Aardvark Daily

Please visit the sponsor!

More proof that copyright law is stuffed

Two stories appeared on the newswires over the weekend and when read together, they seem to show just how badly out of whack copyright law is in the 21st century.

The first story deals with the ongoing battle between Australian ISP iiNet and the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT).

AFACT has alleged that iiNet ought to be considered complicit in the infringements of copyright law carried out by its customers. iiNet's inability or unwillingness to stop its customers from illegally trading in copyrighted material, AFACT claims, makes it culpable.

The original court decision on the matter found that iiNet had no case to answer and AFACT's claims were not upheld -- so the matter went to appeal.

Last week the Australian High Court dismissed that appeal and the ruling in favour of iiNet remains. Costs were also awarded in favour of iiNet.

Now you might think that this sends a pretty clear message -- companies that are simply "carriers" or provide a service without any realistic way to control how that service is used are indemnified against any crimes committed by those users.

That's the way things ought to be.

Should Sony be held accountable for every instance where one of their VCRs, CDRW or DVDRW drives is used to illegally copy a movie or music album?

Of course not -- even though they sell these devices in the full knowledge that a fairly significant use for them is the infringement of copyright law.

But now another story. This time, the flip-side of the coin and a perfect example of why, globally, copyright law is a mess.

In Germany, Google's YouTube service was prosecuted for multiple instances of copyright infringement in respect to music videos whose rights-holders are represented by a royalty collection group called Gema.

Gema alleged that Google (through it's YouTube service) ought to be held accountable for the copyright infringements of its users -- even though it simply provides a generic video sharing service.

This time (seemingly completely at odds with the Australian verdict), the court ruled in favour of the plaintiff and now YouTube faces a massive bill for royalties related to music videos uploaded by its users without permission.

As a regular YouTube uploader I know that the service is actually over-vigilant in its policing of copyright -- to the extent (as I've commented previously) that they often mis-identify content as being illegally uploaded when it's not.

In fact, I rarely use music in my videos now (even though I have legally licensed material from various artist for such use) simply because my German viewers complain that all YouTube videos containing any music are blocked in Germany -- regardless of whether that music is legally licensed or not.

Obviously the German decision says more about the sorry state of bureaucracy in Germany than it does about YouTube and its attitude to copyright law. Scan the Web and you'll find very little in the way of positive comments in respect to Gema -- it seems to be evil brother of the RIAA which has been given almost omnipotent powers by the German government.

Surely this massive disparity between the Australian and German court decisions simply shows that copyright laws are no longer coping with the explosion in digital media and the technology which enables it.

How long before lawmakers wake up to this and simply tell the rights-holders to "move with the times" and "get better business models"?

Please visit the sponsor!

Have your say on this...

PERMALINK to this column

Oh, and don't forget today's sci/tech news headlines

Rank This Aardvark Page

Change Font