Netflix lawsuit dismissed
The class action lawsuit against Netflix was recently dismissed in a California court. According to a Hollywood Reporter article, the lawsuit claims Netflix had an illegal arrangement with Wal-Mart regarding DVD rentals, and that the agreement lead to antitrust actions by Netflix, resulting in higher prices for its DVD rental members. The suit alleges that when Netflix and Wal-Mart signed this agreement, and when Amazon did not enter the DVD rental business and Blockbuster went bust, the moving of Wal-Mart DVD customers to Netflix was an illegal move to raise Netflix prices and was intentional from the beginning.
In the decision by the judge, it was stated that Wal-Mart was an independent party and its decision to pull out of the DVD rental business was an independent move, not a collusive effort by Wal-Mart and Netflix in order to gouge customers.
This is most interesting, as it seems to be more of a frivolous lawsuit than a real issue. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that the plaintiffs were sure that this agreement was illegal and a concerted effort by these two companies to turn DVD rentals into a monopoly for Netflix. The fact that the other DVD rental companies have gone under or gotten out of the business seems to be a coincidence. The DVD rental industry has been in flux for some time now, and it is impacting many media companies and retailers, not just the DVD rental companies. For some consumers to think this was collusion seems rather ludicrous. This decision supports the notion that the industry has been, and is in, a real state of change and adapting – this is mandatory for any business wanting to stay alive.
If a monkey takes a picture with a camera, who owns the rights? That is a very good question, and one that was recently addressed by the US and British Copyright laws. According to the law, any image created by a non-human is immediately in the public domain, which causes some problems for Cater’s News Agency, whose photographer apparently lost control of his camera temporarily only to find images on the camera that he had not taken. The agency claims the right to control the images, but the law says otherwise.
This is hilarious! A monkey grabs an abandoned camera and snaps a self-portrait or two. It would seem the photo, taken with the photographer’s camera, would belong to the photographer. But according to both British and US law, this is not so – and the funny business ensues. So, the monkey actually owns the rights, so the photographer – technically – cannot sell or license the images to anyone, not even himself. This had been addressed in theoretical discussions about a stranger taken a photo of you with your own camera, but no one really gave it much thought since it was unlikely the stranger would pursue the rights. But this is very unique, especially since the photo is so darn funny! And in perfect focus, too!
This brings up some other points: what about the photos taken by robots? Or those activated by motion sensors or other devices? I’ve not read the law, but based on this story, one might think there could be other, similar issues.
The Stop Online Piracy Act threatens Internet
Bill H.R. 3261 first emerged October 26th, and has caused some controversy. It’s goal is to counter the actions of web sites located outside the United States which are involved in several things, such as the sale of fake prescription drugs and the piracy of entertainment content. HR 3261 has a companion bill that was introduced earlier in the year, the PROTECT bill (Preventing Real Online Threats of Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act), and it, too, has stirred up quite the storm, as more than a hundred law professors from around the country have sent letters to the Senate arguing against the issues raised by these bills.
Concerns include the over-breadth of the bills, as imposing penalties, which can include taking a site down, if there is any content that is an infringement of copyright law – regardless of source or who posted it. Another concern is the vagueness of the bills regarding this infringing material: the term used that is in question is “facilitates” in conjunction with this infringing material. So, if the site facilitates the infringement of illegal copyrighted material, the site can be in violation of the law. But nowhere in the bill is a definition of “facilitates” provided. This generates tons of questions regarding this vagueness, and the potential for a lot of problems for many websites.
This is a very interesting situation, as the distributors of creativity and the creators of creativity are pitted against each other at a time when they can only truly survive with the existence of the other in a kind of symbiotic way. One would think there would be a way for these two to work together on a solution without the intervention of the legislature, but apparently that isn’t the case – yet. There must be something done about piracy, yet having such stringent and vague laws that open up the potential for even more litigation against legitimate businesses doesn’t sound like a viable option. Hopefully common sense will reign supreme, but as Will Rogers said, “The problem with common sense is, it ain’t common!”
No comments:
Post a Comment