p2pnet - rss feed: Access Copyright’s newest blunder
p2pnet news | Off Topic:- Access Copyright, creator of the ludicrous Captain Copyright, has done it again.
This time it’s suing Staples/The Business Depot for copyright infringement, says the Canadian Press.
It describes itself as, “meeting the needs of businesses, educators, governments and other organizations across Canada with our innovative copyright licensing solutions” and now it’s claiming $10 million in damages, “over unauthorized photocopying by store customers,” says the story.
Now that’s innovative!
Companies that profit from illegal photocopying “are undermining the work of others,” CP has Maureen Cavan, executive director of Access Copyright, sating.
“Staples/Business Depot is no different from those organizations that profit from illegally downloading copyright protected music or the unauthorized sharing of videos and published works on the Internet,” she says.
“Despite repeated attempts by Access Copyright to reach a settlement and come to an amicable resolution, Staples/Business Depot has made no perceivable changes to their business practices.”
No doubt it’ll next be going after libraries and mom’n'pop stores offering photocopying.
Stay tuned.
Also See:
Canadian Press - Access Copyright sues Staples/Business Depot for copyright infringement, November 15, 2007
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for the download, and here for details. Click here or here to learn how to by-pass censorship in your area.
November 16th, 2007 at 9:19 am
Quoting from paragraph 43 of the CCH Supreme Court Judgment:
“First, there was no evidence that the photocopiers had been used in a manner that was not consistent with copyright law. As noted, a person does not authorize copyright infringement by authorizing the mere use of equipment (such as photocopiers) that could be used to infringe copyright. In fact, courts should presume that a person who authorizes an activity does so only so far as it is in accordance with the law. Although the Court of Appeal assumed that the photocopiers were being used to infringe copyright, I think it is equally plausible that the patrons using the machines were doing so in a lawful manner. ”
How is Access Copyright going to prove that Staples authorized copyright infringement merely by making available photocopiers?
November 16th, 2007 at 9:20 am
That’s fuckin’ ridiculous. Next they’ll be trying to sue internet cafe’s, libraries, schools, and every other do-it-yourself copyshop. First of all, their claims are unjustified. Nobody can be held responsible for the actions of their customers. Even if they were, it would be impossible to control such actions, save for a store member standing over the customer’s shoulder to make sure he/she doesn’t copy more than a few consecutive pages.
Secondly, what proof do these idiots have? Have they actually seen someone walk into a store and make and copy an entire novel? These are nothing but unfounded speculations, based on their insane theory that no restrictions = chaos. Captain Copyright should take that finger and shove it up his arse.
November 16th, 2007 at 10:56 am
“Have they actually seen someone walk into a store and make and copy an entire novel?” Think how much this will cost! its almost cheaper to buy the book.
Next Access Copyright will sue Access Copyright for running a web server which could be hacked and have copyrighted info uploaded to it.
November 16th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
>No doubt it’ll next be going after libraries and mom’n’pop stores offering photocopying.
Nearly every post office has a photocopier, I wonder why they didn’t extort the government first ?
Oh yea
November 17th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Libraries in the U.S. that qualify as Section 108 libraries are shielded under 17 USC 108(f) which reads:
(f) Nothing in this section—
(1) shall be construed to impose liability for copyright infringement upon a library or archives or its employees for the unsupervised use of reproducing equipment located on its premises: Provided, That such equipment displays a notice that the making of a copy may be subject to the copyright law;
See http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/108.html
That’s why you’ll always see a notice by library photocopiers saying that use of the equipment is subject to U.S. copyright law.
November 17th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
As a Canadian writer who is an affiliate of AccessCopyright I thank the organization for licensing my work with libraries, schools, governments, businesses — you name it — and collecting payments on my behalf. The payment is less than our monthly grocery bill. But when you’re a freelancer, a mother of teens, a volunteer, every little bit helps.
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:56 am
I enjoy reading your posts, keep them coming