Tag: Graduated Response

Is unauthorized online copying theft and does it hurt creators?Is unauthorized online copying theft and does it hurt creators?



Slavish copying of a work protected by copyright without consent is sometimes called theft. There is a long history of this association in the Commonwealth and the United States. In fact, in a leading case, the Privy Council stated that the moral basis of copyright rests on the 8th Commandment “Thou shalt not steal”. Despite the long lineage between unlawful appropriation of copyright material and the concepts of “theft”, “larceny” and “steal”, there are still debates as to whether the term is accurate or appropriate to use in this context.

The French Hadopi law, its history, operation, and effectivenessThe French Hadopi law, its history, operation, and effectiveness



The French Hadopi graduated response law was passed in October 2009. A study by Professor Bret Danaher published earlier this year titled The Effect of Graduated Response Anti-Piracy Laws on Music Sales: Evidence from an Event Study in France found that it is effective in helping to reduce online copyright infringement and spur legitimate sales of music in France. He talked about the study earlier this year while in Toronto at the Canadian Music Week, Global Forum.

Earlier today, Anne-Sylvie Vassenaix-Paxton a lawyer with Heenan Blakie in Paris gave a speech at an ALAI meeting in Toronto.

Robert Levine and Brett Danaher at CMWRobert Levine and Brett Danaher at CMW



Last week, Robert Levine, author of Free Ride: How Digital Parasites are Destroying the Culture Business, and How the Culture Business Can Fight Back, and Brett Danaher, the author of a study on the effect of France’s HADOPI graduated response law, participated in several events in Toronto. This included talks by Robert Levine at the Economic Club, at Osoode Hall Law School, and at Canadian Music Week and by Brett Danaher at Osgoode Hall law School and Canadian Music Week.

UK moving ahead with graduated response after Hargreaves Review of IPUK moving ahead with graduated response after Hargreaves Review of IP



Last week, the UK government confirmed its intention to implement the graduated response process set out in the UK Digital Economy Act 2010 (DEA). Several documents released along with the response to Professor Hargreaves’ Review of Intellectual Property and Growth summarized the UK process and compared it with the graduated response processes enacted in France and New Zealand. See, Draft-Sharing-of-Costs statutory-instrument, Impact Assessment for the Sharing of Costs Statutory Instrument, and Digital Economy Act Appeals Process: Options for reducing costs.

UN report on internet disconnection flawed and contrary to jurisprudenceUN report on internet disconnection flawed and contrary to jurisprudence



Recently, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom  of opinion and expression released a controversial report in which he stated he was

“alarmed by proposals to disconnect users from Internet  access if they violate intellectual property rights. This also includes legislation based on the  concept of “graduated response”, which imposes a series of penalties on copyright  infringers that could lead to suspension of Internet service, such as the so-called “three strikes-law” in France  and the Digital Economy Act 2010 of the United Kingdom.”

YouTube adopts “copyright school” to stop copyright infringementYouTube adopts “copyright school” to stop copyright infringement



YouTube has changed its copyright policy.  YouTube already has a policy that involves suspending accounts of YouTube users who have three copyright strikes. Now, if YouTube receives a notification that a user’s video is infringing the user will be required to go to  “YouTube Copyright School”.  A second change in the policy relaxes YouTube’s copyright strikes from a user’s accounts if the user completes the YouTube Copyright School and has demonstrated good behavior over time.

The Official YouTube Blog says the following:

If we receive a copyright notification for one of your videos, you’ll now be required to attend “YouTube Copyright School,” which involves watching a copyright tutorial and passing a quiz to show that you’ve paid attention and understood the content before uploading more content to YouTube.

New Zealand passes law to reduce online file sharingNew Zealand passes law to reduce online file sharing



New Zealand just enacted legislation that puts in place a three-notice regime to deter illegal file sharing.

The three-notice regime involves ISPs sending warning notices to their customers informing them they may have infringed copyright. The legislation extends the jurisdiction of the NZ Copyright Tribunal to provide an efficient, low-cost process to hear illegal file-sharing claims. The tribunal will be able to make awards of up to $15,000 based on damage sustained by the copyright owner.

The bill includes a power for a district court to suspend an internet account for up to six months, in appropriate circumstances.

Rethinking notice and notice after C-32 (now C-11)Rethinking notice and notice after C-32 (now C-11)



Canada’s last three copyright bills, C-60, C-61 and C-32, attempted to curb illegal online file sharing by requiring ISPs to forward notices of claimed infringements to customers. Canada’s ISPs had advocated for this “notice and notice” process claiming it was effective. However, they never produced any empirical evidence or studies to back up their claims.

On March 22, 2010 – before the federal election was called- TELUS, Bell and Rogers appeared before the Special Legislative Committee studying Bill C-32. The ISPs continued to endorse notice and notice asking that this process be formalized in C-32.

iiNet court backs reasonableness of graduated response to stop illegal file sharingiiNet court backs reasonableness of graduated response to stop illegal file sharing



Last week the Australian Full Court released its decision in the landmark case Roadshow Films Pty Limited v iiNet Limited, [2011] FCAFC 23. The Australian appeals court by majority dismissed the appeal from the decision of the primary judge who had held that iiNet, an ISP in Australia that had not acted on any information provided to it by copyright owners, was not liable for authorizing the copyright infringement of its subscribers who had used its facilities to engage in unlicensed peer to peer file sharing.