The enforcement of copyright is never easy, particularly in today's world where access to infringing files, streaming websites and other means is almost as easy as simply searching for today's news. As infringers and suppliers of infringing materials become more and more sophisticated and clever, rightsholders have to pursue a wide array of cases of infringement. While direct infringement is often very easily determined, the facilitation of infringement by third-parties is always a tricky question (discussed more on this blog here and here). The Canadian Court of Appeal had to recently discuss this point in a very interesting decision.
The case of Bell Canada v Adam Lackman concerned the sharing of software add-ons on the website "TVAddons", operated by Mr Lackman. The KODI media player is an open source piece of software that enables the play of various types of multimedia. Various types of infringing content can be accessed using the media player when certain add-ons are added to it, which allow it to access and stream content hosted on the Internet; many of which were shared on the TVAddons website. Another piece of software was shared on the site called "FreeTelly", a modified version of KODI that allows a user to access infringing materials, and instructions on the installation and use of add-ons. Bell Canada objected to the potentially infringing materials shared on the website shared on the website and sued Mr Lackman for copyright infringement.
The case concerned an Anton Pillar order (discussed in more depth here), and whether the judge at first instance erred in their judgment on the order's standards' application to the facts at hand. The appellant argued that the court had mischaracterised their activities as infringing (when only a small number of add-ons were infringing), and therefore misapplied section 2.4 of the Canadian Copyright Act that deals with communication to the public.
The Court agreed that the judge at first instance had mischaracterised the activities of Mr Lackman (and TVAddons), and that they misunderstood the nature of their activities. Only 16 of 22 'Features' add-ons were tested, which doesn't even scratch the surface when over 1,500 add-ons are provided on the site. Similarly, the appellant's website, calling it a 'mini Google', when the provision of add-ons simply facilitated a quicker, more direct form of infringement by avoiding adds and providing easy access to links.
Having misunderstood the above, the judge had therefore also misapplied the law in relation to communication to the public. The Court considered that Mr Lackman, contrary to the decision at first instance, had communicated the works to the public, as "…the respondent’s website is not content neutral as it targets copyrighted content" by providing access to add-ons that are designed to provide unauthorized access to motion pictures and on-demand and/or live television programming. Having these add-ons, according to the Court, is akin to "…providing embedded links or automatically precipitating a path to copyrighted content". The same applies to programs that either aid in the installation of add-ons, or have pre-installed add-ons already to do the same.
In the light of the above the Court determined that the operation of the site clearly would not fall under the mere conduit exemption, but facilitates access to infringing materials. The site's branding also clearly encourages and highlights the site's purpose for the infringement of copyright through the add-ons, which additionally demonstrates clear knowledge by Mr Lackman of the hosted material.
The Court drew a parallel to the sale of pre-loaded set-top boxes in Bell Canada v iTVBox.net that allowed the user to access, for free, copyright protected content online. What is interested is that the ultimate source for the add-ons for the set-top boxes was TVAddons. As with the set-top boxes, the site would not be acting as a mere conduit, but a facilitator for the infringement of Bell Canada's rights.
Ultimately the Court did conclude that the judge at first instance erred in their decision and that Bell Canada would have a strong prima facie case for copyright infringement. Following the determination of likely copyright infringement, the Court also issued an injunction against TVAddons.
While the case's main focus was not the legal argumentation around copyright infringement, it still sets an interesting, a continuing precedent, where the Canadian courts are very likely to prevent the sharing of content online that facilitates infringement. This clearly now includes both hardware and software.
Source: Barry Sookman
Showing posts with label player. Show all posts
Showing posts with label player. Show all posts
27 March, 2018
02 May, 2017
Press Pause - Sale of Multimedia Players to Facilitate Copyright Infringement is a Communication to the Public
The question of what amounts to a 'communication to the public' under EU law has been debated and adjudicated on fiercely in the last couple of years (discussed more here, here, here, here and here) with very little or no end in sight in the near future. Every decision seems to make an ultimate determination more and more elusive, and this writer for one thinks that the matter will never be decided. Even so, the Court of Justice of the EU has been busy yet again, and a recent decision discussing the sale of devices that aid the infringement of copyright was awaited keenly by many. After some time, the CJEU finally rendered its verdict last week.
The case of Stichting Brein v Jack Wullems dealt with the sale of a multimedia player (Filmspieler) that came pre-loaded with applications and open-source software that allowed you to access pay-for content online for free using your own TV. The Filmspieler was sold on a variety of websites, including Mr Wullems' own website. Stichting Brein found out about the sale of the Filmspieler, and requested that Mr Wullems stop selling the device, which he refused to do. Stichting Brein then took the matter to court, which ultimately ended up in the CJEU, where Stichting Brein asked four questions from the Court.
The first and second questions were dealt with together by the CJEU, which asked in essence "...whether the concept of ‘communication to the public’, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of [the InfoSoc Directive], must be interpreted as covering the sale of a multimedia player… on which there are pre-installed add-ons, available on the internet, containing hyperlinks to websites… on which copyright-protected works have been made available to the public without the consent of the right holders".
What 'communication to the public' entails requires a certain set of criteria to be fulfilled, namely an ‘act of communication’ of a work and the communication of that work to a ‘public’. Whether there has been an act of communication requires a more flexible approach where certain complementary criteria, taken holistically, are applied to the act. A particular focus is on whether, in making the act of communication, in full knowledge of the consequences, intervenes to give access to a protected work to a customer, and without their intervention, the customer would not have had access to the work in question.
A 'public' is defined as an indeterminate number of potential viewers, but implies a fairly large number of people viewing the work. The works have to, however, be communicated to a 'new public' or via new means that were not used in its prior communication. Finally, whether the communication makes a profit or not is not a wholly irrelevant criterion in this determination.
The Court therefore had to assess whether the sale of a multimedia player, as described above, would amount to a 'communication to the public'.
While the InfoSoc Directive does expressly exclude the provision of physical facilities enabling or making a communication to the public, the Court determined that this didn't in itself limit it from the sale of such devices. The CJEU focussed on the pre-installation of the applications allowing for the infringing activities, which, according to the Court: "...enable[ed] a direct link to be established between websites broadcasting counterfeit works and purchasers of the multimedia player, without which the purchasers would find it difficult to benefit from those protected works", separating it from the mere provision of physical facilities for doing so.
Through this the CJEU considered that "...the provision of a multimedia player such as that at issue in the main proceedings enables, in view of the add-ons pre-installed on it, access via structured menus to links that those add-ons which, when activated by the remote control of that multimedia player, offer its users direct access to protected works without the consent of the copyright holders and must be regarded as an act of communication". Clearly the Court distinguishes between the provision of a device that would have the capability of utilizing such applications, and the pre-installation of those applications on the same device, where the proactive step of installation puts it beyond the 'mere provision of physical facilities' under the Directive.
Whether the act of communication had been done to a 'public' still remained, and the Court decided that, as the Filmspieler had been purchased by a large amount of people, and continued to be available for further purchases, and clearly the communication was therefore aimed at an indeterminate number of people amounting to a 'public' under the Directive. The Filmspieler made the protected works also available to a 'new' public, as the material accessed was not freely available online for all to view, and the Filmspieler made it available to a 'new' public beyond the contemplation of the rightsholder when the works were published. Mr Wullems knew, or ought to have known, that the hyperlinks posted provided access to works illegally placed online. Finally, if the posting of the hyperlinks is done seeking gain or profit, it is expected that the poster would check the links for legality, presuming that any illegal hyperlinks would have been included within the full knowledge of the poster. Mr Wullems sought profit through the sale of the multimedia player, and thus, his sale of the Filmspieler amounted to a communication to the public.
The CJEU was then faced with two questions, which dealt with the streaming of content, but the questions themselves were only treated as hypotheticals and didn't directly apply to the case at hand. The questions asked "...whether the provisions of Article 5(1) and (5) of [the InfoSoc] Directive… must be interpreted as meaning that acts of temporary reproduction, on an multimedia player such as that at issue in the main proceedings, of a copyright protected work obtained by streaming from a website belonging to a third party offering that work without the consent of the copyright holder satisfies the conditions set out in those provisions". The Article in question provides that, in essence, any temporary reproductions that are transient or incidental (e.g. streaming) are exempt from the rights afforded in the Directive in Article 2.
For Article 5 to apply, certain conditions need to be fulfilled, namely: the act is temporary; it is transient or incidental; it is an integral and essential part of a technological process; the sole purpose of that process is to enable a transmission in a network between third parties by an intermediary or a lawful use of a work or protected subject matter; and that act does not have any independent economic significance. All of the conditions are cumulative, and need to be fulfilled for the exemption to apply. Additionally, the use under the exemption cannot conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and prejudice the interests of the author.
The key aim of Article 5 is therefore to protect innocent conduits between two parties or entities, such as the ISP, not causing liability for transient copying of works for the facilitation of services between other parties.
The Court ultimately saw that "...temporary acts of reproduction, on a multimedia player such as that at issue in the main proceedings, of copyright-protected works obtained from streaming websites belonging to third parties offering those works without the consent of the copyright holders are such as to adversely affect the normal exploitation of those works and causes unreasonable prejudice to the legitimate interests of the right holder, because... that practice would usually result in a diminution of lawful transactions relating to the protected works, which would cause unreasonable prejudice to copyright holders". Due to the prejudice to the legitimate interests of the rightsholders through the streaming of content through the Filmspieler, the temporary copies made for the purpose of streaming would not be exempt by Article 5.
The decision in the case is clearly a positive one for rightsholders, particularly trying to combat the sale of multimedia devices such as in the case. What remains key in the case is the provision of physical facilities (in itself not infringing) in addition to facilitating copyright infringement can turn the provision of physical facilities into an infringing act. One would have to therefore be careful about the content and usability of devices that have the capability of infringing copyright, particularly with pre-installed software. While the case does not settle things once and for all, it remains an important step in the progression of the definition of a 'communication to the public' under the Directive.
Source: IPKat
The case of Stichting Brein v Jack Wullems dealt with the sale of a multimedia player (Filmspieler) that came pre-loaded with applications and open-source software that allowed you to access pay-for content online for free using your own TV. The Filmspieler was sold on a variety of websites, including Mr Wullems' own website. Stichting Brein found out about the sale of the Filmspieler, and requested that Mr Wullems stop selling the device, which he refused to do. Stichting Brein then took the matter to court, which ultimately ended up in the CJEU, where Stichting Brein asked four questions from the Court.
The first and second questions were dealt with together by the CJEU, which asked in essence "...whether the concept of ‘communication to the public’, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of [the InfoSoc Directive], must be interpreted as covering the sale of a multimedia player… on which there are pre-installed add-ons, available on the internet, containing hyperlinks to websites… on which copyright-protected works have been made available to the public without the consent of the right holders".
What 'communication to the public' entails requires a certain set of criteria to be fulfilled, namely an ‘act of communication’ of a work and the communication of that work to a ‘public’. Whether there has been an act of communication requires a more flexible approach where certain complementary criteria, taken holistically, are applied to the act. A particular focus is on whether, in making the act of communication, in full knowledge of the consequences, intervenes to give access to a protected work to a customer, and without their intervention, the customer would not have had access to the work in question.
A 'public' is defined as an indeterminate number of potential viewers, but implies a fairly large number of people viewing the work. The works have to, however, be communicated to a 'new public' or via new means that were not used in its prior communication. Finally, whether the communication makes a profit or not is not a wholly irrelevant criterion in this determination.
The Court therefore had to assess whether the sale of a multimedia player, as described above, would amount to a 'communication to the public'.
 |
| Dave was too lazy to care about his Filmspieler no longer working |
Through this the CJEU considered that "...the provision of a multimedia player such as that at issue in the main proceedings enables, in view of the add-ons pre-installed on it, access via structured menus to links that those add-ons which, when activated by the remote control of that multimedia player, offer its users direct access to protected works without the consent of the copyright holders and must be regarded as an act of communication". Clearly the Court distinguishes between the provision of a device that would have the capability of utilizing such applications, and the pre-installation of those applications on the same device, where the proactive step of installation puts it beyond the 'mere provision of physical facilities' under the Directive.
Whether the act of communication had been done to a 'public' still remained, and the Court decided that, as the Filmspieler had been purchased by a large amount of people, and continued to be available for further purchases, and clearly the communication was therefore aimed at an indeterminate number of people amounting to a 'public' under the Directive. The Filmspieler made the protected works also available to a 'new' public, as the material accessed was not freely available online for all to view, and the Filmspieler made it available to a 'new' public beyond the contemplation of the rightsholder when the works were published. Mr Wullems knew, or ought to have known, that the hyperlinks posted provided access to works illegally placed online. Finally, if the posting of the hyperlinks is done seeking gain or profit, it is expected that the poster would check the links for legality, presuming that any illegal hyperlinks would have been included within the full knowledge of the poster. Mr Wullems sought profit through the sale of the multimedia player, and thus, his sale of the Filmspieler amounted to a communication to the public.
The CJEU was then faced with two questions, which dealt with the streaming of content, but the questions themselves were only treated as hypotheticals and didn't directly apply to the case at hand. The questions asked "...whether the provisions of Article 5(1) and (5) of [the InfoSoc] Directive… must be interpreted as meaning that acts of temporary reproduction, on an multimedia player such as that at issue in the main proceedings, of a copyright protected work obtained by streaming from a website belonging to a third party offering that work without the consent of the copyright holder satisfies the conditions set out in those provisions". The Article in question provides that, in essence, any temporary reproductions that are transient or incidental (e.g. streaming) are exempt from the rights afforded in the Directive in Article 2.
For Article 5 to apply, certain conditions need to be fulfilled, namely: the act is temporary; it is transient or incidental; it is an integral and essential part of a technological process; the sole purpose of that process is to enable a transmission in a network between third parties by an intermediary or a lawful use of a work or protected subject matter; and that act does not have any independent economic significance. All of the conditions are cumulative, and need to be fulfilled for the exemption to apply. Additionally, the use under the exemption cannot conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and prejudice the interests of the author.
The key aim of Article 5 is therefore to protect innocent conduits between two parties or entities, such as the ISP, not causing liability for transient copying of works for the facilitation of services between other parties.
The Court ultimately saw that "...temporary acts of reproduction, on a multimedia player such as that at issue in the main proceedings, of copyright-protected works obtained from streaming websites belonging to third parties offering those works without the consent of the copyright holders are such as to adversely affect the normal exploitation of those works and causes unreasonable prejudice to the legitimate interests of the right holder, because... that practice would usually result in a diminution of lawful transactions relating to the protected works, which would cause unreasonable prejudice to copyright holders". Due to the prejudice to the legitimate interests of the rightsholders through the streaming of content through the Filmspieler, the temporary copies made for the purpose of streaming would not be exempt by Article 5.
The decision in the case is clearly a positive one for rightsholders, particularly trying to combat the sale of multimedia devices such as in the case. What remains key in the case is the provision of physical facilities (in itself not infringing) in addition to facilitating copyright infringement can turn the provision of physical facilities into an infringing act. One would have to therefore be careful about the content and usability of devices that have the capability of infringing copyright, particularly with pre-installed software. While the case does not settle things once and for all, it remains an important step in the progression of the definition of a 'communication to the public' under the Directive.
Source: IPKat
16 September, 2015
Retrospective - Incidental Inclusion of Copyright Protected Material
Not all infringement is necessarily wilful or intended, whether it is accidentally sharing a copyright protected image to a wider audience when it was intended to be shared to simply a small audience (albeit still, arguably, infringing copyright) or including works in your own that were not duly licensed as a matter of omission. As such the law does exclude liability for potential accidental inclusion, protecting those who have not intended to infringe copyright, but nevertheless have done so. How the law protects those who've incidentally included material in their works has been unclear due to the ambiguity of the provision in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, but more clarity was shed on the provision in the early 2000s by the Court of Appeal.
The case dealing with incidental inclusion was Football Association Premier League Ltd & Ors v Panini UK Ltd, which dealt with collectible football stickers; a staple in many persons' youths (although this writer was more of the ice hockey disposition). Panini sold stickers, along with an album that you could collect them into, within the UK. The sticker collection comprised of nearly 400 football players from the English Premier League and other leagues, and the images used in the stickers contained the player wearing their respective club shirt. In many pictures the clubs' logos are fully visible, also sometimes including the Premier League logo on the sleeve of the football shirt. After a licence was issued to Topps Europe Limited (a tendering process that Panini was involved with) they created a similar sticker collection and accompanying album, and the Premier League too Panini to court for copyright infringement in relation to the club logos and the Premier League logo.
The main focus of the case was on whether Panini's inclusion of the logos in their stickers was copyright infringement, or whether it was protected under section 31 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. The provision allows for a finding of non-infringement in the event of a work's "...incidental inclusion in an artistic work, sound recording, film or broadcast"; however, what exactly amounted to an 'incidental' inclusion was uncertain.
Lord Justice Chadwick saw that the determination of whether a work does or does not infringe copyright has to be made "...considering the circumstances in which the relevant artistic work... was created". The circumstances would involve the relevant artist's mindset and potential reasons for the inclusion of a potentially infringing work in their work, as well as both commercial and aesthetic reasons for its inclusion. Emphasis is placed on the why, which undoubtedly will take into account any inclusions that are done merely feigning an incidental inclusion, when the true reason was to benefit from its inclusion.
In concluding the case Lord Justice Chadwick saw that, as the reason for the inclusion of the relevant club shirt was to make the images, and therefore the stickers, the most attractive to a would-be collector, it would be important for the shirts to be authentic and contain all logos. Due to this their inclusion could not have been purely incidental, as the objective of the images was to display the logos, although not prominently, but visibly enough for an informed collector to note them. His promptly then dismissed the appeal by Panini.
As can be seen incidental inclusion is by no means a straightforward assessment using bright line rules, but involves a more nuanced, objective assessment of a potentially infringing work's inclusion. Should the Premier League logo just have been present in an on-field advertising board in the background, or on a truck outside, arguably its inclusion would have been incidental. The reason why they were in the image was to give an aura of legitimacy, value and to effectively identify each player, team and league in the sticker set. Incidental inclusion doesn't come up often in IP, and this writer would love to see it applied in an Internet context somehow.
The case dealing with incidental inclusion was Football Association Premier League Ltd & Ors v Panini UK Ltd, which dealt with collectible football stickers; a staple in many persons' youths (although this writer was more of the ice hockey disposition). Panini sold stickers, along with an album that you could collect them into, within the UK. The sticker collection comprised of nearly 400 football players from the English Premier League and other leagues, and the images used in the stickers contained the player wearing their respective club shirt. In many pictures the clubs' logos are fully visible, also sometimes including the Premier League logo on the sleeve of the football shirt. After a licence was issued to Topps Europe Limited (a tendering process that Panini was involved with) they created a similar sticker collection and accompanying album, and the Premier League too Panini to court for copyright infringement in relation to the club logos and the Premier League logo.
The main focus of the case was on whether Panini's inclusion of the logos in their stickers was copyright infringement, or whether it was protected under section 31 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. The provision allows for a finding of non-infringement in the event of a work's "...incidental inclusion in an artistic work, sound recording, film or broadcast"; however, what exactly amounted to an 'incidental' inclusion was uncertain.
 |
| Several draft stickers were rejected for good reason |
In concluding the case Lord Justice Chadwick saw that, as the reason for the inclusion of the relevant club shirt was to make the images, and therefore the stickers, the most attractive to a would-be collector, it would be important for the shirts to be authentic and contain all logos. Due to this their inclusion could not have been purely incidental, as the objective of the images was to display the logos, although not prominently, but visibly enough for an informed collector to note them. His promptly then dismissed the appeal by Panini.
As can be seen incidental inclusion is by no means a straightforward assessment using bright line rules, but involves a more nuanced, objective assessment of a potentially infringing work's inclusion. Should the Premier League logo just have been present in an on-field advertising board in the background, or on a truck outside, arguably its inclusion would have been incidental. The reason why they were in the image was to give an aura of legitimacy, value and to effectively identify each player, team and league in the sticker set. Incidental inclusion doesn't come up often in IP, and this writer would love to see it applied in an Internet context somehow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)