Music Law Updates

INFORMATION FOR READERS:
This resource aims to give a brief overview of developments in Intellectual Property law and other areas of law relevant to the music and entertainment industries. Each item is categorised according to relevant areas of the music or entertainment business, and by the date of uploading. Uploads are undertaken regularly and are organised on a monthly basis. These updates are designed to give general information for music and entertainment industry professionals and students interested in these areas. These Law Updates are not law reports or detailed references. Users who would like further information should research the relevant area thoroughly. Relevant references and links are therefore provided.

Law Updates also provides hyperlinks to other sites which may be of use or interest to legal professionals, academics, students and those involved in the music industry. These are provided at the end of Music Law Updates Archive under 'Music Business Law Links'. You will also find all of these links and other hyperlinks on the links page.

This resource is compiled by Ben Challis. Ben is a UK lawyer specialising in entertainment law and a graduate in law from Kings College London and The City University. He also holds the degree of Master of Arts in Mass Communications from the University of Leicester. Ben is a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. Ben acts as General Counsel for 3A Entertainments, one of the UK's leading concert promoters, and is Executive Producer for television of the Glastonbury Festival. Glastonbury is the UK's leading music and arts festival attended by over 150,000 people. For Glastonbury, Ben combines the role of managing the Festival's broadcast and other media rights alongside acting as General Counsel for the Festival. Ben's other clients have included the Prince's Trust, the Granada Media Group, Pioneer LDCE and British Telecom. Ben regularly writes articles and other material on music business and intellectual property law, contributes to books and is a regular conference speaker in particular on the live music industry. He is currently preparing a collection of cases and materials on music business law for publication. Ben is a visiting Senior Lecturer in Law at Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College in England and sits as a magistrate (Justice of the Peace) in Hertfordshire, England.

We are interested in your views on the Law Updates resource. Please forward any comments to : musiclaw01@aol.com

January 2006

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

HEALTH & SAFETY
Live concert industry
Whilst the popular press rings alarm bells about ‘binge drinking’ the UK leisure and entertainment industries have to face up to the practical ramifications of the Licensing Act

The UK’s new Licensing Act 2003 came into force on the 24th November 2005 sweeping away ninety years of drinking restrictions and setting up a new regulatory framework for the leisure and entertainment industries.Whilst the popular press have focused their attention on the possibilities of all night binge drinking and a serious breakdown in law and order in English and Welsh town centres, the leisure and entertainment industries are facing up to the rather more mundane ramifications of the Licensing Act – increased bureaucracy and increased licensing costs. Alongside the somewhat exaggerated stories of all night chaos were reports that Local Authorities, now charged with almost all licensing functions, are failing deal with the mountains of paperwork generated by the Act let alone being able to enforce licensing decisions, requirements and conditions. The London Evening Standard (22/11/05 on page 6) headlined with 'Licensing law Chaos Looms' reporting on a 'free for all as councils are unable to monitor all premises', noting that many clubs, restaurants and pubs will be unlicensed as of the changeover and that local authorities didn’t have the resources to monitor the situation (and neither did the police). One of the saddest results of the Act is the ill thought out policy of ‘one size fits all’ nature of the new licensing regime, with many small events, festivals and clubs facing closure. Coupling the requirements of the Licensing Act with the new security industry regulatory machine headed by the Security Industry Authority means that many volunteers, small promoters and grass roots organisations are fearful of putting on events for risk of falling foul of the law. By way of analogy to the way the drinks industry is being affected by the new licensing rules, one of the more bizarre stories of the week was that Christian bookshops were being forced to stop selling wine for Holy Communion as costs to obtain a licence for such minimal sales were prohibitive.

The Times, in a leader headed ‘Thinking before drinking, Government incompetence has complicated licensing liberalisation’ points to the ‘inept performance’ by the Department of Culture Media & Sport and a ‘hyperventilating media’ leaving a nation confused by a Government crusading against (often alcohol fuelled) antisocial behaviour but at the exact same time pushing through legislation to liberalise drinking laws. It has to be said that it is a bizarre sight but perhaps understandable from a Government so keen to regulate and legislate but not always listen. In fact only about a third of pubs, clubs and restaurants will open any later than at present and of those that do approximately 40% have asked for just a one hour extension to midnight and 25% can extend to 01.00. Fewer than 400 clubs and pubs nationwide have acquired the right to open 24 hours a day (less than 0.5% of the total). But perhaps more worrying from an industry point of view is the risk that not only will law abiding citizens stop participating in grass roots promotion of music and events but the over-regulation of the industry will drive away small promoters and owners of smaller venues which provide such an important platform for new music; the cost implications the new licensing regime may even risk the continued survival of bigger events such as medium sized festivals, one off shows in parks and stately homes alongside a downward spiral and decline of pub, club and village hall events. This current government’s incessant regulatory tinkering and lack of shame in avoiding responsibility for the damaging side effects for its muddled legislation leads to the suggestion that those passing the laws are both incompetent and deceptive. It is also somewhat insulting to those who work hard to make the UK’s music industry the envy of the world. The lack of consultation over new legislation and the failure to take responsibility for the end results of statutes such as the Licensing Act, the Security Industry Act 2001 and the much debated Conduct of Employment Agency and Employment Business Regulations 2003 (see Law Updates February 2004) shows a lack of joined up thinking, an irresponsible attitude to a flagship UK industry and indeed does little to instil confidence in this government, the Department of Trade and the DCMS. One might hope that the Government now ‘takes a breather’ and refrains from any new legislation for a few years so the music, leisure and entertainment industries and their regulators can come to terms with the muddle caused by the new Acts.

‘Thinking before drinking, Government incompetence has complicated licensing liberalisation’ The Times 24 November 2005

Regulated to death: safety regulation in the live event industry (Challis, B)see ARTICLES

New UK Regulations for Booking Agencies and Entertainment Agents - The Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003 ( Challis B and FennP) see ARTICLES

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

After narrowly avoiding litigation with ‘mad fan’ Les Battersby whilst making guest star appearances in UK soap Coronation Street recently, Status Quo members Rick Parfitt and Francis Rossi faced court room reality when Chancellor Sir Andrew Morritt ruled that founding members, Alan Lancaster and John Coghlan had realistic prospects of success in several claims for past royalties. Parfitt and Rossi continue trading as Status Quo with replacement musician. The case continues and the trial will be heard at a later date. Simon Jacobs, Partner at Seddons said "It is most unusual for claims such as these to be successful which is why we are so pleased with the result”. Indeed the 1994 case involving Cure co-founder and drummer Laurence (Lol) Tolhurst is a good example of a claim for royalties from a departed band member. Tolhurst was asked to leave the band in 1989 and sued Robert Smith, the lead singer and the bands record label over the division of royalties from a recording agreement in1986. Tolhurst claimed he only had the ‘crumbs’ of the income from the recording agreement and that Smith had the lion’s share and was looking for 50% of all profits receivable under the 1986 agreement. Tolhurst failed in the claim after the court found that there was no partnership in place between Tolhurst and Smith regarding the 1986 agreement and that the two had come to a separate agreement regarding the division of income. However success in these cases is not unknown. In 1996 the former drummer of the Smiths, Mike Joyce, brought a claim against Morrissey, Johnny Marr and Smithdom Ltd. This resulted in a High Court victory for Joyce and former bassist Andy Rourke when the court held that Joyce and Rourke were each entitled to 25 per cent each of all income other than publishing income in respect of the band's activities when they were members.

For details on the position of managers see Martin-Smith v Williams (1997) in Music The Business (Ann Harrison, 2nd Ed, 2003, Virgin Books) where the court recognised the difficult position managers are put in when a band splits up or when band members force out one or more of their number (in this case Take That and Robbie Williams)

The more common dispute between band members is over songwriting credits and publishing royalties. The position on band members contributing to songwriting is set out in Hadley and Others v Kemp and Another (1999) EMLR 589 where it was held that a contribution by performers does not constitute original an contribution to the creation of the work (so the performer is not a co-author of the work with the songwriters[s]). However this may need revisiting in light of the recent decision by Patten J in Hyperion Records v Sawkins (2004) EWHC 1530 (Ch) which casts some doubt on this decision.

Mr Justice Patten held that copyright subsisted in the 'edition' version of a public domain work by 18th-century French composer Lalande ‘recreated’ by Dr Sawkins even though no significant changes were made to the melody (see Law Updates April 2005, June 2005 and August 2004 and see the articles at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2004/1530.htmland atsee the more general comments from a variety ofcommentators on what copyright should and shouldn’t protect in light of Hyperion at http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/news/story/0,11711,1673320,00.html. Also see Authorship of Popular Music Under UK Copyright Law by Lionel Bentley at http://www.oiprc.ox.ac.uk/EJWP1005.pdf. See Wood v Boosey (1868) LR 3 QB 33 and Redwood Music v Chappell (1982) RPC 109

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

COPYRIGHT, PRIVACY
Internet, record labels, technology
EFF Files Class Action Lawsuit Against Sony BMG: Company Should Repair Damage to Customers Caused by CD Software

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) along with two leading national class action law firms has filed a lawsuit against Sony BMG, demanding that the company repair the damage done by the First4Internet XCP and SunnComm MediaMax software it included on over 24 million music CDs. EFF say that they are pleased that Sony BMG has taken steps in acknowledging the security risks caused by the XCP CDs, including a recall of the infected discs. However, these measures still fall short of what the company needs to do to fix the problems caused to customers by XCP, and the EFF says that Sony BMG has failed entirely to respond to concerns about MediaMax, which affects over 20 million CDs - ten times the number of CDs as the XCP software. ”Sony BMG is to be commended for its acknowledgment of the serious security problems caused by its XCP software, but it needs to go further to regain the public's trust," said Corynne McSherry, EFF Staff Attorney. "It is unconscionable for Sony BMG to refuse to respond to the privacy and other problems created by the over 20 million CDs containing the SunnComm software."

The suit, filed in the Los Angeles County Superior court, alleges that the XCP and SunnComm technologies have been installed on the computers of millions of unsuspecting music customers when they used their CDs on machines running the Windows operating system. Researchers have shown that the XCP technology was designed to have many of the qualities of a "rootkit." The EFF allege that it was written with the intent of concealing its presence and operation from the owner of the computer, and once installed, it degrades the performance of the machine, opens new security vulnerabilities, and installs updates through an Internet connection to Sony BMG's servers. The EFF also suggest that the nature of a rootkit makes it extremely difficult to remove, often leaving reformatting the computer's hard drive as the only solution. When Sony BMG offered a program to uninstall the dangerous XCP software, researchers found that the installer itself opened even more security vulnerabilities in users' machines. Finally the EFF allege that Sony BMG has still refused to use its marketing prowess to widely publicize its recall program to reach the over 2 million XCP-infected customers, has failed to compensate users whose computers were affected and has not eliminated the outrageous terms found in its End User Licensing Agreement (EULA).

The MediaMax software installed on over 20 million CDs has different, but similarly troubling problems. It installs files on the users' computers even if they click "no" on the EULA, and it does not include a way to fully uninstall the program. The software transmits data about users to SunnComm through an Internet connection whenever purchasers listen to CDs, allowing the company to track listening habits - even though the EULA states that the software will not be used to collect personal information and SunnComm's website says "no information is ever collected about you or your computer." If users repeatedly requested an uninstaller for the MediaMax software, they were eventually provided one, but they first had to provide more personally identifying information. Worse, security researchers recently determined that SunnComm's uninstaller creates significant security risks for users, as the XCP uninstaller did.

"Music fans shouldn't have to install potentially dangerous, privacy intrusive software on their computers just to listen to the music they've legitimately purchased," said EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn. "Regular CDs have a proven track record - no one has been exposed to viruses or spyware by playing a regular audio CD on a computer. Why should legitimate customers be guinea pigs for Sony BMG's experiments?" "Consumers have a right to listen to the music they have purchased in private, without record companies spying on their listening habits with surreptitiously-installed programs," added EFF Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl, "Between the privacy invasions and computer security issues inherent in these technologies, companies should consider whether the damage done to consumer trust and their own public image is worth its scant protection." Both the XCP and MediaMax CDs include outrageous, anti-consumer terms in their "clickwrap" EULAs say the EFF. For example, if purchasers declare personal bankruptcy, the EULA requires them to delete any digital copies on their computers or portable music players. The same is true if a customer's house gets burglarized and his CDs stolen, since the EULA allows purchasers to keep copies only so long as they retain physical possession of the original CD. EFF is demanding that Sony BMG remove these unconscionable terms from its EULAs. The law firms of Green Welling, LLP, and Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman and Robbins, LLP, joined EFF in the case. Sony BMG is also facing at least six other class action lawsuits nationwide and an action by the Texas Attorney General. EFF looks forward to representing the voice of digital music fans in the resolution of these disputes between Sony BMG and consumers.

To add to this, New York Attorney General, Elliot Spitzer, is urging retailers to pull Sony BMG CDs from their shelves after an investigation found that, despite a product recall, there are still CDs for sale loaded with the much publicised 'rootkit' based copy-protection software. Meanwhile the District of Columbia is now suing Sony BMG over these CDs. Sony BMG has now announced that it will now "diligently re-evaluate" how it uses such DRM going forward – not surprising after the recall of an estimated 4.7M discs in the US but the avalanche of bad press and mounting consumer opposition over the past month will no doubt underscore its future anti-piracy strategies:

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

This is a link to an article in the LA Time by Michael Hiltzik about the continued pressure on the doctrine of ‘fair use’ in the USA as media companies seek new ways to protect their copyrights – from the Sony Betamax case to the current row over Google’s plans to publish ‘all the books in the world’.

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

They may well be illegal and infringe literary and musical copyrights – but – is the MPA wise to target unauthorized online lyric and music score sites? The Music Publishers' Association (MPA), which represents US sheet music companies, will launch its first campaign against such sites in 2006. MPA president Lauren Keiser said he wanted site owners to be fined and jailed. Mr Kaiser cited the Xerox machine as the first enemy of sheet music and now identifies the internet as a major enemy. But having seen the big successes and mistakes made by the RIAA in the USA one does wonder of this is quite the right approach! A good example of what not to do was the action by music publisher Warner Chappell against online lyric search engine pearLyric which initially forced pearLyric offline but ultimately ended up with an apology from Warners! The EFF reported that Walter Ritter, who developed the pearLyrics software that automates the process of adding lyrics to iTunes tracks, had received a cease & desist letter from Warner/Chappell Music: But the EFF to challenged Warner Chappell’s action. Warners claimed that Ritter was liable for copyright infringement, because he developed a tool that "enable[s] the reproduction and downloading" of song lyrics. But the EFF fired off a open letter in response, pointing out that while the software does not violate U.S. copyright law, if Warner Chappell went through with its threats, it could end up in its own legal trouble. Thankfully some sense entered the dispute and according to pearLyrics, the chairman and CEO of Warner Chappell called Mr Ritter to talk about the situation and the parties published a joint statement, saying they "were committed to working together to provide consumers a convenient, legal way to find accurate song lyrics" and Warner Chappell formally apologized for their actions. Lets hope the MPA don’t make the same mistakes again.

EFF’s open letter to Warner Chappell:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004246.php

pearLyrics: http://www.pearworks.com/pages/pearLyrics.html

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

PATENT LAW
Technology, internet
Singapore ’s Creative asserts its patent against Apple

Creative, the Singapore based electronics company has threatened to enforce its US patent against Apple - Creative says that the patent is a key part of Apple’s iPod software. Apple has 23 million iPods in the last year and Creative 8 million. Creative applied for a US patent in January 2001 and the patent was awarded in August 2005. The patent governs the mechanism for finding songs on a MP3 player. In a similar action, NTP which holds patents allegedly used in the hand held Blackberry device (which is a mobile phone come computer come e-mailer) has won an interim judgment in the US District Court ( Richmond, Virginia) against BlackBerry’s manufacturer Research In Motion (RIM). RIM had sought to delay the case and (willingly) enforce a $450 million (£260 million) settlement with NTP. NTP are seeking are new resolution including and injunctive relief against RIM to prevent the sale of BlackBerries.

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

A new report from the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School and research firm Gartner Inc. suggests that file swapping actually encourages music sales. The study surveyed 475 so-called ‘early adopters’ who are among the first wave of frequent music downloaders. The findings suggest the opportunity to give and receive recommendations could become an important force in the online music business. Nearly one-quarter of frequent online music users said that the ability to share music with others is a key factor when selecting an online music service; and a third were interested in technology that helps them discover and recommend music, such as tools that allow Internet users to publish and rank lists of their favorite songs. Perhaps most important for the recording industry, a tenth of those surveyed said they used others recommendations when buying music. The Chairman of the BPI wrote a number of open letters to national press in the UK pointing out that they would never encourage piracy.

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

HEALTH & SAFETY
Live events industry
SIA announces that 50,000 licences have been issued

The Security Industry Authority (SIA) is celebrating issuing over 50,000 security licences to the Private Security Industry. The 50,000th licence, a front-line Door Supervisor licence, was granted on Wednesday 9 November 2005. The SIA was launched on 2 April 2003 and now licences 6 sectors of the Private Security Industry with 2,000 training providers offer SIA approved security qualifications. Over 135,000 people hold security qualifications according to SIA figures and 70,000 individuals are part of the SIA licensing system. And Robin Dahlberg, Security Industry Authority (SIA) Deputy Chairman, has accepted the appointment of SIA Acting Chairman when current Chairman Peter Hermitage steps down at the end of January 2006. Home Office Minister Paul Goggins invited Robin to take over from Peter Hermitage on 1 February for around a six-month period. An open competition will be held early next year to appoint a permanent Chairman. Robin joined the SIA Board at the launch of the SIA in April 2003 and in January 2005 he became Deputy Chairman.

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

HEALTH & SAFETY
Live event industry
Danish court rejects claim of liability against the Roskilde Festival

A claim to apportion blame after the tragedy at the Roskilde Fetsival in 2000 has been rejected by the High Court for Eastern Denmark. The court rejected the request from Finn and Eunice Tonnenson, parents of 17 year old Allan Tonnesen, one of the nine young people who were killed during a Pearl Jam performance. Tonnesen's parents had claimed that the organisers of the Roskilde Festival had accepted responsibility for the tragedy by making an $11,000 payment to families. However the court ruled that effectively no one person or organisation was to blame. Two previous investigations by the local police and later the Public Prosecutor (District Attorney) for Zealand had concluded that the accident was the result of several unfortunate circumstances and no one was to be held responsible. The initial police investigation, based on 977 interviews with band members, organisers and rescue workers said that the deaths occurred because of "a chain of unfortunate circumstances", but placed most of the blame on the 50,000 crowd. It found that poor sound in the back caused fans to surge toward the stage and the tragedy was compounded by confusion over who should stop the music. It is understood that the Tonnesens are considering an appeal to the Supreme Court.

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

The IFPI has welcomed the move by the Federal Court of Australia to hear contempt of court charges against Kazaa, after its failure to follow the Court's order to filter its system of copyrighted recordings. The Court today fixed 30th January 2006 for the hearing of contempt charges against the operators of the Kazaa system. Contempt proceedings have been brought against Sharman CEO Nikki Hemming, Altnet CEO Kevin Bermeister, Sharman Networks, LEF Interactive, Altnet Inc and Brilliant Digital Entertainment Inc. The contempt charges have been brought by the recording companies alleging that the operators have failed to comply with Court orders. A finding of contempt of court could lead to imprisonment and confiscation of corporate assets. IFPI Chairman and CEO John Kennedy said: “After having said they would implement filters, they have done nothing to prevent the continued copyright infringements on the Kazaa system. They have left the recording industry with no option but to pursue contempt proceedings against them. In the meantime Kazaa should stop prevaricating and filter its system now as it has been ordered to do.” Justice Murray Wilcox set the date after hearing that the operators of Kazaa had not implemented music filters following the September 5th judgment which found them liable for copyright infringement. Instead of applying the music filters, the Kazaa operators posted a notice asking existing Australian users to stop using the system and moved to prevent new downloads of the software in Australia. Justice Wilcox today refused suggestions from the Sharman parties that he immediately disqualify himself from hearing the contempt charges. The court heard that both Hemming and Bermeister are out of Australia. In response to the judge’s inquiries it was confirmed that both are due back in the next two weeks and would be in Australia for the contempt hearing.

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

TRADE MARK
Artists
Canada : Wyrder And Weirder – Choosing And Protecting A Name
Article by Sharon E Groom of McMillan Binch Mendelsohn LLP

This article looks at protecting band names and uses the recent law suit by the Canadian band The Wyrd Sisters against Warner Bros. for the alleged use of their name The Wyrd Sisters as the name of a band in the new film Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. The real life band has been around for 15 years and is claiming that the publicity that has been generated by the use of their name in the film (even prior to the film’s release) has created an unwanted association between their band and the film. As a result, they claim that people are going to be confused between the real band and the fictitious movie band. In addition to damages, the group is seeking an injunction to delay the release of the movie in Canada pending the resolution of this matter. The article goes on to review how you should go about choosing and protecting a name, slogan or logo for your business or other venture, to ensure that you do not infringe the rights of others and that you have the best possible protection for your name

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

TRADE MARKS
Internet
Article India: A Case Study on Domain Name Disputes- Red Bull Acquires www.redbull.com
By Manisha Singh Nair, Lex Orbis

This article looks at the background to domain name disputes and the principles used in arbitration over disputed domain names, here to www.redbull.com.

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

CONTRACT
Record labels, artists
Apple Corp instigates proceedings against EMI for unpaid royalties

The Beatles' Apple Corps has issued proceedings against EMI for more than £30 million ($52.9 million) in a row over unpaid/underpaid record royalties dating back to 1962. London-based Apple Corps Ltd. launched the proceedings in the High Court on December 15 th in London and New York's Supreme Court against EMI Records and Capitol Records, respectively. In a statement from Apple Corps, the label says it took action following a breakdown in negotiations with EMI over the disputed royalties. The case arises from an audit of accounts where Apple claims to have discovered irregularities. EMI has responded saying that it welcomes "full financial transparency" and that such audit requests are common. EMI offered to go to mediation, but Apple rejected this. EMI and Apple were previously in court in 1991 over the planned re-release of the 'Red' and 'Blue' albums on CD. Apple Corps is currently in a legal dispute with Apple Computers over the 'Apple' trademark and its association with music in light of the launch of the iPod and iTunes Music Store (see the November Law Updates).

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

Online music downloads have been the digital success story of 2005, with the sector now accounting for five per cent of all music sales in the UK. AOL has now launched its ‘Play Legal’ campaign to educate young consumers on the advantages of legal downloading, to make people aware of the risks to themselves from file swapping and raise awareness of the potential damage to the music industry, artists and ultimately consumers from illegal file swapping. The campaign also hopes to encourage the legal use of copyright material on the internet. The importance of the campaign has been highlighted by a survey from Ipsos MORI on behalf of AOL which found that only 40 per cent of UK consumers say they understand the law in respect of music downloads. Findings from the survey reveal that file-sharing services which could provide illegal downloads and swaps such as Limewire and Kazaa are still more popular than legal download services. Limewire had been used by 27 per cent of those surveyed, while 20 per cent had used the leading legal service from Apple, iTunes. The survey also showed that 77 per cent of people who download music have used an illegal Web site at least once, that 53 per cent of people would not ban their children from downloading music illegally, that only 15 per cent of people said they had only used legal download services and just over half (51 per cent) said they had only used illegal download services. The Play Legal campaign already has support from music industry stakeholders, such as the IFPI (representing the recording industry worldwide), the BPI (British Phonographic Industry), British Music Rights and from labels such as EMI.

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

CONSUMER
Telecommunications
MBlox fined £40,000 over Crazy Frog ringtone advertising

The Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services (Icstis is the UK regulator for the premium rate telecoms sector) has fined service provider MBlox £40,000 over the Crazy Frog ringtone. Some 338 customers complained to Icstis over the 'excessive' bills they received when they signed up for the mad-eyed amphibian's phone-tone. On securing the tone, they then found themselves signed up to a series of premium-rate reverse charge texts from Jamba that cost them up to £5 a week. Icstis argued that insufficient information was included in the adverts although agreed that there was no malicious or fraudulent intent. The 338 people who formally complained will be refunded and it is expected that thousands of others will follow their lead and seek their money back. The ringtone has generated an estimated £10M for MBlox and Jamba and the single of the tone reached number one in the UK singles charts, stopping Coldplay reaching the top. Britons now send 93 million texts each day according to the Mobile Data Association.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4546374.stm

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

Draft legislation in France planned to provide the framework for a serious clampdown on file-sharing including jail sentences for sharers and requirements for software manufacturers to include anti-copying technology has been delayed. Wired reported that file-sharers could face three-year jail sentences and fines of up to E300,000 and noted that the legislation is intended to bring France up to date with the EU Copyright Directive although many in France are seeing the proposed rules as far exceeding the requirements of the Directive. However, a late amendment to the legislation at the end of December (December 22 nd) forced the French Government to suspend the passage of the new digital copyright bill. The French Government suspended its discussion on the country's controversial new digital copyright bill after an amendment, introduced by Member of Parliament Alain Suguenot from the ruling coalition UMP, was adopted by the French Lower House. The amendment opened the door to an "optional blanket license" system for content on the Internet.

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

COPYRIGHT
Internet, record labels, music publishers, artists
Article; Canada – IP year in Review - Copyright
By Antonio Turco Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP

A review of Canada’s busy copyright year where despite the failure of the legislature to bring in new statutory provisions (The Act to Amend the Copyright Act, Bill C-60) the Federal Court of Appeal made a landmark decision relating to online file swapping.

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

An interesting case review from India where the Delhi High Court decided that where the owner (not being the author) of a copyright work (here a bronze sculpture or mural) treats the work in a manner that is prejudicial to the reputation and honor of the author, the Court may transfer all rights over the work to the author - here granting physical possession of the mural back to the creating artist.

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

Intellectual Property Law Updates

January 2006