ratio decindi of sony

Having accepted that there is no such clear [legislatively intended] purpose, the court then had to choose between a broad interpretation of the provisions (favoured by Sony and the Full Court), and the narrow approach (favoured by the trial judge). The court has preferred a narrow approach.

Why? Because paracopyright, the court appears to be saying, is extraordinary and that is a reason to interpret these laws narrowly.

Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ make this point when they specifically state, as one of their three reasons for taking the narrow view, that 'it is important to avoid an overbroad construction which would extend the copyright monopoly by including ... devices which prevent the carrying out of conduct which does not infringe copyright and is not otherwise unlawful.'

Kirby J goes even further, citing several reasons for preferring a narrow approach that emphasise the really extraordinary nature of 'uber copyright'. Kirby J takes into account that:

Sony's interpretation would give Sony 'a de facto control over access to copyrighted works or matierals that would permit the achievement of economic ends additional to, but different from, those ordinarily protected by copyright law' (ie, market segmentation through region-coding);

Sony's interpretation would lead to a position in law which 'clearly impinges on what would otherwise be the legal rights of the owner of a Sony CD ROM and PlayStation console to copy the same for limtied purposes and to use and modify the same for legitimate reasons, as in teh pursuit of that person's ordinary rights as the owner of chattels'. A person who purchases a Sony CD Rom in Japan or the US 'should ... be entitled to copy teh CD ROM and modify the console in such a way as to enjoy his or her lawfully acquired property without inhibition';

a broad interpretation here would 'chill ... technological development' by chilling new technologies to protect copyright owners.

-- via Weatherall's Law licensed under her Creative Commons Licence.

This is all good stuff. I'm kinda proud because I've written about Sony vs Stevens before and I absolutely *hated* the Federal Courts decision and while I think Sackville's decision at first instance has problems, it highlight a lot of key issues. The High Court has made a strong stand that they won't protect the use of TPM devices to create trading monopolies beyond that of copyright. This Is a Good Thing - especially in the current debate surrounding the FTA implementations in the Copyright Act.

I just have to get around to scanning my law thesis (which was on DRM and the evolution fo copyright) and putting it online, because I spent a long time going through these issues.

Judgment in Stevens v Sony on Australian paracopyright laws

Well, the High Court has pronounced. And the Full Federal Court has been overturned - unanimously, as it turns out. All three of the judgments have concluded that a narrower approach to construing the meaning of 'technological protection measure' should be preferred.

The upshot is that the technical measures used by Sony on their PlayStation games, which prevent disks without the proper 'code' from being played in PlayStation machines, are not 'technological protection measures' within the meaning of the Australian Act; and hence selling devices to 'circumvent' the Sony measures was not a breach of s 116A of the Australian Act. In short, the High Court have reinstated Justice Sackville's interpretation of 'TPM' from his decision at first instance:

'A 'technological protection measure', as defined, must be a device or product which utilises technological means to deny a person access to a copyright work [or other subject-matter], or which limits a person's capacity to make copies of a work [or other subject matter] to which access has been gained, and thereby 'physically' prevents or inhibits the person from undertaking acts which, if carried out, would or might infringe copyright in the work [or other subject matter]'

On this definition, Sony's device is not a TPM, because all it does is prevent infringing copies from being played in Sony PlayStation devices - the effect on infringement is deterrent, rather than to 'physically' prevent infringement.

[snip]

-- via Weatherall's Law

FUCKING A! This is a good decision.

I praised the decision of Sackville in my article on the Economics of Piracy two years ago, and I'm glad the High Court has recognised it. Yay.

TAKE THAT COPYRIGHT INDUSTRIES! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA.

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - "Friday Night Lights" director Peter Berg has signed on to write and produce an adaptation of "The Losers." He may also direct the Warner Bros. project, which is based on a gritty comic book.

-- via Reuters

Neat. The Losers is currently one of my fave comic books. While its mostly a classic action-espionage book it has enough politics and intelligence to make it a helluva fun ide.

Friday Night Lights was also pretty good, imnsho, so I'm looking forward to this.

Also read the comments by Andy Diggle (the writer) on his blog.

Losers also comes to its predetermined end with issue #32. As this is a book I've been following via TP (I don't like floppies also that much - eek heathen), that means that it'll be two more volumes . Yay :)