Lexis-Nexis’ All England Direct subscription service has thrown up an unusual case which reflects the interplay between criminal and civil provisions for dealing with copyright infringement. In Sony Music Entertainment (UK) Ltd and others v Stewart and another (16 October 2003) Stuart was involved in selling counterfeit CDs from a stall at a car boot sale. The sale site managers notified the police and trading standards officers, whose investigation resulted in the discovery at Stuart’s stall of CD cases and counterfeit CDs bearing the hand-written names of artists and album titles. At Stuart’s home they found blank CDs, printed copies of artwork requiring cutting to fit CD cases, a notebook containing orders and CD duplicating equipment. Along with others Stuart was convicted of conspiracy to defraud the producers of the recordings. In subsequent civil proceedings Sony sought summary judgment, seeking an inquiry as to damages. Section 11(2) of the Civil Evidence Act 1968 provided that, in civil proceedings in which a person had been proved to have been convicted of an offence, he should be taken to have committed that offence unless the contrary was proved. Stuart contended that he had himself been the victim of a conspiracy to procure his conviction.
In the Chancery Division, Sir Donald Rattee gave summary judgment in favour of Sony since there was no real prospect that Stuart would be able to discharge the burden of proof imposed upon him by s 11(2) of the 1968 Act. Apart from the presumption raised by s 11, the evidence of material found in his possession was such that an overwhelmingly clear inference could be drawn that Stuart had infringed Sony’s rights.
The IPKat notes that the burden of proof in criminal proceedings, where conviction depends upon proof “beyond reasonable doubt” is very much heavier than in civil proceedings, where proof need only be established on a “balance of probabilities”. This being the case, if Stuart could not escape prosecution, the odds of his persuading a civil judge that he had an arguable defence would appear to be very long indeed.
Car boot sale information here, here and here
Does crime pay? Click here, here and here to find out
In the Chancery Division, Sir Donald Rattee gave summary judgment in favour of Sony since there was no real prospect that Stuart would be able to discharge the burden of proof imposed upon him by s 11(2) of the 1968 Act. Apart from the presumption raised by s 11, the evidence of material found in his possession was such that an overwhelmingly clear inference could be drawn that Stuart had infringed Sony’s rights.
The IPKat notes that the burden of proof in criminal proceedings, where conviction depends upon proof “beyond reasonable doubt” is very much heavier than in civil proceedings, where proof need only be established on a “balance of probabilities”. This being the case, if Stuart could not escape prosecution, the odds of his persuading a civil judge that he had an arguable defence would appear to be very long indeed.
Car boot sale information here, here and here
Does crime pay? Click here, here and here to find out
CAN COPYRIGHT CONSPIRATOR CLAIM HE TOO WAS THE VICTIM OF A CONSPIRACY?
![CAN COPYRIGHT CONSPIRATOR CLAIM HE TOO WAS THE VICTIM OF A CONSPIRACY?]()
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Monday, October 20, 2003
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html