This Law Update covers a wide variety of topics relevant to the music and entertainment industry including the legality of cigarette sponsorship targeted at young people in the United States, a review of the developing body of law which suggest that television formats can be protected by copyright, a very interesting copyright decision suggesting that music scholars and others can acquire a copyright in edited versions of public domain works and also the most recent decision on personal privacy by the European Court of Human Rights which might provide some comfort for politicians, celebrities and others in the public eye. The Update ends with five different decisions from England, Jamaica, Hong Kong and two from Scotland on the various penalties which can be imposed for the infringement of copyright and trade marks - with long prison sentences imposed for serious infringements alongside fines, destruction orders and the seizure of assets. These can be considered alongside the cases of R v Hunt (Law Updates September 2003) and R v Raizada and R v Stanley (Law Updates April 2003).

SPONSORSHIP
Artists, Sponsorship, Merchandising
-Music Linked Cigarette Sponsorship Challenged in Maryland, US-
The Attorney General of Maryland has filed a lawsuit against the maker of Kool cigarettes, charging that the company is illegally targeting young people with a marketing campaign built around hip-hop music.The suit announced by Attorney General J. Joseph Curran asked that the marketing campaign organisers, Brown & Williamson, be fined at least $5.3 million and prohibited from continuing with its Kool Mixx 2004 promotional campaign in Maryland. Brown & Williamson defended the campaign saying that it celebrated hip-hop music and the art form of the mixers, and the DJs, who mix music. Contests are held in bars where alcohol is sold and young people are not admitted. The suit was filed in the Baltimore Circuit Court. Maryland is the second state to file suit against the Kool Mixx campaign. The New York attorney general got a preliminary order last month from that state's Supreme Court, halting use of the Web site and a live audio webcast of DJ contests along with the recall of special cigarette packs and brand merchandise.

See : http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/business/9058942.htm

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COPYRIGHT
Record Labels, Music Publishers
-Copyright Subsists in an 'Edition' Version of a Work Even Where No Significant Changes are Made to the Melody -
Hyperion Records plans to appeal against a High Court ruling that the company must pay copyright fees for use of a 300-year-old piece of music in one of its recordings. The decision could have serious repercussions throughout the world of classical music. The suit against Hyperion was brought by Dr Lionel Sawkins, a musicologist who spent a year preparing an edition of pieces by Michel-Richard de Lalande (1657-1726), court composer to Louis XIV and Louis XV. Sawkins claimed that, since his work had been used by Hyperion to make its CD "Music for the Sun King", he was entitled to royalties on the recording. Hyperion pointed out that Dr Sawkins had received a hire fee for us for the use of his editions so was being paid. Under the Copyright Designs & Patents Act 1988 (as amended) copyright normally expires 70 years after the composer's death, but Patten J ruled that Sawkins's work had been significant enough for him to claim royalties: "I am not persuaded," said Mr Justice Patten, "that one can reject a claim to copyright in a new music work simply because the editorial composer has made no significant changes to the notes." Hyperion was granted the right to appeal but ordered to pay legal costs, which have been estimated at four hundred thousand pounds. Hyperion have deleted the CD in question which sold 3332 copies and with substantial recording costs unrecouped.

COMMENT : This is a difficult area and this decision leaves the classical music industry in something of a quandry with the possibility that it will have to pay out substantial royalties to scholars and musical experts who have produced 'editions' of music no longer in copyright - so called 'editorial composers'. It seems fair that scholars and experts who spend substantial periods of time researching, studying and 're-writing' pieces of work which are out of copyright receive something for their efforts - but it is hard to see how they can become the author of an 'original work' when that work is substantially based on a work already in the public domain. That said, it has been accepted for years that arrangers can be the 'author' of traditional pieces of music - although in their version only. However, if a doctrine of copyright authorship where there is 'no significant change' to the original work was taken further the question would arise "would a re-writer of a classic Lennon & McCartney hit be entitled to claim ownership of a new copyright?"

See : http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4965998-110427,00.html; http://www.pictons.com/article.php?id=47§ion=7

Music Week July 17th 2004 at p5

'Landmark Copyright Case' at p92 in the Music Journal, August 2004 edition (Incorporated Society of Musicians)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COPYRIGHT
Record Labels, Music Publishers, Technology, Internet
-German Clash Over Levy On Copying Devices-
A long-running feud in Germany over imposing a levy on computers and printers has returned to the headlines after a government minister suggested extending the levy to all devices capable of duplicating copyright-protected material. In a weekend interview with the Süddeutsche newspaper, German Justice Minister Brigitte Zypries said the government may broaden its copyright law to include a levy on all devices capable of copying and not just copy machines, scanners and CD burners. Currently, Germany imposes a levy only on devices specifically designed for copying, according to Zypries; in the future, she said, all devices that can be used to copy copyright-protected material should be subject to a fee, with the amount determined by usage. Germany is one of several European countries that for decades has been collecting special copyright fees on the sale of analogue copying devices such as blank audio and video cassettes, and more recently, digital CD players. The fees are intended to compensate rights holders for lost royalties from private copying of music, images and movies: attempts by the German rights society, VG Wort, to extend the same levy to computers and printers have met strong resistance by manufacturers, including Fujitsu and Siemens Computers, Germany's largest computer manufacturer; the matter is now with the State Court in Munich.

See : http://www.idg.com.sg/idgwww.nsf/0/0EF2CB10D05315CA48256ECA002F8DFC?OpenDocument

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COPYRIGHT
Television
-Dutch Supreme Court Confirms Format Rights Decision: Castaway v Endemol-
The titanic battle over ownership of the Big Brother format appears finally to have been resolved by the Dutch Supreme Court after a legal battle lasting well over three years. On 16 April the Supreme Court of the Hague rejected the appeal by Castaway Television Productions Ltd and Planet 24 Productions Ltd against the decision of the Dutch Court of Appeal which in turn confirmed the decision of the Dutch Court of first instance. The trial judge had ruled that the format of Big Brother is not an infringing copy of the Survivor format. The "Survive" format on which the action was based was the same format which Castaway sought to protect in the Celebrity action (see our early warning of August 2003). It was originally produced under the name Expedition Robinson in the summer of 1997 in Sweden, and then subsequently in other European countries. At around the same time Endemol Productions was developing a format, which eventually became Big Brother, that was broadcast in the autumn of 1999.
Castaway Television asserted that the Survive format is a copyright work by virtue of its unique combination of 12 elements. It also claimed that Big Brother is an infringement of the copyright in that format, and made an additional unjust enrichment claim against Endemol.
Endemol denied that the Survive format was entitled to copyright protection. It also denied that the Big Brother format was an infringing copy of the Survive format. In June 2000 these claims were dismissed at the trial of the action, and in June 2002 the Dutch Court of Appeal upheld that judgement. Castaway and Planet 24 then appealed to the Dutch Supreme Court.
The Dutch Court of Appeal had taken a pragmatic view of the issue basing its judgement on the similarities between the relevant programmes. The Court concluded that:
"A format consists of a combination of unprotected elements... An infringement can only be involved if a similar selection of several of these elements have been copied in an identifiable way. If all the elements have been copied, there is no doubt. In that case copyright infringement is involved. If only one (unprotected) element has been copied, the situation is also clear: in that case no infringement is involved. A general answer to the question of how many elements must have been copied for infringement to be involved cannot be given; this depends on the circumstances of the case."
The Dutch Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal in deciding that the Survive format was a copyright work, but that the Big Brother format was not an infringing copy. It also confirmed all the other elements of the Court of Appeal decision in finding for the defendants (Endemol).
We now have at least two decisions (one in Holland one in Brazil) where copyright has been found to subsist in a reality television format. The Brazilian court found that the Big Brother format enjoys copyright protection, and the Dutch court that the format of Survivor also has copyright protection. Television formats are at last hitting the legal radar elsewhere in the world: they will surely be recognised by the UK legal system in the future.
Jonathan Coad, Solicitor

This update is © The Simkins Partnership. Legal advice should be sought before taking action in relation to specific matters. Where reference is made to Court decisions facts referred to are those reported as found by the Court. The Simkins website: www.simkins.com

See Law Updates July 2004 for details of the Brazillian case referred to above

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HEALTH & SAFETY
Live Event Industry
-Beenie Man Show Cancelled Over Homophobic Lyrics-
A London concert by Jamaican dancehall star Beenie Man was cancelled after complaints it might provoke violence towards gay men. Police spoke to Beenie Man after a complaint that some of his songs contain "lyrics that are an incitement to homophobic murder and violence". The performer, real name Anthony Davis, was due to appear at the Ocean club in Hackney in East London which cancelled the show on the grounds of concerns for public safety after talks with police officers. The performer was not arrested or spoken to under caution and it is reported that the police did not ask for the concert to be cancelled. Beenie Man was among Mobo-nominated performers included in a dossier presented to Scotland Yard's Race and Violent Crime Taskforce by gay rights campaigners last September. Refunds have been offered to those with tickets for the show.

See : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3838975.stm

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PRIVACY
Artists
-Princess Caroline Wins Historic Court Battle-
Princess Caroline of Monaco has won an appeal in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg which overturns the German Constitutional Court's decision that as a contemporary pubic figure she had to tolerate pictures taken of her in public. The ECHR held that the publication of pictures of her horse riding, skiing, with her husband and sitting in a café had violated the princess' right to privacy, in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 8). "Every person, however well-known, must be able to enjoy a legitimate hope for the protection of... their private life," the court said. "The court considered that the general public did not have a legitimate interest in knowing Caroline von Hannover's whereabouts or how she behaved generally in her private life." German law already gave some protection to celebrities; in 1998 a German court ordered Bunte magazine to pay the Princess £20,000 for violating her privacy by publishing snatched pictures of her when she was ill - taken by a Paparazzi trespassing on the Princess's property. Germany has three months to file an appeal.

See : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3838945.stm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/06/25/wcaro25.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/06/25/ixnewstop.html

http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1430_A_1026243_1_A,00.html

ARTICLE
By Jonathan Coad, Solicitor

VON HANNOVER v GERMANY: WATERLOO FOR THE PAPARAZZI?

On 24 June the European Court of Human Rights handed down a judgement in the case of von Hannover v Germany which may radically alter the extent to which the paparazzi and tabloid press are permitted access to the private lives of celebrities. The applicant was Princess Caroline of Monaco who took her case for protection of her privacy to the ECHR after several mainly unsuccessful applications in the German courts over a period of ten years.
The level of protection of a person's privacy under German law lies somewhere between the modest degree afforded in the UK and the much greater degree awarded in France.
Princess Caroline took action over a series of photographs taken in France and published in Germany of her everyday life (picking her children up from school, playing sport, shopping at a market etc). Under German law, Princess Caroline is deemed to be a "public figure par excellence", and as such the public is deemed to have a legitimate interest in knowing how she generally behaves in public, even when not performing any kind of official function.
The German government claimed that the level of protection afforded to such public figures under German law was compatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and struck a fair balance between Article 10 (Freedom of Expression) and Article 8 (Respect for Private and Family Life). The ECHR found unanimously, however, that there had been an infringement of Article 8 rights, and that German law did not provide adequate protection for a person's right to private and family life.
The majority of the judges said that the question of the correct balance between Article 8 and Article 10 centres on "the contribution that the published photos and articles make to a debate of general interest." In the case of Princess Caroline, the photographs made no such contribution as she exercised no official function and the photographs related solely to her private life.
The ECHR held that the public does not have a legitimate interest in knowing where the applicant is and how she behaves generally in her private life even if she appears in places that cannot always be described as "secluded". Even if such an interest existed alongside the commercial interest of the magazines in publishing the pictures, "these should yield to the applicant's right to the effective protection of her private life." The German criteria were not sufficient to ensure the effective protection of Princess Caroline's private life and she should have a "legitimate expectation" of the protection of her private life.
The ECHR said that although a balance had to be struck between the rights of privacy and freedom of expression, the publication of these photographs did not contribute to the public debate. The court drew a distinction between "reporting facts ... capable of contributing to a debate in a democratic society relating to politicians and the exercise of their functions, for example, and the reporting of details of the private life of an individual who ... does not exercise official functions." Where no contribution was made to any debate of general interest, freedom of expression had to be given a "narrow interpretation", one judge observing that the ECHR had (under American influence) to some extent "made a fetish of freedom of the press".
The most obvious impact of this judgement is on press photography, since a clear "public interest" is now required to justify a photograph of a person who neither holds public office nor is engaged in an "official" activity. The ubiquitous pictures of celebrities in public places are no longer justifiable, and prominent individuals therefore have at least some privacy rights even in public places. The contextual test in the PCC Code of locations in which an individual has "a reasonable expectation to privacy" is now obsolete under this new ruling.
This means that failure by the courts and the PCC to protect individuals against publication of pictures, and by extension stories, merely for "entertainment purposes" where there is no public interest, will be a breach of the Article 8 rights of an individual. This case is a strong warning to the UK courts that they have a positive obligation to protect the privacy rights of individuals, thereby inevitably curtailing to some degree the freedom of the press, and in particular of press photography.

Jonathan Coad

This update is © The Simkins Partnership. This bulletin is for general guidance only. Legal advice should be sought before taking action in relation to specific matters. Where reference is made to Court decisions facts referred to are those reported as found by the Court. The Simkins website is at www.simkins.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COPYRIGHT
Record Labels, Music Publishers, Television, radio, Film, Internet
-"Creative Commons" Adopted in the Netherlands-
The Netherlands has become the third European nation to adopt a 'Creative Commons' approach to copyright. This is a simpler way of handling copyrights on the Internet already adopted in Finland and Germany . The brainchild of Professor Lawrence Lessig from California's Stanford University, and others, Creative Commons (CC) was originally launched as an American initiative 18 months ago. CC's objective is to stimulate the distribution of electronic material, like literature, photographs, music, films and scientific works, over the Internet without breaching copyright laws, and creating, in the process, a large public domain - a 'creative commons' - for artists and scientists to share and work in. Unlike the present, 'all rights reserved' copyright system, CC adopts a simpler, 'some rights reserved' attitude. Its licences come in 12 flavours of varying application and coverage, stipulating exactly where (for non-commercial purposes, for example) and how (mentioning the information source is mandatory) a licensed work can be used. The Duch version of CC will conform to Dutch copyright law and allow owners to stipulate how and where free use can be made without affecting ownership.

See : http://www.dmeurope.com/default.asp?ArticleID=2124

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COPYRIGHT & TRADEMARK
Merchandising, Artists
-Artist Wins Right To Use Barbie Dolls-
Artist Tom Forsythe from Utah has fought off an action by Mattel who attempted to prevent the artist from using Barbie Dolls in his work. Mr Forsythe photographed undressed dolls positioned with kitchen equipment to comment on the subservience of women. He argued that the dolls produced a gender oppressive value in girls. In 1999 Mattel launched an action against Forsythe claiming copyright and trade mark infringement arguing that the artist was using their brand to sell and/or promote products without Mattel's permission. They demanded destruction of any photographs and negatives. Judge Ronald Lew in the Los Angeles Federal District Court threw out the claim as groundless awarding costs of $1.8 million against Mattel and warned Mattel against intimidatory tactics.

See : The Times 29 June 2004

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COPYRIGHT
Record Labels, Music Publishers, Film, Television, Internet
-EFF Fears the Inducing Infringement of Copyright Act Will Stifle Innovative Technology-
The Electronic Frontiers Foundation have pointed out that Senator Orrin Hatch's new Inducing Infringement of Copyright Act (S.2560, Induce Act) would make it a crime to aid, abet, or induce copyright infringement. The EFF say that Senator Hatch "wants us all to think that the Induce Act is no big deal and that it only targets 'the bad guys' while leaving 'the good guys' alone. He says that it doesn't change the law; it just clarifies it. He's wrong.". The EFF comment that under the Supreme Court's ruling in Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (the Betamax VCR case), devices like the iPod and CD burners are "100% legal" not because they aren't sometimes used for infringement, but because they also have legitimate uses. The Court in Sony called these "substantial non-infringing uses."
The EFF have suggested that the Inducing Infringement of Copyright Act might "kill the iPod" and to dramatise how the Induce Act might harm technology innovators and consumers. The EFF have posted a mock complaint on their website which is a lawsuit that could be brought against Apple, accusing the corporation of selling its popular iPod music player to induce people to infringe copyright. The complaint mimics the format of an actual complaint that the EFF suggest record companies might draft. The complaint also names Toshiba as a defendant for manufacturing the iPod hard drive and CNET for writing a review of the iPod that instructs users on how to copy music files between computers. Because the Induce Act defines "intent" as being "determined by a reasonable person taking into account all relevant facts," it's unlikely that a technology company like Apple would be able easily to dismiss a lawsuit brought against it under the Act. It would instead face the prospect of an expensive trial, with all the attendant legal fees and negative publicity. The EFF add that one company, SonicBlue, recently fought against a group of copyright holders in court over its ReplayTV and spent close to $1,000,000 per month in legal fees alone. The inducement theory thus enables copyright owners to inflict an arbitrarily large penalty on any tech company that builds a device they (copyright owners) don't like. EFF hopes that the mock complaint, brought by a hypothetical "group of major recording labels" against Apple, will raise awareness about how the Inducing Infringement of Copyright Act will destroy incentives to innovate.

For the full press release:
http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2004_06.php#001641

Case Law:
Sony v Universal City Studios (1984) 104 US 744
CBS Songs v Amstrad (1988) RPC 567

ADDENDUM
Further comment from the EFF EFFector Vol. 17, No. 26 July 15, 2004

The Senate Judiciary Committee has taken the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act (Induce Act, S.2560) off the fast track, scheduling a hearing on the bill next Thursday. This is good news for the public, but the recording industry is going on the offensive, turning up its rhetoric in an effort to scare common sense out of the debate. In a letter sent to the Judiciary Committee and all 100 senators, RIAA president Mitch Bainwol insists that critics of the bill are missing the point, and that the Induce Act is a "moral behavorial test that targets the bad guys." But the wording of the legislation itself doesn't support Bainwol's claims. By making it illegal to "aid, abet, or induce copyright infringement," the Induce Act could make companies liable for violations committed by their customers. This extends liability so far that it threatens both current and future technologies. Under the Induce Act, creators of the next iPod or VCR would be forced to subject themselves to approval from every major copyright holder before even getting to market. That's too high a price to pay to satisfy the recording industry in its witch-hunt for peer-to-peer file sharing.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COPYRIGHT
Internet, Music Publishers, Record Labels
-The Supreme Court of Canada Rules That All Internet Transmissions Into Canada Are Covered By Canadian Law-
The Supreme Court of Canada today confirmed that internet transmissions into the country from outside are covered by domestic Canadian copyright law, regardless of the origin of the transmission. The ruling arises from a court case in Canada, in which the international and Canadian Recording Industry organisations, IFPI and CRIA, and other rights holders organisations sought to confirm that communications which travel across Canada's border, and are received in the country, should be subject to Canadian copyright law. The intervention took place following an appeal by Canadian Internet companies against a tariff by the Society of Canadian Composers, Authors and Music Publishers (SOCAN), a performing rights society. The Supreme Court confirmed the industry's understanding of the law, ensuring that rights holders are protected under the Canadian Copyright Act against unauthorised transmissions in Canada, regardless of where they originate.
Source www.ifpi.org
However, Canadian Supreme Court has also ruled that ISPs are not subject to royalty fees. Canada's high court ruled that the creation of a cache copy by Internet providers is part of their business to provide access to users, who have an expectation of freedom and privacy , and should not mean the providers have to pay royalties, as proposed by the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (SOCAN), which has fought for nearly nine years for the fees.
In the Supreme Court's decision, styled as Canadian Association of Internet Providers v Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, the Court found that ISPs do not "communicate" music files by transmitting them on demand over the Internet. Also, settling a controversial issue left from the prior Federal Court of Appeal decision, the Supreme Court held that ISPs do not infringe copyright by temporarily storing (caching) files in the course of transmitting them. The Court applied section 2.4(1)(b) of the Copyright Act which deems that providers of "the means of telecommunication" do not "communicate" works for the purpose of copyright infringement. The Court found that caching files was a "serendipitous consequence of improvements in Internet technology" and should not cause ISPs to lose the benefit of this exemption. Writing for the majority, Mr. Justice Binnie said that "by enacting s. 2.4(1)(b) of the Copyright Act, Parliament made a policy distinction between those who abuse the Internet to obtain 'cheap music' and those who are part of the infrastructure of the Internet itself. It is clear that Parliament did not want copyright disputes between creators and users to be visited on the heads of the Internet intermediaries.

See : http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/html/2004scc045.wpd.html

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/34891.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COPYRIGHT
Internet
-US Court Rules That Internet Service Providers Are Not Liable For Passive Storage of Infringing -
The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has ruled that an Internet Service Provider (ISP) does not copy material in direct contravention of the US Copyright Act when it passively stores material at the direction of its users. The plaintiffs were providers of commercial real estate information. Some of the plaintiffs' copyright protected photographs appeared on web sites affiliated with the defendant ISP, Loopnet Inc, which operated a web site allowing subscribers, generally real estate brokers, to post real estate listings, including photos. Loopnet's terms and conditions of use prohibited the posting of photographs "without authorisation". Any subscriber posting a photograph was required to warrant that the subscriber had "all necessary rights and authorizations" from the copyright owner. When a submitted photograph was transferred to the defendant's system for review, a Loopnet employee would then briefly examine the photo to ensure that it depicted commercial real estate and that there was no obvious evidence to suggest that copyright in the photo belonged to a third party. If the photo failed to meet either criteria, it would be deleted by the examining employee. The Court found that Loopnet's conduct was not "copying" under the Act because Loopnet lacked the volitional conduct - namely, the act constituting infringement - to become a direct infringer. Passively storing material at the direction of users to make the material available to other users does not contravene the Act, ruled the Court. In addition, the Court declined to characterise the defendant's manual review of the photographs or its involvement in storing the photographs as copying. Although an ISP could become liable indirectly if its involvement was sufficient to establish contributory or vicarious infringement under the Act, the Court held that the employee's review of the photograph in this case was so cursory and transitory as to be insignificant.

Taken from an article by Colin Adams on E-Tips Volume 3 No 2
http://www.dww.com/newsletter/archive.html

CoStar Group v Loopnet, Inc: (PDF file) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/4th/031911p.pdf

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COPYRIGHT
Record Labels, Music Publishers
-Scottish CD Pirate Jailed R v Reid (2004)-
A man who boasted on TV he "could not care less" that his business was illegal has been jailed for five months for selling pirate CDs and computer games. Stephen Reid's illicit trading deprived the music and computer industries of more than £1million in lost revenue. Glasgow Sheriff Court heard police and trading standards officers then swooped on the 51-year-old's premises. Sheriff William Holligan told him he had shown "a flagrant breach of legislation" after he pleaded guilty to three infringements of copyright. The Sheriff added: "A custodial sentence is unavoidable for such offences." Reid had previous convictions for selling counterfeit videos. His sale of counterfeit music, computer games and software was particularly targeted at students at nearby Glasgow University. In February, breakfast show GMTV carried out an investigation into piracy in which they visited Reid. The court was shown a foul-mouthed interview with him in which he threatened cameramen and reporter Lyn Faulds-Wood. Police and trading standards officers then carried out surveillance on Reid and made "test purchases" before raiding the premises and seizing 6349 CDs believed to contain pirate material.

See : http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/hi/news/5028130.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COPYRIGHT
Record Labels, Music Publishers, Performers
-UK Bootleg Pirate Jailed For Three and a Half Years R v Purseglove (2004)-
A British judge has jailed music bootlegger for three and a half years. Mark Purseglove, 33, is estimated to be one of the biggest bootleggers in world, amassing a £6.6 (US$12.5) million fortune in 11 years of music piracy. Purseglove sold his bootlegs around Europe, in Japan and across the world via an international network of wholesale dealers. He had also used internet auction sites such as eBay, falsely advertising the discs as rare items, charging as much as US$240 per CD. He was arrested in June 2002 after protracted investigations by anti-piracy teams from IFPI and BPI, the bodies representing the international and UK recording industry. Purseglove has now lost all of his assets including two homes in Chelsea in London, a home in Brighton and his Aston Martin sports car (under the Proceeds of Crime legislation). He was jailed and ordered to forfeit all of his assets after being sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment on charges of Conspiracy to Defraud the UK recorded music industry. The confiscation order, amounting to £1.8 million (US$3. 4 million), is a British record for music piracy. Delivering the sentence, Judge Timothy Pontius made it clear that Purseglove's decision to "flout the law to reap considerable financial rewards" would not be tolerated and that he "needed to pass a sentence to deter you and others and send a strong message that the courts will provide effective protection of the rights of producers, composers and publishers" and that he wished to "deprive you of as much as I lawfully can" adding that the "loss to the recording industry was likely to be considerable". The Judge took into account Purseglove's "contempt of previous injunctions" and "repeated flagrant and blatant disregard for the law" and ruled that failure to hand over his £1.8 (US$3.4) million fortune before the March 31 2005 deadline would result in a further five year prison term. The court had heard that Purseglove had built his bootlegging empire by amassing a massive collection of illegal recordings of classic and contemporary artists from Led Zeppelin, David Bowie and Pink Floyd to Supergrass and Coldplay. He paid people (including the band's own sound engineers) to make illegal recordings, copied broadcasts and illegally counterfeited legitimately released recordings. Purseglove's previous record included being the subject of a court injunction in 1991 after he was caught importing bootlegs into the UK. In 1996 he was caught in the US through a sting operation executed by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) in conjunction with the FBI. He was later deported and ordered not to return to the US for twenty years. Purseglove was again caught in 1999 selling fakes at the Reading Festival in the UK, and a prosecution led to a four month prison sentence. Undeterred, he continued to expand his international bootlegging operation until his arrest in 2002.

See : www.ifpi.org

The Times 9 July 2004
Music Week 17 July 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COPYRIGHT
Record Labels, Music Publishers
-Hong Kong Court Jails Pirates For Six and a Half Years-
A Hong Kong court has passed jail sentences of six and a half years on two former directors of a Hong Kong-based company found guilty of involvement in a massive disc piracy operation. Tsoi Chung-wang (also known as Tsoi Kei-lung and Tsoi Tung-kei), and his wife, Ng Yee-nei (also known as Ng Kam-fung and Ng Yuk-yan Lili), both former directors of the Hong Kong based company Golden Science Technology Limited, were charged by Hong Kong's Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) for counterfeiting HK$300 million worth of copyrighted optical discs. The pair were found guilty yesterday by the Court of First Instance in Hong Kong of one count of conspiracy to defraud. The charge stated that Tsoi and Ng had conspired with other persons to defraud copyright owners in relation to the illegal copying, manufacture and distribution of sound recordings, films, games, and computer software between June 1997 and April 1998. The discs were believed to be destined for the People's Republic of China.
The investigation into the activities of the Golden Science Technology companies followed what remains to this day the biggest-ever single anti-piracy seizure - 19 million discs in Hong Kong in 1998. The court heard that when ICAC officers raided four factories, an office and warehouse premises in Fanling on April 26, 1998, over one million counterfeit discs, covering 75 titles, were seized. A total of 41 replicating lines, 38 of which were working at the time of the raid were found. Of the 38 replicating lines, 31 were making unauthorised discs worth HK$300 million. Tsoi and Ng were arrested by the ICAC in April 1998 during a corruption inquiry, and subsequently charged. The couple was ordered to stand trial at the Court of First Instance on November 19, 2001. However, they failed to turn up for the trial. The court ordered the forfeit of the couple's bail money, totalling HK$1.25 million, and issued warrants for their arrest. With the assistance of the Interpol NCB (National Central Bureau) China, Lanzhou Municipal Public Security Bureau, and the Hong Kong Police's Liaison Bureau, Tsoi returned to Hong Kong from the Mainland on October 14 last year. Ng was arrested by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Vancouver on October 30 last year on ICAC's behalf. She waived extradition proceedings and returned to Hong Kong to face trial on November 19 last year. The prosecution is currently seeking forfeiture of the seized 41 replication lines, 12 printing machines, mastering machinery, 37 hundred weight of polycarbonate and 17.94 million pirate compact discs and 3,600 pirate stampers - moulds used to make the recordings.

See : www.ifpi.org

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRADEMARK & COPYRIGHT
Record Labels
-4,700 Pirated Compact Discs, Cassette Tapes, and DVDs Crushed in Jamaica-
Jamaica has begun to clamp down on hard copy piracy in the country and the Jamaican Minister of Commerce, Science and Technology Phillip Paulwell and a small gathering of music industry personnel witnessed the symbolic destruction of the pirated. The Minister added "Beware, the law is going to get you, leave people's intellectual property rights alone, go and do your own. I'm glad to be a part of this exercise as we publicly demonstrate that the country is serious about pirating of people's creative work. The government is grateful," he added, "to the Jamaica Intellectual Property Office - under my ministry - and also to the police for the role that they are now playing to prevent person's works from being pirated." The CDs, DVDs and cassettes, valued at $1.5 million, were seized by the Intellectual Property Division of the Organised Crime Investigation Division of the constabulary, which has been working with the Jamaica Intellectual Property Office (JIPO) to clamp down on breaches of the Copyright and Trademarks Act. More than 15 persons were prosecuted in connection with the seizures. JIPO said 22 people have been prosecuted for breaching the Copyright and Trademarks Act since January 2003. It said the most recent decision saw a convicted person fined $200,000 or face six months in jail for music piracy. The fine, JIPO said, has been the highest since Jamaica passed the Copyright and Trademarks Act. Yesterday's crushing by a huge tractor was the first public destruction of pirated material confiscated by the police.

See : http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/html/20040623T230000-0500_61693_OBS_PIRATED_CDS_CRUSHED.asp

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRADEMARK
Live Event Industry
-Scottish Ticket Counterfeiter Spared Jail-
A Scottish judge has told a man that he undersold fake tickets for Celtic's Uefa Cup game in Seville last year. Sentencing Alan Cloughley to community service, Sheriff Deirdre MacNeill QC said the forged tickets were of a convincingly high standard but she remarked that Cloughley, who sold each ticket for £5, could have got more than ten times that amount. The 23-year-old economics graduate was caught by police at his Glasgow home just days before the game. Glasgow Sheriff Court heard that Cloughley produced and sold hundreds of fake tickets for Celtic's Uefa Cup Final clash with FC Porto. He appeared for sentence on Friday having earlier admitted two breaches of the Trade Marks Act. Sheriff MacNeill said it had been a "sophisticated and well planned operation" but the court heard that people who bought tickets from Cloughley were aware that they were fakes. Sheriff MacNeill said the seriousness of the offence warranted a prison sentence, but she was prepared to order him to do 260 hours of community service. Acting on a tip-off, police raided Cloughley's home and seized 291 tickets and £300 in cash. He claimed he bought a legitimate ticket and copied it to produce fakes, selling about 100 before being caught. Cloughley, who works as a nightclub bouncer, carried out the scam using his home computer and specialist printing equipment he purchased over the internet. A Celtic spokesman said that Cloughley's actions provided a "security nightmare" for those involved in the planning of such a big occasion and that printing additional tickets raises serious issues regarding crowd control. The case is thought to be the first successful conviction of its kind against a counterfeiter in Scotland.

See : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3818505.stm

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

© 2004 Ben Challis