AI companies want copyright exemptions – for NZ creatives, the market is their best protection — “If fair dealing applied to AI models, copyright owners would basically become unwilling donors of AI firms’ seed capital. They wouldn’t even get a tax deduction! … Licensing offers hope that the economic benefits of AI technologies can be shared better. In New Zealand, it can help with appropriate use of Māori content in ways uncontrolled data scraping and copying don’t.”
When Tech Giants Cry Wolf: A Flawed Case Against Judicial Site Blocking — “Today, at least 55 countries employ some form of site blocking for copyright infringement, and the internet continues to thrive. The number of global internet users has more than doubled since 2010. Internet speeds are more than 11 times faster. And legal options to enjoy creative works have proliferated, with over 870 video streaming services globally. Moreover, a mountain of peer-reviewed evidence demonstrates that judicial site blocking is highly effective, reducing traffic to blocked sites by 80-90% while increasing legal consumption. Site blocking works and makes the internet stronger and safer for us all.”
The 18th-century legal case that changed the face of music copyright law — “With these words, the ‘musical work’ was legally born. Lord Mansfield certified that music was protected by the copyright act, dispelling previous doubt on the matter and ensuring that Bach would be remembered not only for his compositions but also for changing how the law views the art of music.”
Music labels, Internet Archive settle record-streaming copyright case — “The labels’ 2023 lawsuit said that the project functioned as an ‘illegal record store’ for more than 4,000 songs by musicians including Frank Sinatra, Ella Fitzgerald, Miles Davis and Billie Holiday. The Archive denied the allegations and said the project was protected by the copyright doctrine of fair use.”
The upcoming Mio/konektra judgment: What the CJEU should decide regarding the copyright infringement test — “In this post, I will revisit the AG’s approach to the second issue above – that is: the infringement test – and try to articulate why the CJEU should NOT ‘depart’ from the approach established in yet another seminal decision (Infopaq). The Court should confirm that the copyright infringement test is based on originality, not – as proposed by the AG – the recognizability of what has been copied.”