Kim Dotcom has been successful in insisting that his current trial can be viewed live on YouTube.
DotCom seems pleased with this outcome as he insists that when people realise the basis of the case against him they will support him.
He insists that MegaUpload was blindly storing copyright infringing material and as such should not be held responsible. In the same way that a man who makes or sells a knife or a car is not held responsible if that object is later used to break the law.
The analogy breaks down a bit as the servers remained under the control of MegaUpload whereas the other objects mentioned do not - but that is for another day.
However, when this case is settled we will be one step closer to understanding where liability rests online and the degree of responsibility a hosting company, or third party provider, must take. This is also relevant for data protection and the GDPR.
Hold onto your hats - this is showtime !
Showing posts with label copyright. Show all posts
Showing posts with label copyright. Show all posts
Tuesday, 30 August 2016
Thursday, 7 April 2016
Linking to Pirate Content may not be communication to a new public
In essence, and only on the facts of this case, if material is freely available already, then no new communication to the public occurs when it is published / linked to again without permission. This echoes Svensson and Bestwater.
Without a communication to the public there is not on the face of it copyright infringement. Other remedies such as trademark infringement and conspiracy to defraud still stand however.
This is not really ideal particularly when it does not seem to matter if it is obvious that the "source" material is not itself authorized. Copyright legislation really needs a bit of a re-boot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

