Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

mgh

Copyright Ruling

Recommended Posts

The UK Court of Appeal has ruled that a US copyright judgment cannot be enforced in English jurisdiction. The reasons are that: Copyright law is a local matter to be determined by local courts Simply selling goods in a country via the internet does not establish a legal presence in that country any more than does selling by adverts, salesmen, post, telephone or telexAlthough the US courts ruled that an infringement of US copyright law had occured it was not an infringement under UK law.http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/busi...icle6965414.ece

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Well, sure tosses the Bern Convention out the door. ;)Perhaps the U.S. should adopt the same stance with regards to all U.K. copyrights. Good for the goose, and all that rot! Cheerio!

Share this post


Link to post
Well, sure tosses the Bern Convention out the door. ;)
No it doesn't. The Berne Convention doesn't harmonise copyright law. For example, US copyright law still applies in the US and UK copyright law still applies in the UK. The convention only requires countries to apply their own copyright laws to all works published in that country regardless of where they were created.

Share this post


Link to post
No it doesn't. The Berne Convention doesn't harmonise copyright law. For example, US copyright law still applies in the US and UK copyright law still applies in the UK. The convention only requires countries to apply their own copyright laws to all works published in that country regardless of where they were created.
I have to wonder how that handles DLC, as the internet is devoid of nationality.

Share this post


Link to post
Simply selling goods in a country via the internet does not establish a legal presence in that country any more than does selling by adverts, salesmen, post, telephone or telex
Then why do you keep citing UK law when internet vendors offend your sense of business ethics? If there's no business presence then who is it that breaks UK law? What are the grounds for complaint? If there's no business presence, the things that set you off are what we might call "perpetratorless crimes", yes?I'm not disputing that the judge ruled the way he did, I'm strongly suggesting that a different judge might rule differently. Even if he didn't, the USA might reasonably decide to pressure the UK for a change in the law -- by subjecting UK intellectual property to treatment in the USA that would be less beneficial to UK copyright holders. (By your legal reasoning, which I don't accept, the Berne Convention would permit this provided that the US changed its blackletter law.)EDIT: Here's what the judge SHOULD have said ...Business presence creates the legal effect of citizenship including access to the legal system. Plaintiffs who have no business presence have no standing to sue. Therefore I will not rule on the copyright issues since the suit is frivolous by definition. However, I will entertain a motion to automatically establish business presence in all such situations, after which I will rule in favor of the injured party, in order to establish legal precedent.

Share this post


Link to post

I was pointing out that copyright law varies between countries and so it isn't possible to rely on the law of a single country to enforce rights. I used the example from the UK because it is relevant.The link makes it clear that this was a ruling by three judges of the Court of Appeal who upheld the original ruling of the single judge of the High Court. That's four judges.Article 2 (7) of the Berne Convention reads:"Subject to the provisions of Article 7(4) of this Convention, it shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to determine the extent of the application of their laws to works of applied art and industrial designs and models, as well as the conditions under which such works, designs and models shall be protected. Works protected in the country of origin solely as designs and models shall be entitled in another country of the Union only to such special protection as is granted in that country to designs and models; however, if no such special protection is granted in that country, such works shall be protected as artistic works."http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/2.htmlFor those who don't read links, Article 7(4) reads"It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to determine the term of protection of photographic works and that of works of applied art in so far as they are protected as artistic works; however, this term shall last at least until the end of a period of twenty-five years from the making of such a work."That makes it clear that countries can determine their own copyright legislation. All the UK Court of Appeal did was to apply UK law to a case before it in the UK. A US court would have done exactly the same.No sensible judge would have said what you suggest. Its logical consequence would be that anyone selling over the internet could have an action brought against them in any country in the world and have their local courts enforce it. Somehow I can't imagine that add-on developers would welcome that idea - iIt would allow actions to be brought against US add-on developers under widely varying consumer protection laws and have any awards enforced by US courts.a number of countries have signed agreements regarding enforcement of foreign judgements. No country has signed an agreement with the US because of the relatively high levels of damages the US courts have awarded. Other countries aren't prepared to impose those on their citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
No country has signed an agreement with the US because of the relatively high levels of damages the US courts have awarded. Other countries aren't prepared to impose those on their citizens.
Which is why piracy is so rampant outside the U.S.Clearly the U.S. doesn't know what it's doing. :(However... some copyrights are held in a 'universal' manner.... certain items it appears. Films and audio have pretty much the same protection everywhere. Software and art itself... clearly not. Apparently it's based on the level of absurd income one is expected to make off of the copyrighted work.

Share this post


Link to post
I was pointing out that copyright law varies between countries and so it isn't possible to rely on the law of a single country to enforce rights. I used the example from the UK because it is relevant.The link makes it clear that this was a ruling by three judges of the Court of Appeal who upheld the original ruling of the single judge of the High Court. That's four judges.Article 2 (7) of the Berne Convention reads:"Subject to the provisions of Article 7(4) of this Convention, it shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to determine the extent of the application of their laws to works of applied art and industrial designs and models, as well as the conditions under which such works, designs and models shall be protected. Works protected in the country of origin solely as designs and models shall be entitled in another country of the Union only to such special protection as is granted in that country to designs and models; however, if no such special protection is granted in that country, such works shall be protected as artistic works."http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/2.htmlFor those who don't read links, Article 7(4) reads"It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to determine the term of protection of photographic works and that of works of applied art in so far as they are protected as artistic works; however, this term shall last at least until the end of a period of twenty-five years from the making of such a work."That makes it clear that countries can determine their own copyright legislation. All the UK Court of Appeal did was to apply UK law to a case before it in the UK. A US court would have done exactly the same.No sensible judge would have said what you suggest. Its logical consequence would be that anyone selling over the internet could have an action brought against them in any country in the world and have their local courts enforce it. Somehow I can't imagine that add-on developers would welcome that idea - iIt would allow actions to be brought against US add-on developers under widely varying consumer protection laws and have any awards enforced by US courts.a number of countries have signed agreements regarding enforcement of foreign judgements. No country has signed an agreement with the US because of the relatively high levels of damages the US courts have awarded. Other countries aren't prepared to impose those on their citizens.
Well researched as usual. I yield, but only up to a point ...Copyright law as it exists today never considered a delivery medium like the internet in which physical product does not cross borders, and it never considered developments such as the freeware and open source communities, where intellectual property is deserving of protection even though there is unlimited free access by the public. (Protection in order to encourage central maintenance for purposes of engineering integrity, akin in my mind to artistic integrity.)Similarly, written business law has yet to catch up with the internet and its implications. Now ...You often sound as if you believe that only blackletter law counts, and that if blackletter law is silent on a subject then anything goes with respect to that subject, and that intent must never be considered, only the literal words of the blackletter law. It is in this sense that I disagree with you -- because it is precisely in situations like this that legal precedents often get established -- because legislation is lagging so far behind technology.Much of business law is similar to common law -- not written down, yet codified nonetheless, in common practices and commonly accepted norms. Judges will look to these standards for guidance since they amount to unwritten precedents. But if there are no common standards then judges can and often do impose them. They might prefer that legislation be passed, but activist judges are prepared to short-circuit the process, and this is often a good thing.In other words, the issue underlying all law is really intent, not words. Intent is the difference between an automobile accident and a murder, and it's the difference between the Berne Convention as you have cited it and commonsense reinterpretations of blackletter copyright law, which is what I predict is going to happen.Your reaction?

Share this post


Link to post
Which is why piracy is so rampant outside the U.S.Clearly the U.S. doesn't know what it's doing. :(However... some copyrights are held in a 'universal' manner.... certain items it appears. Films and audio have pretty much the same protection everywhere. Software and art itself... clearly not. Apparently it's based on the level of absurd income one is expected to make off of the copyrighted work.
I swear, that kind of statement just gets people riled up...

Share this post


Link to post
I swear, that kind of statement just gets people riled up...
I am glad you changed your post cause the one I first saw got me all riled up... :(

Share this post


Link to post
I am glad you changed your post cause the one I first saw got me all riled up... :(
LOL, let me put it like this, sometimes I don't think before I post... besides that other post was actually toned down from what I was gonna post....In other words... thank god for the edit button...I swear, sometimes I think I should just walk away and never come back to this forum...although if I do, I'm going to request that all references to me be removed...

Share this post


Link to post
Hello,As speaking of copyright(s) .. blah .. blah ...Interesting question :)Is the Bible copyrighted?http://ask.yahoo.com/20050202.htmlhttp://use.perl.org/comments.pl?sid=28469&cid=43139Regards.bye.gifGus.
Honestly, if it were any other book, I'd opt for the GPL on it :( /sarcasmOtherwise, because it's a holy book, I'd say a Creative Commons would be sufficient... That way, you can prevent derivative works, however at the same time, you can freely distribute it.

Share this post


Link to post
Hello,As speaking of copyright(s) .. blah .. blah ...Interesting question :)Is the Bible copyrighted?http://ask.yahoo.com/20050202.htmlhttp://use.perl.org/comments.pl?sid=28469&cid=43139http://www.churchmedia.net/forums/copyrigh...right-laws.htmlRegards.bye.gifGus.
I can only assume there are some-even on this board from evidence-that even if the Bible was copyrighted by God would still pirate it with a multitude of justifications.

Share this post


Link to post
I can only assume there are some-even on this board from evidence-that even if the Bible was copyrighted by God would still pirate it with a multitude of justifications.
The fact is Geofa, there are certain moral issues with copyright law in general, especially copyrighting the bible. Yes content creators should be able to protect their work, however when they start acting stupid about it, that's when things need to change.As far as copyrighting holy works however, who is to say that in order to have your soul saved, you have to buy a book. Doing that will just lead to a situation similar to what happened in the dark ages before the bible was translated. What would happen was the clergy of corrupt churches would lie to the flock, and tell them things like "you can buy a pardon for your sins". That is the ultimate problem with copyrighting things like the bible, because it puts those who can afford that book, in a position to exploit those who can not.Heres a major hint though, The main reason I hate copyright law in general can best be explained through this news story:http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/News/...ft-Patents-Sudoin other words, as long as patents and copyrights exist, someone will exploit them in an anti-competitive nature. In this case, Microsoft will do whatever it takes to dismantle the competition, including copyrighting the competition's command line commands. It is because of that reason alone that I am against copyrights, because they restrict and limit the ability for others to innovate.

Share this post


Link to post
I can only assume there are some-even on this board from evidence-that even if the Bible was copyrighted by God would still pirate it with a multitude of justifications.
I'm a lot older than most people around here. One of the things I've witnessed during my adult life is the death of the concept of ethics -- that a particular behavior might be unacceptable even if it's perfectly legal. In other words, in too many people the sense of right-versus-wrong has been replaced by "what can I get away with"?The death of ethics has been accompanied by the death of the sense of shame, as in "and if I can get away with it, I might as well flaunt it because maybe there'll be some (money) (fame) (peer group approval) (whatever) in it for me".This isn't just the old generation disapproving of the next generation, which has been true for 200,000 years, most likely. No, we are witnessing the death of Western civilization. The Barbarians didn't break down the gates of Rome, they simply walked through them, the gates having been opened and left open by Romans who no longer felt that their lives and property and way of life were worth preserving and therefore worth defending.EDIT: Coming back down from 35,000 feet, the wishes of authors should be respected regardless of the state of copyright law. To do otherwise is to be a thief, something like picking the pockets of an unconcsious accident victim found lying in the street.

Share this post


Link to post
I'm a lot older than most people around here. One of the things I've witnessed during my adult life is the death of the concept of ethics -- that a particular behavior might be unacceptable even if it's perfectly legal. In other words, in too many people the sense of right-versus-wrong has been replaced by "what can I get away with"?The death of ethics has been accompanied by the death of the sense of shame, as in "and if I can get away with it, I might as well flaunt it because maybe there'll be some (money) (fame) (peer group approval) (whatever) in it for me".This isn't just the old generation disapproving of the next generation, which has been true for 200,000 years, most likely. No, we are witnessing the death of Western civilization. The Barbarians didn't break down the gates of Rome, they simply walked through them, the gates having been opened and left open by Romans who no longer felt that their lives and property and way of life were worth preserving and therefore worth defending.
Intesting Mike--how many of these young people with their "new" perspective have studied the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire by Gibbons?The same mistakes are all there a couple thousand years ago-but let's go there and revisit them all again just for fun... :(

Share this post


Link to post
I'm a lot older than most people around here. One of the things I've witnessed during my adult life is the death of the concept of ethics -- that a particular behavior might be unacceptable even if it's perfectly legal. In other words, in too many people the sense of right-versus-wrong has been replaced by "what can I get away with"?The death of ethics has been accompanied by the death of the sense of shame, as in "and if I can get away with it, I might as well flaunt it because maybe there'll be some (money) (fame) (peer group approval) (whatever) in it for me".This isn't just the old generation disapproving of the next generation, which has been true for 200,000 years, most likely. No, we are witnessing the death of Western civilization. The Barbarians didn't break down the gates of Rome, they simply walked through them, the gates having been opened and left open by Romans who no longer felt that their lives and property and way of life were worth preserving and therefore worth defending.
This isn't so much the death of western civilization, as it is the birth of a completely new type of civilization. What we are actually facing here is the culmination of the birth and spread of the internet. We are no longer looking at east verses west, it is now a case of the whole of humanity. In a way, I don't feel bad about the death of western civilization, because western civilization will be replaced by a global community, east and west. Times are changing, and those of us who are younger will eventually see a time where the internet will herald in a more unified world populace. The old school days of east verses west, are dying, because of easier exposure to other societies. There is a quote from a movie I think may help you understand what I'm talking about."The net truly is vast and infinite, who knows, maybe a new society that we never even dreamed of is being born." ~ Motoko Kusanagi, Ghost in the Shell: Solid State SocietyThe reality is, you are looking at a major shift in society, a shift from a localized group of people, only considering their own world view, to a global, and more unified society. East and west are merging, thanks to the internet and a more open youth. In a way, western society is falling, however it is being replaced by a more unified human society.And no, the death of morality isn't happening, nor is the death of shame, what you are seeing is something that existed all along. The entire time, these emotions, these actions, have been bottled up in everyone, now that the internet exists, we are facing a situation of people being more willing to open up their true feelings. These problems have always existed, they are only now more visible because of the relay of information at a much higher rate.

Share this post


Link to post
This isn't so much the death of western civilization, as it is the birth of a completely new type of civilization.
That's exactly my point. You're assuming that the change is for the better but you're wrong, so very very wrong. I don't recall who said this originally (Trotsky, I think) but it's worth repeating: "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you."The technological change brought about by the internet is a good thing and yes, it's revolutionizing society. But that's not the same thing as the obvious death of morality, which has been going on since long before there was an internet. In the absence of modern communications the death of our civilization would take a different form, but the disease itself -- moral decay -- is fatal. It doesn't matter which vital organ is the first to fail, death here is inevitable given the attitudes of all too many people today.Geofa is right -- you need to read Gibbons.

Share this post


Link to post
That's exactly my point. You're assuming that the change is for the better but you're wrong, so very very wrong. I don't recall who said this originally (Trotsky, I think) but it's worth repeating: "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you."
Except for this, a more unified world population will reduce wars, it will reduce conflict, because people who have access to the internet, will be much more willing to expand their horizons, and be able to understand the other persons plight. In a way, war is going to be reduced because we will have a much more understanding group of leaders on our hands. How many wars have started because of disagreements and cultural differences, how many wars have been started because of leaders misconstruing the state run media. In reality, the internet, is a method of spreading information at a rate which will prevent war in general. In a way, we are looking at a situation where the world will be more understanding. Remember this however, even if we are not wanting to fight wars, we will be ready, as even if someone doesn't want to fight a war, history shows that you always need to be ready. And our future leaders will have to be knowledgeable of history to be able to avert disaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Except for this, a more unified world population will reduce wars, it will reduce conflict, because people who have access to the internet, will be much more willing to expand their horizons, and be able to understand the other persons plight.
I'm not coming for you, Peter, but they are, and they don't give a rodent's rear what you believe. They care only that it's different from what they believe.No, I'm not going to define "they". Again, read Gibbons or suffer the consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
I'm not coming for you, Peter, but they are, and they don't give a rodent's rear what you believe. They care only that it's different from what they believe.No, I'm not going to define "they". Again, read Gibbons or suffer the consequences.
It's that old school fear mongering that is being out dated by society... The reality is changing, the reality is much different than what you think it is. The main reason that rome fell the way it did is because of the fact that something like the internet did NOT exist. The world has changed in a way which can avert that... The internet is changing society in a way which will prevent the same exact situation from happening again.Watch Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex, and the Ghost in the Shell movies, that will help you see what people like me see the actual future as becoming.The "They" are coming for you argument is something which is just used by those in power to try and fear-monger the people. If you want the truth, you must seek it... If the world was not as technologically advanced as it is now, we could face a very similar situation to Rome, however what we will actually most likely see is something more akin to Ghost in the Shell and eventually Star Trek.Yes, America is on the brink as we speak, however it has one of two ways of going down, Rome style, or more of a cyberpunk method. I personally believe it will go more toward cyberpunk than anything else.

Share this post


Link to post

Getting back to the original point, I don't see what is wrong with the UK Court of Appeal's judgement. It ruled that:1 - Plastic toy models of storm trooper helmets featured in the Star Wars films were not sculptures for the purposes of the UK Copyright Design and Patents Act 1986 and their maker was entitled to a defence under section 51 of that Act on the basis that it was not a copyright infringement to copy an article made to a design. (Under UK law the helmets were designs and not copyright. The period of protection for designs is shorter than for copyright and had already expired)2 - Breaches of US copyright by the defendants were not justiciable in England, being essentially local matters to be determined by local courts. (This seems obvious - courts in one country can't be expected to apply the local laws of another country.)3 - The fact that the defendants' products were advertised and sold on the internet did not give it a presence in the US which would make possible the enforcement of a judgment against him in California. (It's long been recognised that the merely selling goods from country A into country B did not amount to the presence of the seller in country B. The court found that selling over the internet was not fundamentally different from selling by advertisements, salesmen, the post, telephone, telex etc, currently used to sell goods abroad.)If the court had ruled otherwise it would have meant that anyone selling goods over the internet could be sued in any court in any country in the world and have that foreign judgement enforced by his home courts. Does anyone really want to be in that situation? I 'm sure FS add-on developers don't!

Share this post


Link to post
Getting back to the original point, I don't see what is wrong with the UK Court of Appeal's judgement. It ruled that:1 - Plastic toy models of storm trooper helmets featured in the Star Wars films were not sculptures for the purposes of the UK Copyright Design and Patents Act 1986 and their maker was entitled to a defence under section 51 of that Act on the basis that it was not a copyright infringement to copy an article made to a design. (Under UK law the helmets were designs and not copyright. The period of protection for designs is shorter than for copyright and had already expired)2 - Breaches of US copyright by the defendants were not justiciable in England, being essentially local matters to be determined by local courts. (This seems obvious - courts in one country can't be expected to apply the local laws of another country.)3 - The fact that the defendants' products were advertised and sold on the internet did not give it a presence in the US which would make possible the enforcement of a judgment against him in California. (It's long been recognised that the merely selling goods from country A into country B did not amount to the presence of the seller in country B. The court found that selling over the internet was not fundamentally different from selling by advertisements, salesmen, the post, telephone, telex etc, currently used to sell goods abroad.)If the court had ruled otherwise it would have meant that anyone selling goods over the internet could be sued in any court in any country in the world and have that foreign judgement enforced by his home courts. Does anyone really want to be in that situation? I 'm sure FS add-on developers don't!
Agreed, that could cause major issues. I can imagine people going to places like ComicCon getting riled up about that because all of a sudden, they start getting busted for their costumes...

Share this post


Link to post
Getting back to the original point, I don't see what is wrong with the UK Court of Appeal's judgement. It ruled that:1 - Plastic toy models of storm trooper helmets featured in the Star Wars films were not sculptures for the purposes of the UK Copyright Design and Patents Act 1986 and their maker was entitled to a defence under section 51 of that Act on the basis that it was not a copyright infringement to copy an article made to a design. (Under UK law the helmets were designs and not copyright. The period of protection for designs is shorter than for copyright and had already expired)2 - Breaches of US copyright by the defendants were not justiciable in England, being essentially local matters to be determined by local courts. (This seems obvious - courts in one country can't be expected to apply the local laws of another country.)3 - The fact that the defendants' products were advertised and sold on the internet did not give it a presence in the US which would make possible the enforcement of a judgment against him in California. (It's long been recognised that the merely selling goods from country A into country B did not amount to the presence of the seller in country B. The court found that selling over the internet was not fundamentally different from selling by advertisements, salesmen, the post, telephone, telex etc, currently used to sell goods abroad.)If the court had ruled otherwise it would have meant that anyone selling goods over the internet could be sued in any court in any country in the world and have that foreign judgement enforced by his home courts. Does anyone really want to be in that situation? I 'm sure FS add-on developers don't!
First, as to "courts in one country can't be expected to apply the local laws of another country", they most certainly can. While not an everyday occurrence it does happen. (No, I don't recall any examples offhand.) In the case of intellectual property disputes, the applicable laws should be those of the country in which the owner of the IP resides.Second, as to "If the court had ruled otherwise it would have meant that anyone selling goods over the internet could be sued in any court in any country in the world and have that foreign judgement enforced by his home courts. Does anyone really want to be in that situation? I 'm sure FS add-on developers don't!", since you feel this way, presumably you'll now stop citing UK law whenever anybody in the UK has a dispute with FS Pilot Shop or other vendors who don't have a business presence in the UK.Third, as to "The court found that selling over the internet was not fundamentally different from selling by advertisements, salesmen, the post, telephone, telex etc, currently used to sell goods abroad", what's fundamentally different here is that what's being sold is intellectual property that is trivially reproduceable in massive quantity by the receiving party.

Share this post


Link to post