text to text

A Coalition of music industry bodies, including the MCPRS Alliance and the Association of Independent Music, is lobbying to have intellectual property law amended to allow Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to be sued for allowing illegal file-sharing on their networks. Commentators have said that their efforts are misguided and commercially impractical. Currently, ISPs are not required to police the content of their networks much in the same way that telephone companies are not liable for obscene calls.

The problem arises because file-sharing is the primary reason for an increasing number of users using broadband, and is responsible for much of the bandwidth that ISPs sell to their customers. If file-sharing was outlawed, ISPs would lose a substantial proportion of their revenue. The crucial point is that trying to police content used by millions of customers would be difficult and very expensive.

Up until now, the music industry has tried to combat file-sharing by pursuing individual users who share vast libraries of copyright material. File-sharing is only illegal when it is copyright material being shared. Recently, the British Phonographic Industry tried to convince two ISPs ?Tiscali and Cable & Wireless ?to suspend the accounts of 59 users, but without success.

It should also be noted that under the Data Protection Act ISPs are prevented from disclosing to a third party the names of users without their permission or an order from the court. This means that a copyright owner will usually only be able to identify offenders by an IP address. If a copyright owner wants to sue an offender, they have to first force the ISP to disclose the name of the offender who operates from the specific IP address. There is a precedent derived from the 1970s Norwich Pharmacal case which could be applicable in these circumstances. The precedent states that it is permissible for A (who may be a copyright owner) to sue B (who may be wholly innocent ISP) in order to force B to identify wrongdoer C (who may be a file-sharer). This precedent has successfully been relied on in online defamation cases, and can potentially be used to identify particularly active file-sharers.

There have also been suggestions that ISPs could become licensed music providers. However, this also seems commercially impractical. Firstly it is not part of an ISPs core business and secondly, ISPs working with the music industry to try to agree licensing fees has proved impossible to date.

Comment: As far as the law is concerned, it would be far better for the music industry to recognise that technology has improved to a point where a change in music distribution is now necessary. They should be looking to exploit the internet rather than policing it ?a fledgling example of this being Apples i-Tunes. If it is possible to download properly licensed, good quality versions (perhaps with bundled extras? for an affordable fee, illegal file-sharing may become less attractive.

Please contact us for more information on music copyright at enquiries@rtcoopers.com

Visit http://www.rtcoopersiplaw.com or http://www.rtcoopers.com/practice_intellectualproperty.php

RT COOPERS, 2006. This Briefing Note does not provide a comprehensive or complete statement of the law relating to the issues discussed nor does it constitute legal advice. It is intended only to highlight general issues. Specialist legal advice should always be sought in relation to particular circumstances.

Intellectual property law firm advising on patents, Patent attorneys, Patent Lawyers, Copyright, Internet law, Trademark infringement, trademark searches, know-how, trade marks, trademarks, copyright law, IP lawyers, IP law Firm, IP valuations IP solicitors freedom to operate copyright lawyers, patent solicitors, branding,intellectual property lawyers, intellectual property solicitors, intellectual property licensing, copyright infringement. Visit http://www.rtcoopersiplaw.com and http://www.rtcoopers.com/practice_intellectualproperty.php