IP Review – 17th September

It’s Monday again, so here’s a brief few bits and pieces about what’s been happening last week in the IP world.
Australian Digital Alliance released two interesting reports written and researched by leading consultancy Lateral Economics, both discussing copyright and the economic contribution to Australia of industries relying on limitations and exceptions to copyright. You can take a look at the reports’ findings here, one of the major conclusions being that an Australian copyright reform would bring a potential $600m annual economic boost.
EU Commissioner Neelie Kroes held a great speech on innovation in the creative industries and the need for copyright reform that you can read here. Although the speech has been warmly welcomed by the media and public opinion, there is still an urgent need for actual changes and measures. Following the speech, we’ve wondered what is going to happen with the Digital Economy Act in the UK and whether the revisions from Brussels are going to be taken into account.
On another note, an unexpected ruling in the Netherlands has generated a lot of negative buzz in the media, as the judge decided that one of the most popular websites in the country which linked to content which was ‘leaked’ is guilty of breach of copyright as well as breach of privacy. If linking can mean a breach of copyright and privacy, then this could potentially have a great impact on online journalism.
Another pretty amazing piracy case concluded with a Minnesota woman being ordered to pay $222,000 for 24 illegally downloaded tunes, this meaning $9,250 per song.  The Federal Court’s decision handed therefore the music industry a victory in a case stretching past its sixth year.

The French Hadopi anti-piracy system appears to be rather unsuccessful, as the first person fined with £150 is a man whose ex-wife downloaded an illegal Rihanna song, using his internet connection.
Google and YouTube copyright infringement system fails once more as well, as the recording of a pianist playing a piece by Mozart has been taken down mistakenly on copyright grounds.  
Interestingly enough, in another piracy case, US District Court held that a person owes no duty in securing their wireless network to a copyright holder whose works are illegally downloaded over the network. Read more

To get daily IP news, please follow us @KLipcorp