Comments on: Pro-Music? http://www.lexferenda.com/04022008/pro-music/ daithí mac síthigh, university of east anglia, norwich, england Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:08:35 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Lex Ferenda » BILETA 2008 : More on regulation from Rowland and Stalla-Bourdillon http://www.lexferenda.com/04022008/pro-music/comment-page-1/#comment-4606 Lex Ferenda » BILETA 2008 : More on regulation from Rowland and Stalla-Bourdillon Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:39:41 +0000 http://www.lexferenda.com/04022008/pro-music/#comment-4606 [...] Diane Rowland (Aberystwyth) spoke about the Promusicae case (see here), noting that it deals with five directives and 20 specific Articles and raises many more questions [...] [...] Diane Rowland (Aberystwyth) spoke about the Promusicae case (see here), noting that it deals with five directives and 20 specific Articles and raises many more questions [...]

]]> By: Lex Ferenda » The Record Companies vs The ISP - in Ireland! http://www.lexferenda.com/04022008/pro-music/comment-page-1/#comment-4448 Lex Ferenda » The Record Companies vs The ISP - in Ireland! Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:47:07 +0000 http://www.lexferenda.com/04022008/pro-music/#comment-4448 [...] with the Directive. What do you think? I’m reaching this conclusion independently of the Promusicae case (where the difficult question of disclosure of subscriber data in connection with IP law was [...] [...] with the Directive. What do you think? I’m reaching this conclusion independently of the Promusicae case (where the difficult question of disclosure of subscriber data in connection with IP law was [...]

]]> By: Lex Ferenda » Disconnected rights http://www.lexferenda.com/04022008/pro-music/comment-page-1/#comment-4243 Lex Ferenda » Disconnected rights Mon, 18 Feb 2008 23:06:47 +0000 http://www.lexferenda.com/04022008/pro-music/#comment-4243 [...] should see a rights-based analysis. For example, the ECJ’s decision in the Promusicae case (discussed here) shows how the rights of copyright holders are not the only things on the cards, and that privacy [...] [...] should see a rights-based analysis. For example, the ECJ’s decision in the Promusicae case (discussed here) shows how the rights of copyright holders are not the only things on the cards, and that privacy [...]

]]> By: Daithí http://www.lexferenda.com/04022008/pro-music/comment-page-1/#comment-4154 Daithí Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:15:57 +0000 http://www.lexferenda.com/04022008/pro-music/#comment-4154 Updated the post. It's also interesting (although not entirely a surprise) to compare Motley Fool with last week's California case (<a href="http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/H030767.PDF" rel="nofollow">Krinsky</a> (PDF)). Good luck with all the writing ;) Updated the post. It’s also interesting (although not entirely a surprise) to compare Motley Fool with last week’s California case (Krinsky (PDF)).

Good luck with all the writing ;)

]]> By: Lilian http://www.lexferenda.com/04022008/pro-music/comment-page-1/#comment-4151 Lilian Mon, 11 Feb 2008 01:35:47 +0000 http://www.lexferenda.com/04022008/pro-music/#comment-4151 I've added a comment on this too http://blogscript.blogspot.com/2008/02/promusicae-in-ecj.html - in the UK of course we have the very unsatisfactory Totalise v Motley Fool decision (the less read costs decision no 2 in T v M is actually more interesting.) I’ve added a comment on this too http://blogscript.blogspot.com/2008/02/promusicae-in-ecj.html – in the UK of course we have the very unsatisfactory Totalise v Motley Fool decision (the less read costs decision no 2 in T v M is actually more interesting.)

]]> By: Daithí http://www.lexferenda.com/04022008/pro-music/comment-page-1/#comment-4077 Daithí Mon, 04 Feb 2008 13:19:36 +0000 http://www.lexferenda.com/04022008/pro-music/#comment-4077 Morning (or evening), Nic. Thanks for the link. Another take on it was the BMG cases in Canada (<a href="http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2004/2004fc488/2004fc488.html" rel="nofollow">first instance</a> and <a href="http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2005/2005fca193/2005fca193.html" rel="nofollow">appeal</a>, where the motions for disclosure of identity were denied (and von Finklestein, the first instance judge, wouldn't even accept that there was an actual breach of copyright, a still-controversial finding). Privacy was a major factor there, too. Morning (or evening), Nic. Thanks for the link. Another take on it was the BMG cases in Canada (first instance and appeal, where the motions for disclosure of identity were denied (and von Finklestein, the first instance judge, wouldn’t even accept that there was an actual breach of copyright, a still-controversial finding). Privacy was a major factor there, too.

]]> By: Nic Suzor http://www.lexferenda.com/04022008/pro-music/comment-page-1/#comment-4076 Nic Suzor Mon, 04 Feb 2008 13:09:36 +0000 http://www.lexferenda.com/04022008/pro-music/#comment-4076 Hi Daithi - in Australia, we went through some of this at the Federal Court level at the time of the Kazaa case a couple of years ago. I have an article criticisng the willingness of the Australian Federal Court to grant Anton Piller orders without really considering the threshold tests: http://nic.suzor.com/articles/privacy_v_ip_litigation_2004_25ABR227.pdf Hi Daithi – in Australia, we went through some of this at the Federal Court level at the time of the Kazaa case a couple of years ago. I have an article criticisng the willingness of the Australian Federal Court to grant Anton Piller orders without really considering the threshold tests: http://nic.suzor.com/articles/privacy_v_ip_litigation_2004_25ABR227.pdf

]]>