CD-Wow not such a hit in High Court

Affable legal publisher Nick Gingell (Lawtext) has kept the IPKat au fait with the latest nail in CD-Wow's i-coffin, as evidenced by the BBC's news item here, entitled "Judge rules against cheap CD site".
The High Court (London) has apparently ruled today that Hong Kong-based Music Trading Online was "in substantial breach" of a 2004 court agreement to stop selling in the UK, through its CD-Wow website, albums that had not been put on the market in the European Economic Area by the copyright owners or with their consent. CD-Wow said the judgment "spelled disaster for millions of music fans". The company will be fined in July after an inquiry into how much it owes the record labels which complained of copyright infringement.

The Hong Kong-based retailer is now calling for a full review of copyright law that it claims "serves to line the pockets of the music industry at the expense of the consumer".

Left: Something interesting to do with your CDs

The IPKat notes the demand of Music Online for a full review of copyright law. Why was the company so quiet, he wonders, when for a whole year the Gowers Review was considering pretty well every sensitive nook and cranny of copyright law? Could it be that Music Online was, er, too busy lining its own pockets at the expense of the consumer? Merpel adds, but let's not condone artificial and arguably unjustifiable price differentials between different markets in the developed world: not everyone can go on holiday to the US and come back laden with reasonably-priced CDs - but the European Commission was less than vigorous in addressing that issue.

Earlier IPKat posts here and here
British Music Rights here; IFPI here
European Commission investigates CD price fixing here; The Sound of Silence here
CD-Wow not such a hit in High Court CD-Wow not such a hit in High Court Reviewed by Jeremy on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Rating: 5

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:

Powered by Blogger.