tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post7082345074441353227..comments2024-03-28T09:05:22.006+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Unauthorised reproduction and making available of 8-second clips of sports events? A copyright infringement, rules Arnold JVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-34263014037596654152016-03-22T14:57:22.021+00:002016-03-22T14:57:22.021+00:00Very interesting decision. The conclusion is a lit...Very interesting decision. The conclusion is a little disturbing though. A couple of observations. <br /><br />Does this judgment mean that it is now easier to infringe a signal than a content copyright? Can that be defensible as a matter of principle? Surely content copyrights should attract greater protection, and so be easier to infringe than mere signal copyrights which exist only to protect investment? Why should we grant monopoly interests of such stringency to investors? Their case for such a privilege is weaker than that of creators.<br /><br />Is a Vine clip taking a substantial part? If the Vine subscriber took a series of clips over time, perhaps. But one 8 second clip of one wicket by one infringer (for example) - can that really be said to be accruing a substantial part of the intended investment return, for which the broadcaster has paid for and broadcast the material in question? Surely the learned judge erred, and considered the position of the aggregated clips, rather than individuals' clips?<br /><br />The notion of 'reporting' adopted in the judgment is concerning too. It seems that 'reporting' must be by writing - a text is necessary for there to be reporting. But why cannot reporting be done by replicating and redistributing images? Were the photos of Abu Ghraib not reporting, because there was no text? It's well accepted in freedom of expression law that one can express without words, so why cannot an image be a report? Particularly as the interpretation of 'fair dealing for the reporting of current events' must, as the learned judge said, be interpreted with the legal norm of free expression firmly in mind.<br /><br />Moreover, 'sharing the clips with other users' is surely a report. Why should it be less so than 'facilitating debate amongst users'? Reporting is sharing - facilitation of debate is comment.<br /><br />Finally, does the judgment sail close to saying that commercial damage is a sufficient criterion to negative a fair dealing defence? If so, what of the freedom of expression cases that explicitly note that free expression and commercial imperative can lie together? Is one never exercising one's free expression when one talks for money? <br /><br />More broadly, the notion that conflict with normal exploitation of a work is enough to remove the availability of an exemption hobbles copyright law, so that there can only be use of copyright work by a very small set of people. Not only must they not be paid for talking, but also when talking, they must not get in the way of the ability of others to make money. Can it be sensible to ratchet back exemptions to such an extent? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-23064435595097906702016-03-22T09:24:32.455+00:002016-03-22T09:24:32.455+00:00My leg is a substantial part of my body. Lop if of...My leg is a substantial part of my body. Lop if off, you'll still find me resistant to the idea that my other leg should go, too.TheBlackKnightnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-31420855296636759702016-03-21T23:03:49.992+00:002016-03-21T23:03:49.992+00:00So if you copy someone else's recording of a c...So if you copy someone else's recording of a cricket match but delete eight seconds of it, you're free to copy and distribute the rest as the work is now missing a substantial part?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-56302563001120539882016-03-21T18:12:01.432+00:002016-03-21T18:12:01.432+00:00Justice Arnold. DG3?Justice Arnold. DG3?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-25494475435064510602016-03-21T15:33:45.650+00:002016-03-21T15:33:45.650+00:00I just wish rights holders would realise that resi...I just wish rights holders would realise that resistence is futile. Just because they found one party that they could go after does not mean they should. Instead, how about they embrace technology and welcome anything that brings their product to a wider audience. Since the birth of Twitter, vine, snapchat anyone can take a short video of their to and share it with hundreds of people for no purpose other than to share an amazing catch or goal. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com