ReDigi runs a digital music resale business. Buyers of tracks from iTunes or ReDigi can sell them using ReDigi’s service. The service scans hard drives of users and transmits copies of tracks to its cloud. Buyers wanting the music can acquire copies at a discount from iTune’s price from ReDigi. ReDigi was sued for copyright infringement. The novel question was whether a digital music file, lawfully made and purchased, may be resold by its owner through ReDigi under the first sale doctrine. In Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc., 2013 WL 1286134, (S.D.N.Y., March 30, 2013) a US District Court found ReDigi’s service infringing on just about every asserted ground.
Archive for the ‘Reproduction’ category
Supreme Court hears oral argument in Cinar/Robinson copyright cases (Updated)
February 13th, 2013Earlier today, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in four copyright cases arising from the decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal in the France Animation v Robinson, 2011 QCCA 1361 case. The main issue in the appeal was whether sketches and characters of the proposed TV series Robinson curiosity were infringed by the series Robinson sucro. The trial judge found infringement and the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment, in part. The webcast from the argument is being archived and will be available here.
Supreme Court of Canada to release reasons in five copyright cases
July 9th, 2012The copyright bar has been eagerly awaiting the release of the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada in the five copyright appeals which were heard on December 6 and 7, 2011. The Court announced earlier today that the decisions will be released this Thursday, July 12, 2012.
The Court published case summaries. I also summarized the main issues in the appeals here. The webcasts of the arguments can also be accessed here.
Developments in Computer, Internet and E-Commerce Law (2011-2012)
June 21st, 2012Here are the slides used in my presentation to the Toronto Computer Lawyers Group earlier today, The Year in Review: Developments in Computer, Internet and E-Commerce Law (2011-2012). It covers significant developements since my talk last spring, Developments in Computer, Internet and E-Commerce Law (2010-2011).
The slides include a summary of the following cases:
Kraft Real Estate Investments, LLC v Homeway.com, Inc. 2012 WL 220271 (D.S.Car. Jan 24, 2012)
Swift v. Zynga Game Network, Inc., 805 F.Supp.2d 904, (N.D.Cal., 2011)
Fteja v. Facebook, Inc., 2012 WL 183896 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)
Grosvenor v. Qwest Corp., 2012 WL 602655 (D.Colo., 2012)
Posted in APIs, authorization, C-11, CASL, click wrap agreement, Computer & Internet Law Update, conflicts of laws, contracts, contributory infringement, Copyright, copyright reform, data protection, defamation, DMCA safe harbor, E-commerce, Google Book Scanning, hyperlinking liability, innocent disseminator, intellectual property, Internet defamation, ISP Liability, IT Contracts, jurisdiction, misleading advertising, OSFI Guidlines, Presentations, Privacy, Reproduction, shrink wrap license, spam, Trade Marks, web wrap agreement
Tags: barry sookman canada clickwraps computer law copyright class actions copyright computer programs copyright infringement dmca E-commerce forum selection clauses Google Adwords hosting liability Internet Intermediary liability internet jurisdiction internet law ISP Liability keywords and misleading advertising online defamation webwraps
So you want to protect computer programs by copyright, the Oracle v Google and SAS v WPL cases (Updated)
June 3rd, 2012Are computer programs protected by copyright? That issue was a hot one three decades ago when courts began to struggle with whether these intangible utilitarian objects could be protected. Were they machine parts outside the realm of copyright or literary works, the kind of subject matter that copyright protects? This issue was quickly resolved in favor of copyright protection, first by the courts in the US, Australia, Canada and elsewhere in a series of cases involving the Apple II operating system and in other cases, then by international conventions and treaties and worldwide copyright amendments by governments that wanted to be sure programs could not be blatantly pirated.
Optus loses “TV Now” copyright appeal down under
April 26th, 2012Earlier today, the Full Court of Australia released its decision in the National Rugby League Investments Pty Limited v Singtel Optus Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 59 (27 April 2012) case. In a note made available along with the reasons of the court for reversing the decision of the primary judge, the court summarized its decision as follows:
Posted in Copyright, infringment, Reproduction
Tags: Copyright infringement Optus TV Now
Keeping The Pirate Bays at Bay
February 22nd, 2012The UK High Court appears likely to order UK ISPs to block the notorious BitTorrent site, The Pirate Bay. In the just released opinion in the Dramatico Entertainment Ltd & Ors v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd & Ors [2012] EWHC 268 (Ch) (20 February 2012) case, Justice Arnold ruled that users of the site as well as its operators infringe copyright. Users who download copies of sound recordings violate the right of reproduction. Users who make sound recordings available for downloading make them available to the public and are liable for communicating the sound recordings to the public. The Pirate Bay is liable for authorizing the infringement of its users. It is also liable for infringement based on the accessorial liability theories of joint infringement and inducement.
Is Google News legal? (Updated)
February 15th, 2012In May, 2011 a Belgium appellant court released an important decision finding Google liable for copyright infringement by offering its Google News service to subscribers in Belgium at the Google.be and Google.com websites. The decision in Google Inc v Copiepresse et al, Brussels Court of Appeal (9th Chamber) May 5, 2011 suggests that services such as Google News cannot be legally offered in many countries around the world even from servers located in North America.
On February 14, 2012, the UK Copyright Tribunal in the Meltwater Holding BV v The Newspaper Licensing Agency Limited case suggested Google News and the Google Alerts service would also be illegal in the UK without a license from publishers.
Copyright law 2011 –the year in review in Canada and around the world
January 13th, 2012Yesterday, I gave a talk at the Law Society of Upper Canada’s 16th Annual Intellectual Property Law: The Year in Review program. My talk canvassed developments in copyright in 2011. My slides are shown below. The associated paper prepared in collaboration with Glen Bloom, with the help of others, is available here.
My slides and/or the paper summarize the following copyright cases from Canada, the USA, UK and Europe:
CANADA
Re: Sound v Motion Picture Theatre Association of Canada 2011 FCA 70
Reference re Broadcasting Act 2011 FCA 64
Crookes v. Newton 2011 SCC 47
Posted in authorization, C-11, communication to the public, Copyright, copyright reform, Counterfeiting, cyberlockers, Fair Dealing, Fair Use, Google Book Scanning, human rights, hyperlinking liability, infringment, Internet defamation, jurisdiction, Piracy, Presentations, Reproduction, statutory damages, storage lockers
Cyberlockers, social media sites and copyright liability
January 9th, 20122011 was the year US copyright law was put to the test confronting whether cyberlockers and social media sites are liable for infringements contributed to by these sites. Some sites, like myVidster (see here also) Megaupload, Hotfile, and MP3tunes suffered set backs or losses in the US courts. Others, like Visible Technologies the operator of the myxer.com social radio website and most recently Veoh Networks were more successful, at least so far.
This site is published by Barry Sookman personally. It is not affiliated with McCarthy Tétrault or any of its clients. Full bio 