Is This The End Of The Copycat Era?

By Lewis Round
It is currently estimated that approximately 7.5 million people worldwide are engaging in illegal file-sharing, with 95% of all music files exchanged online being unlicensed and unpaid for. Media files are shared between internet users through file-sharing software, such as Kazaa and Limewire, which can be easily downloaded. The rise of file-sharing online has caused enormous losses to the music industry in particular, with an estimated £1.2 billion being lost last year. In light of this, it is no surprise that Parliament have sought to tackle the huge global problem of online copyright infringement.

By definition, the internet is a worldwide phenomenon, which is constantly used by billions of people every day. The global nature of the internet and online file-sharing has made it particularly difficult for Parliament to prevent online copyright infringement. The Digital Economy Act 2010 (DEA) received Royal Assent on 8th April 2010 and has now been passed in an attempt to solve this problem. Since its introduction, the Act has caused much debate.

The DEA has imposed a degree of responsibility on Internet Service Providers (ISPs), who are now obliged to monitor the online activities of internet users. If an ISP catches an internet user file-sharing, they must issue them with a warning. ISPs are also obliged to provide lists of copyright infringers to the copyright holders.

However, by far the most controversial aspect of the DEA is that it permits the court to order an injunction, effectively cutting off an individual's internet connection. Under the Act, internet connections can be blocked at "a location on the internet which the court is satisfied has been, is being or is likely to be used for or in connection with an activity that infringes copyright". In deciding whether to grant an injunction, the court takes into account amongst other things whether the injunction would be likely to have a disproportionate effect on any person's legitimate interests and the importance of freedom of expression.

Some have argued that access to the internet is a fundamental human right that should not be interfered with. Also, it could have adverse effects on innocent parties who have their internet access blocked by virtue of another's illegal act. For example, withdrawing internet connection to an entire internet cafe because one user is found to be file-sharing. On the other hand, others argue it is the only way to put a stop to the ever-increasing and long-lasting problem of online copyright infringement.

The introduction of the DEA is a symbolic landmark for record labels, as it will both: (i) help deter further illegal file-sharing; and (ii) assist them to sue those that continue to infringe copyright. Previously, it has been difficult for record companies to sue file-sharers as they have not been able to identify who is actually responsible. However, legal action has become a realistic prospect as under the Act, as ISPs have a duty to provide lists of copyright infringers to infringers copyright holders. This now helps enable record companies across the world to bring action against those exploiting the internet.

The vast majority of legal disputes that do occur between record companies and copyright infringers tend to settle out of court. However, those seeking to defend their innocence should be weary in light of the relatively recent US case of Record Industry Association of America -v- Thomas 2007. The Defendant could have settled out of court for around $4,000, but instead opted to fight the case. At trial, the court found that the Defendant to have illegally downloaded 24 songs and ordered that she pay $9,250 per song to the Claimant. She was therefore liable to the Claimant for a total of $222,000! A controversial aspect of the case was that the Defendant was found liable despite the Claimant failing to prove that the songs on her computer had actually been transmitted to others online. Rather, the act of merely making them available to copy was enough to hold her liable.

If you wish to take action against copyright infringers, it is necessary seek legal advice from an Intellectual Property Law specialist. The radical changes the DEA has introduced could well be the beginning of the end for a long era of bootlegging in the digital age.