Archive for July, 2008

MORE ON THE RIAA: a comment

July 21, 2008

it is very clear from rcent news that both the RIAA and the MPAA feel that they are not only above the law, but well fiounded and long standing judicial principles, such as burden of proof and burden of producing evidence should not be applied to their lawsuit for alleged copyright infringement.  In addition, via some of their wishes about the ACTA treaty it is clear that they also want to violate human rights, namely privacy.  Whther the right of privacy is explicitly stated in the US constitution is irrelevant, the bill of rights is not a list of rights given to the people by the US government but a list of certin rights made clear.  In addition, California in its state constituion guarantees its citizens the right of privacy.

 
So, it’s copyright infringement lawsuits without bound vs. american jurisprudence and the federal rules of civil procedure.
 
The courts are alredy ovrbudened, with the RIAA monoploizing court calendars across he nation, it can only get worse.
 
 
 
 
 

PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS
Brian Lee Corber
attorney at law
Los Angeles, California

Advertisements

stop infringement; destroy judicial system and privacy

July 20, 2008

I Don’t Believe in Imaginary Property brings us an analysis of several organizations’ goals for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which we’ve discussed previously. In particular, he points out the anti-privacy views of the Business Software Alliance: “While the ACTA itself is not public, the US Trade Representative has at least released the ACTA comments. While many of them are to be expected, such as the RIAA & co. wanting copyright filters, one item on the BSA’s wish list really stands out: ‘In a number of European countries one of the biggest impediments to efforts by rights holder to enforce their IP rights on the Internet is the overbroad interpretation of privacy laws by some European authorities.’ They want ACTA to ‘fix’ that by neutering the privacy laws. Given the BSA’s other questionable activities, it couldn’t hurt to tell their member companies what you think of their participation. After all, organizations like the BSA exist in part to shield their members from bad PR.” Full documents of comments from the various organizations are available at Public Knowledge.

LISTENING TO MUSIC IN THE U.K.

July 16, 2008

The Performing Right Society (PRS) is writing to thousands of small businesses to make them aware of the consequences of, and possible legal action that could result from, breaking copyright law by playing music without a licence from PRS.

The law ensures that the UK’s 60,000 songwriters and composers that PRS represents – who are small businesses themselves – receive royalties for the use of their work.

PRS aims to ensure that all businesses that play music in public – for example, to customers or employees – understand that permission to do so is needed from the writers and composers of that music.

Keith Gilbert, Managing Director, PRS Public Performance Sales, says: “PRS is a vital source of income to the creators of music, 90% of whom earn less than £5,000 a year in royalties. We are writing to businesses to raise awareness of the value of music to their business and of the need to buy a PRS Music Licence which reimburses those who created that music.

“Around 300,000 organisations are acting within the law and already have a PRS Music Licence. But, often unknowingly, many thousands more are not, and we want those companies to be aware that they need to adhere to UK copyright law and to buy a PRS Music Licence.”

A PRS Music Licence costs from £66 a year. It gives any premises permission to play over 10 million pieces of music – from pop to classical and every style and genre in between – in all formats including radio, TV, CD, MP3 and telephone ‘on-hold’ systems. PRS Music Licences are tailored according to the size of business and the way in which music is being played.

Businesses can call 0800 068 48 28 for advice on when they need a PRS music licence or visit www.prs.co.uk