Copyright Ruling

[mgh 89]

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

[WarpD 824]

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!

[mgh 89]

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.

[Peter Clemenko 0]

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.

[Guest zzmikezz]

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.

[mgh 89]

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.

[WarpD 824]

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.

[Guest zzmikezz]

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?

[Peter Clemenko 0]

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...

[Geofa 108]

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... :(

[Peter Clemenko 0]

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...

[Guest belga1]

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.Gus.

[Peter Clemenko 0]

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.Gus.

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.

[Geofa 108]

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.Gus.

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.

[Peter Clemenko 0]

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.