IMPACT®

Brought to Book

There was an interesting "zeitgeist-type" report on the BBC's news site the other day concerning a successful court action for damages against someone who maliciously created a false profile on Facebook.  The article sets ot the main facts quite succinctly, but in essence someone was found to have created a false profile calculated to inflict damage on the target party.  The court awarded the victim GBP22,000.

For me, the point here is that yet again, we have the courts applying mainstream law to activities in cyberspace.  In other words, there are plenty of laws out there that can get you if you (a) behave as though the internet is a lawless frontier and (b) assume that as long as that's where you operate, you're immune.  Not so.

Before we all get too excited though, there are a couple of caveats to be borne in mind (we're lawyers -what else would you expect?)

(1)  The victim here appears to have possessed determination and funds in at least equal measure - according to te report, he seems to have needed plenty of both to track the culprit down and make his claim. Just how he did this is not yet clear.

(2)  There is no information about what if any measures his attacker used to conceal his identity or otherwise cover his tracks - the report sounds a word of caution as to how difficult it could be for others to follow the injured party's example.

Still, let's not be too pessimistic - every victory of this type is significant.

CRACKDOWN ON ILLEGAL NET DOWNLOADS

BBC news has today reported that six of the UK's largest Internet Service Providers ("ISPs") including BT, Virgin and Orange have agreed a strategy with the music industry to significantly curb on-line music piracy.

The ISPs in question have signed a memorandum of understanding drawn up by the government. The memorandum obliges ISPs to educate their customers so that no customer is oblivious to or simply avoids the fact that it is illegal to share copyrighted music without a valid defence. Internet pirates in the UK have turned a blind eye to this fact since ever since the advent of the internet and have carried out infringing activities without the fear of being caught. A position which is contrary to that in the USA, where the thousands of claims made against alleged music sharers have had the effect of deterring would-be pirates.

In February this year The Times  reported that an estimated six million broadband users were downloading files illegally every year in the UK. An activity that cost music and film companies billions of pounds in lost revenue annually. The memorandum is, at the very least, a start of a long process which will hopefully see the number of illegal downloads decrease and in-turn reassure and safeguard the integrity of the UK's creative industries. Already, Virgin and BT have sent letters to persistent music pirates flagged by the BPI, (the trade association for the UK record industry). Thousands more letters will be sent in the coming weeks and months to pirates.

The BBC announcement comes at a time when the government is also expected to consult with the music industry and other relevant bodies in an effort to oblige all ISPs to tackle music piracy.

Bratz success caught by barbie-d wire

Mattel Inc, the creators of the Barbie doll enterprise and the world's largest toy maker, has won its copyright infringement claim against MGA Entertainment Inc, the marketers of the Bratz line of dolls since 2001. CNN has reported the ruling today, which could potentially net Mattel a windfall when damages are decided separately by a jury. See  http://edition.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/07/18/barbie.bratz.ap/index.html

Mattel brought its infringement claim against MGA in a US District Court when it had gathered sufficient evidence that the Bratz dolls concept was coined by a former employee when he was working for Mattel. That employee had left Mattel in or around 2000 for MGA. Shortly after his move, MGA had started marketing the Bratz doll and soon created a Bratz empire worth over £500 million dollars a year.

MGA had argued that the employee had created the concept during a period of time when he was not working for Mattel. However, this argument fell by way side and Mattel convinced a federal jury that the employee conceived the Bratz idea whilst in its employ.

Since the arrival and success of the Bratz empire, Barbie merchandise had suffered a noticeable slide in sales. Following this huge result in favour of Mattel, that slide will eventually be corrected unless MGA are successful in any appeal.

This case is yet another example of a company moving full steam head in bringing a product to market without taking great care to ensure that its new designer isn't using confidential information belonging to his previous employer in his new role. If that company goes on to achieve tremendous success with the product, its fall from grace is dramatic when the real creator comes forward to claim what rightfully belongs to it.

We have noted a marked increase in breach of confidentiality cases over the last few months.This seems to tie in with the difficult trading conditions. In some instances the new employer is completely innocent but in an alarmingly high number of cases individuals have been employed so that the new employer can acquire that confidential information to use to its own advantage. As the market becomes more difficult we anticipate that this type of case will become even more common as businesses struggle to maintain market position.

KP

Life imitates art as cybercrime mastermind wooed by forces of good. (Now I really AM worried.)

This piece on the Guardian's site is about the teenage cybercrime overlord in New Zealand who has escaped a jail term (and pretty much any real punishment).  it seems that the local law enforcement agencies know when they're outclassed, and are interested in recruiting him as a cybercrime consultant and trainer (in the good way).

As a devotee of quality film, I was reminded of the plot of The Core (2003), in which the US Government enlists a hacker / cyber crime genius to control news flow on the internet while the film's heroes secretly battle to stave off the imminent end of the world.

Is there something we should be told?

Billion dollar litigation versus privacy

Since March 2007, Google has been involved in a US legal battle worth around 1 billion dollars with Viacom, the owners of Paramount Pictures and MTV over an alleged infringement of Viacom's copyright.

Viacom has alleged that YouTube (purchased by Google in 2006) housed approximately 160K unauthorised clips of its programmes, which had been viewed on over 1.5 billion occasions by users.

We welcome this correction by the US Court. The dazzling lights of billion dollar litigation should not blind the judiciary from the privacy laws enshrined in US legislation and indeed the European Convention of Human Rights in the EU.

A US Court order had originally ordered Google to disclose the personal details of millions of YouTube users in order for Viacom to effectively prepare its case against Google. However, after hearing the wrath of privacy activists who contended that the original order threatened to deeply expose private information, the US Court has varied its original order. The BBC has today reported that the new order obliges Google to still hand over the data logs to Viacom but without disclosing the user's personal details.

Unless settled, the case will come to trial next year or in 2010.  

You vote - we sell!

The BBC has today reported that a government backed review lead by Information Commissioner Richard Thomas and Wellcome Trust director Dr Mark Walport has condemned the recent practice of local authorities selling voters' details to marketing companies. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7500826.stm

In particular the report indicated that the public ought to have a right to know which companies possess their personal details. The report also criticised the public and private sectors in general by indicating that the act of data-sharing was "shrouded in confusion," with the public oblivious to how their personal information was being used by companies.

Councils have hit back. They are in fact "more than happy" to cease selling edited details on the electoral roll because of administrative hassle and cost involved. In fact Local Government Association spokesman Edward Welsh has been reported to say that Councils have only carried out this activity because they were forced to by the government in 2002 due to changed rules.

The BBC article which directly relates to the public's privacy rights comes just days after recent media reports of web giant Google planning to extend its Google Earth product so that it covers views of

Britain

's streets, potentially warts and all. Whilst the government backed review focussing on breaches of privacy rights by Councils is commendable, will the government show any interest in potential privacy breaches by the world's information gateway?

Is showing a film at a garden/yard party a public performance?

I was watching something on Channel 4 the other day, which couldn't have been that inspiring because I was roused to consciousness by the advert break. In particular, it was a promotional blurb by Channel 4 asking its viewers to host a screening of a film in their back yard and send in photos of the event. The winner would win  a "Summer Screen VIP package".

This got me thinking. If someone invites a load of their friends around to watch a movie in their garden - lets say 12 people, does this amount to a public performance?  Channel 4 must have taken advice on that I thought, so I went to their site to dig a little deeper. Details of the competition can be found at  http://www.channel4.com/film/newsfeatures/microsites/S/summer_screen_2008/competition.html

Channel 4 have very thoughtfully pointed out on the main page that when you take a picture of your party you must not include the movie you are showing in that photo - presumably they are worried about copyright infringement here. However the advice given on the "Backyard Screening Guidelines" for the competition entrants is as follows;

"Keep it Legal - Don’t sell tickets to your movie night. Limit the invites to a few acquaintances and banish all thoughts of turning your film session into a cash machine. Make sure you put on a good spread for your friends in your own backyard, not in a public place."

Now that is sensible, but I think misleading advice. There is no requirement for commercial gain in copyright infringement and if you follow the strict letter of the law projecting a film onto a sheet in your back garden for the benefit of a gaggle of your friends is likely to be an infringement - particularly given that most town gardens are overlooked and therefore not actually private spaces.

I doubt that anyone is going to find themselves on the end of an infringement action, particularly given Channel 4's "don't include the movie in the photo" rule, but it's an interesting thought.

Our Top Tip = If you are intending to host a screening in your back yard, why not make your own movie and screen that!