenholtz, the director of the University of Amsterdam's Institute for Information Law (IViR) has sent an open letter to the Commission blasting them for ignoring all of the research showing that copyright extension is bad."
• Judge: Copyright Owners Must Consider 'Fair Use' Before Sending Takedown Notice (Wired) - "In the nation's first such ruling, a federal judge on Wednesday said copyright owners must consider "fair use" of their works before sending takedown notices to online video-sharing sites. The 10-page decision (.pdf) came a month after Universal Music told a San Jose, California federal judge that copyright owners need not consider the "fair use" doctrine before issuing takedown notices requiring online video-sharing sites to remove content."
• But What If A Takedown Notice Isn't Actually A DMCA Takedown? (Techdirt) - "We already covered the judge's ruling about how copyright holders need to consider fair use before sending a DMCA takedown notice, but there's another part of Universal's position in this case that has been widely ignored (even by the judge in the case), but which Ethan Ackerman wisely calls attention to: Universal claims that the takedown letter doesn't violate the DMCA because it wasn't actually a DMCA takedown.  Instead, they said it was just a friendly "request." This may seem like a silly assertion or, at best, a minor side point, but it could become quite important. The DMCA has some very specific conditions that those sending takedowns need to meet -- but there's nothing really stopping anyone from sending a request that isn't specifically a DMCA takedown notice. For copyright holders, this would remove some of the power of the takedown notice, as it wouldn't require the service provider to react, like a DMCA notice does. However, if rulings like this one stand, adding some amount of liability to copyright holders sending DMCA takedown notices, some may actually find it safer to send non-DMCA takedowns on the assumption (probably correct) that most service providers will treat them exactly the same as a DMCA takedown. In other words, would copyright holders "opt-out" of the DMCA terms in order to avoid that liability? It will be worth watching."
• Copyright exceptions only on just terms? (Inchoate) - "Though, sadly, I don?t get to as much constitutional law as I would like to these days (I don?t work here), I think some of the more recent High Court decisions suggest that the acquisition on just terms issue (as seen in The Castle) may not be a big issue. In particular, there are a couple of recent decisions that make clear that not every curtailment or restriction of a right is an acquisition of property within the meaning of section 51(xxxi)."
• YouTube user sues Google for his slice of the traffic (Ars Technica) - "Who would've thought that a few thousand daily views of online sketch videos could translate into fame and the web-based financial success that comes with it? Benjamin Ligeri, a disgruntled YouTube user, apparently did, because he's suing Google and various employees for not letting him into YouTube's revenue-sharing program."
• File Sharer Settles with RIAA for a Whopping $756 a Song (Wired) -"A Bronx woman is agreeing to pay the Recording Industry Association of America $6,050 to settle allegations she purloined eight tracks on the file sharing network Kazaa. That's $756.25 a song from artists (.pdf) DMX, Lenny Kravitz, Eagles, Sade, Ready For the World, Uncle Sam and Tamia ... The woman's attorney, Ray Beckerman, said Monday that Barker decided to settle. "The client makes the decision. I would have loved to litigate this," he said. "I think we had good defenses.""
• How Copyright Is Holding Back The Creative Class (Techdirt) - "While not enough people recognize it, the real purpose of copyright law is to provide an incentive for the creation of more content. The government felt that there was a market failure, where not enough "content" would be produced without a limited monopoly, and thus, copyright was born. However, that happened back in the day when creating content wasn't easy. You pretty much had to go through a professional process. These days, thanks to new technologies, creating content is exceptionally easy -- and thus, a big part of the very basis for copyright no longer makes sense. We're drowning in content -- and it's not because of the "incentive" of copyright. There are plenty of incentives for creating content these days and very few have anything to do with copyright."