425

CLSR Briefing

* GGeenneessyyss CCoonnffeerreenncciinngg llaauunncchheessccoonnffeerreenncciinngg sseerrvviiccee ddeeddiiccaatteedd ttoo lleeggaallsseeccttoorr.. Genesys Conferencing, a spe-cialist provider of audio and video con-ferencing solutions, has announced anew addition to its portfolio of man-aged audio conferencing services witha facility specifically designed to meetthe demands of the legal sector.The ser-vice is delivered by the company’s in-house staff who have been trained inthe necessary procedures required.Specialist coordinators will manage allaspects of the conference, from reserva-tion, conference initiation, recordingthe conference and invoicing of theclient after the event.The new serviceis in line with Lord Woolf’s access tojustice reforms which recommendsthat solicitors and courts should use aconference call where appropriate.Commenting, Andy Pearce, ExecutiveVice-President, Europe, for GenesysConferencing, said: “With time beingsuch a critical factor in the already busyschedule of modern legal practices, it isvital for firms to be able to conductlegal conference calls efficiently andeffectively. This service provides thisfacility and cuts out the need for solici-tors, judges and clients to travel, provid-ing them with convenience and pieceof mind in a cost-efficient manner.

FFuurrtthheerr iinnffoorrmmaattiioonn ffrroomm GGeenneessyyssCCoonnffeerreenncciinngg aatt tteell:: ++4444 ((00))2200 8822888844662222..

UNITED STATES

Music copyright disputerumbles on

UMG Recordings Inc et al. vMP3.com Inc.

The continuing copyright disputebetween the record companies andInternet start-ups offering access tomusic on the Web has continued withthe decision by US District Judge Jed S.Rakoff on 23 August 2000 thatMP3.com Inc. should pay damagesapproaching US$120 million toUniversal Music Group for infringing itsmusic copyrights.

The judge had partially ruled inUMG’s favour back in April but hadreserved the issue of damages. In his lat-est ruling, Judge Rakoff has orderedMP3.com to pay the plaintiffs US$25

000 for each case of infringement.Thecase arose when MP3.com launched adatabase containing a digital copy ofmore than 80 000 CD-ROMs.The com-pany made these accessible to any userwho could demonstrate that he or shehad purchased that CD by placing it inthe hard drive of their computer andallowing MP3.com to read it. In a fivepage judgment, Judge Rakoff com-ments: “There is no escape from thefinding that the defendant willfullyinfringed the plaintiffs’ copyright …Some of the evidence in this casestrongly suggests that some companiesoperating in the area of the Internetmay have a misconception that,because their technology is somewhatnovel, they are somehow immune fromthe ordinary applications of laws of theUnited States, including copyright law… They need to understand law’sdomain knows no such limits.”Commenting, Michael Robertson,Chairman and Chief Executive ofMP3.com, said: “We believe that every-one should have the right to listen tothe music they purchase, even it it’s onthe Internet … While we respect thecourt, we disagree with the court’sdecision and we look forward to takingour case to the court of appeals.”

A & M Records v Napster Inc.

Meanwhile, in the other litigation in thearea, the US Justice Department, in asso-ciation with the US Copyright Officeand US Patent and Trademark Officehave filed an amicus curiae (friend ofthe court) brief supporting the actionby the recording industry againstNapster Inc., whose online serviceenabled users to exchange MP3 musicfiles stored on their own computer sys-tems to other users seeking access tothose files. Napster had denied that itsusers were engaged in infringement orthat its own actions may be liable forcontributory or vicarious infringement.Napster argued, inter alia, that theactivities of its users were protected bySection 1008 of the Audio HomeRecording Act of 1992 which disallowsactions for copyright infringement,based on the manufacture, importationor distribution “of the specified record-ing devices and recording media”, oractions “based on the non-commercialuse by a consumer of such a devise ormedium for making digital music

recordings or analogue music record-ings”.This defence was rejected by thedistrict court in July when it describedSection 1008 as “irrelevant to theinstant action” because the plaintiffswere not seeking relief under that Act.In general terms the plaintiffs werearguing that the consumers who useNapster’s service to exchange soundfiles containing copyrighted musicalrecordings were engaged in copyrightinfringement and that Napster shouldbe liable for contributory and vicariousinfringement.

The Justice Department et al. briefargues that to allow Napster to shelterbehind Section 1008 would defeat thestatutory objective of the Act whichwas intended by Congress to embody acompromize between the music indus-try on the one hand the consumer elec-tronics industry and consumers groupson the other. At the heart of that com-promize was a quid pro quo that: “inexchange for allowing non-commercialuse of digital audio recording technolo-gy (Section 1008), the music industryreceives financial compensation(Section 1003/1007) and protectionagainst serial copying (Section 1002).Permitting Napster to shelter itselfbehind Section 1008 would defeat thisbasic statutory quid pro quo: Napster’susers would be permitted to engage indigital copying and public distributionof copyrighted works on a scale beg-garing anything Congress could haveimagined when it enacted the Act, yetthe music industry would receive noth-ing in return because the productsused by Napster and its users (comput-ers and hard drives) are unquestionablynot subject to the Act’s royalty and seri-al copying provision.”The case contin-ues, with the initial appeal hearingscheduled for later in the year.

Internet and data interception capabilitiesdeveloped by FBI under fireThe Electronic Privacy InformationCenter (EPIC) has asked a federal judgeto order the immediate public disclo-sure of information concerning theFBI’s ‘Carnivore’ surveillance system. Inan application submitted to US DistrictJudge James Robertson, EPIC chargesthat the Department of Justice and theFBI have violated the law by failing to