p2p news / p2pnet: Last September Judge Wilcox of Australia’s Federal Court made a landmark ruling protecting Kazaa from closure. That ruling is being appealed by the Australian recording industry and the Kazaa parties. The appeal will be heard in the near future by Australia’s Federal Court.

In the meantime, the record companies are still determined to cross examine Kazaa’s Nikki Hemming over Sharman’s assets, and the record companies have brought contempt of court proceedings against Sharman, et al.

Recently, the record companies and Kazaa wenrt back court but, far from standing room only, there was plenty of space to stretch out.

Maybe the journalists who’d followed the case had been told it was resuming on Bondi Beach ——– between the flags.

Below are the latest instalments from the Australian Federal Court in which the not normally reticent Big Four record label cartel is strangely quiet >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Of light-hearted moments …..
By the Wizard of Oz – p2pnet

Sydney Federal Court – January 25, 2006

In a significant departure from their usual strategy, the Australian recording industry failed to issue a press release, or make statements, about losing the opportunity to cross examine Sharman Networks’ Nikki Hemming in February.

On January 25, judge Moore of Australia’s Federal Court ruled the cross-examination of Hemming on her Mareva affidavit of April 4, 2005, which had been scheduled for February 3, 2006, would be postponed until March 2, 2006. That date was selected because it was after the one slated for the hearing in which both the record companies and Sharman were appealing the Federal Court’s earlier decision.

The date was imposed on the record companies, despite their fierce objections.

Ordinarily, the Australian recording industry would fully ‘brief’ journalists, crowing about its performance of the day. But this time, they forgot.

Surely it was merely a lapse of memory and not embarrassment about losing another point before the Federal Court?

The postponement itself wasn’t unusual in court proceedings. What was unusual was the record companies’ shyness.

In the two years since the Kazaa case commenced, the Big Four recored labels have lost no opportunity to prosecute it in the media as aggressively as possible.

Sydney Federal Court – January 30, 2006

But on January 30, their dream of global domination took a serious battering.

Record company lawyers turned up at the Federal Court of Australia to force their contempt allegation before Judge Murray Wilcox. However, he was having none of it.

After claiming for years that a judgement in Australia would have global implications, the Federal Court gave the Big Four a lesson in the limitations of courts and their jurisdiction.

In what was one of the few light-hearted moments on the day, discussion was held about copyright infringers in the Congo and the likelihood that the record company lawyer, Mr Bannon, would have to go after each infringer. One by one.

His Honour: "I understand your client’s commercial position, but in the end the court’s powers can’t arise above users in Australia, and order 4 (made in September by Judge Wilcox) and the declaration were carefully framed to include that limitation, which seemed to me to be inevitable. So it really doesn’t help you to say, ‘Well, in the meantime the ball is rolling and they’re getting more and more subscribers in the Congo.’

"It may well be right, but so what?"

And in terms of consumers downloading and purchasing gold files, "if they’re outside Australia, if they’re subscribers in the Congo, they’re entitled to do all of that."

Despite fierce objections from the record companies, it looks like their allegations will go to the full bench of the Federal Court.

At one point, Wilcox said, "You basically don’t trust the Full Court."

"We don’t," replied Mr Bannon.

Wilcox then said, "You’re treating them like a jury who must not be told things that everybody knows and the view has always been taken, rightly or wrongly and arrogantly or not, the judges are better able to compartmentalise information than jurors are. But basically what you’re saying is that the judges shouldn’t be allowed to see this material, lest it affect their determination on the basis of the evidence given at trial. Now, I happen to have a rather more flattering view of my three colleagues than you do."

The record company victory over p2p in Australia seems to be falling apart. Not only did the labels lose two thirds of the case they’d pleaded in the main case – that’s right, their media guy forgot to mention that too – but they’ve now also lost two applications in a row before the Federal Court.

On top of that, the media person also forgot to mention the judge made a costs order against the record companies, which means that they have to pay Sharman’s costs for at least part of last week’s hearing.

Another Kazaa case first.

Maybe that’s why the Big Four don’t trust the Federal Court anymore.

Rumours that record companies and their lawyers have started watching Jungle Jim movies to prepare for the next round of copyright cases haven’t been confirmed. And there’s no truth to the rumour that IFPI execs have been seen buying desert boots.

Stay tuned: it’s just starting to get interesting.

This entry was posted on Monday, February 6th, 2006 at 4:02 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

HOME

Viewed 2888 times