Laurence Kaye on Digital Media Law

Copyright exceptions - beware the law of unintended consequences

Dear reader

You'll recall that Professor Hargreaves' Review recommended two areas for change - copyright licensing and copyright exceptions. On licensing, there are the proposed schemes for orphan works licensing  and  extended collective licensing (ECL), the framework for which is in the Enterprise & Regulatory Reform Act 2013.  This isn't likely to be before 2014. The Govermnent  has published a FactSheet here.

But the process of overhauling copyright exceptions in the UK's Copyright, Designs & Patents Act, which started with implementation of the EC Copyright Directive of 2000, temporarily gathered - then lost - momentum with the 2006 Gowers Review, re-started with the 2011 Hargreaves Review is now once again on the move. On June 7, the IPO published the first pieces of draft secondary legislation for technical review until July 17 - not long!. They deal with exceptions for private copying, parody, quotation and public administration. The draft legislation can be found here. Draft legislation for  the remaining exceptions will follow shortly.

In 'Modernising Copyright', its response to the Hargreaves Review, the Government accepted Hargreaves' proposals to update copyright exceptions in nine areas - private copying, education, quotation, text and data mining, parody, research and private study, disabilities, preservation and public administration and reporting.

Whilst updating certain copyright exceptions may make sense, the devil is in the detail. What makes the stakes so high is that the 'digital shift' means a move from the sale of physical product, including creative content on fixed digital media like DVSs, to the grant of a licence. There is no exchange of physical goods in a streamed or rental service. So great care has to to be taken to avoid the law of unintended consequences with copyright exceptions because they remove the need for a licence to do the things they cover. 

I've got the following immediate reactions to the drafts.

My first comment arises from the piecemeal publication of the draft legislation. It's clear that the Government wants to avoid a 'domino' effect i.e. if the Government published all the changes in a single statutory instrument, all of them could fall if the consultation shows that they got the drafting wrong on just one. So they're dealing with each exception on a case by case basis, each with their own statutory instrument. That approach is understandable. But that makes the consultation really difficult if they're not all published at the same time. For instance, to get the full picture, I want to have the proposed changes for research and private study, quotation text and data mining and parody 'side by side' so that I can see their combined effect.

My second comment relates to the issue of 'contract override'. The proposed exceptions for parody, private copying and quotations all contain a provision which would make unenforceable any provision in a contract which purported to prevent or restrict the doing of something which is permitted under the exception. On the face of it, it is a reasonable proposition to say that if a particular use of a copyright work is permitted under an exception, a term in a contract (e.g. between a content provider and a user), should not be able to take away from the consumer what the law has said that he or she may lawfully do.

But beware the law of unintended consequences. Take the proposed new exception which will allow use of a quotation from a work providing (amongst other conditions) it is 'fair dealing'. This exception is not a binary "yes it's ok" "no it isn't" choice. Fair dealing imports tests about the extent of use that's been made, whether it's for a rival or competitive purpose and about proportionality. So a contract term won't be written to say "you - the user - can't use quotations" but it is likely to set out what the provider regards as reasonable and what is not. So this 'contract override' does not create contractual certainty. If anything, it muddies the water. And does it really give the user/consumer added protection? I'm not sure that it does. I think the practical solution, which is one that I think industry shares, is to develop the right licensing solutions which accomodate exceptions i.e. are 'exceptions +'. So I'm not convinced on this change.

My third point relates to 'lawful copies'. The notion that the exercise of copyright exceptions applies only to copies etc. of works which are lawful copies is sometimes expressly referred to in existing UK copyright law and otherwise may be implied. So  the proposed exceptions for private copying and quotation, although not parody for some reason, both introduce the notion of 'lawful'. So the private copying exception allows the consumer for non-commercial purposes to make a further copy for their private use provided it was "lawfully acquired". The proposed exception for quotation only applies to works already "lawfully" made available to the public.

However, as the recent referal to the European Court of Justice by the UK Supreme Court in the Meltwater case showed - see my blog post here - there is still legal uncertainty about what constitutes a legal copy in the online world. That is deeply troubling if we're about to introduce further exceptions and needs urgent clarification.

Copyright exceptions may need to reflect the realities of digital life. But the devil is in the detail. In a world in which our creative industries are one of the few in which we are world leaders, and where increasingly the transaction between provider and consumer is a licence not a sale of goods, the stakes are high here. We cannot afford to rush the process of amending the law. If we do, and make mistakes along the way, in the long run the losers will be consumers and users as well as creators and distributors. The only ones laughing will be those in whose interests it is to have a weakened UK copyright framework.

Have a good week.

Laurie Kaye

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bruce Willis - 'Die Hard' but where's the digital legacy?

Dear reader

The Sun asked me to comment on the story so if you're interested, you can find the article in the newspaper here (on page 8!), although the headline about saluting Bruce wasn't mine but, hey, who's arguing with Bruce?

There's also a piece on the subject published today in our website which you can find here.

Have a good week,

Laurie Kaye

Digital Copyright Exchange - What's the big idea?

Dear reader

In the incredibly unlikely event you missed it, I thought I'd post my OpEd piece on the Digital Copyright Exchange which appeared in the Bookseller this week. Bottom line: will the DCE live up to its promise or be a digital white elephant? Richard Hooper, who is leading the  feasibility study on the DCE, has just closed his consultation. So watch out for next steps.

Anyway, here's my piece:

The Big Idea

The big idea of the Hargreaves Review on Intellectual Property is to create a “Digital Copyright Exchange” (DCE) to solve problems around copyright licensing in the digital age, and to make the UK a world leader in licensing creative content. It is a great idea. The publishing industry has welcomed the proposal, and the DCE Feasibility Study being led by Richard Hooper.

We’re all familiar with delays and transaction costs in clearing rights in existing works―especially in the context of new digital services―and the problems that can arise in locating the owner of works. So although there isn’t a “one size fits all” solution across all the creative industries, there is a consensus that automating the ways in which copyright works are located and cleared―and permissions for use communicated to users―is essential in the 21st century.

But there are two big issues that need to be resolved before the digital diggers can start building the DCE. The first is the scope and design of the DCE. The second is the government’s role and regulatory response. If these are handled correctly, the DCE could well live up to its promise. If not, we’ll have a digital white elephant.

Scope and design

A fully functioning market of digital rights has three elements: (1) the “metadata registries” which manage and deliver data about the management or ownership of rights; (2) the “exchanges”, the virtual marketplaces where digital rights transactions takes place; and (3) the “standardised communication” layer, the unseen “technical glue” that enables “machine-to-machine” communication to take place between these registries and exchanges, which facilitates these transactions across the internet. This is the vision that the Linked Content Coalition wants to see realised.

It’s vital to recognise that there will be no single exchange or registry. Registries are being created across different industry sectors on a national or transnational basis by individual rights holders and organisations. Exchanges will be created by service providers, collective management companies and others.

Great design is about clarity of vision as much as about deciding what to omit as to include. That is what is essential to the DCE. The government agrees with Hargreaves that the DCE should not be a state-funded and operated entity. It has neither the skills nor money to do that. The DCE needs to be a cross-industry entity that ensures that the standardised communication layer is built. This means encouraging the development of standards that, like the web itself, enable registries and exchanges to exchange messages and data in an automated, seamless way.

Two pointers

The DCE proposal is part of Hargreaves’ recommendations about which the government is consulting. There are many others, including extensions to copyright exceptions. I hope the government will bear two things in mind.

First, the DCE should be based on voluntary participation. Rights holders should not be compelled to use the DCE as a quid pro quo for being able to enforce their rights. Second, digital content services are built on licensing. So while it’s right that copyright exceptions may, in certain cases, need updating, care must to be taken to ensure that over-broad exceptions do not undermine the need for licences for commercial uses.

Digital creative industries are the third most important export sector. The DCE, implemented in the right way, can play a really valuable role in delivering economic and cultural benefit for creators, consumers and the creative industries. Let’s engage with the DCE constructively, and critically, to make sure it delivers on its promise.

 Have a great week

Laurie Kaye

Laurence Kaye vs Laurence Kaye: the pirate and the lawyer in conversation

Dear reader

Happy New Year! I hope that the weight of your 'Inbox' hasn't made entry into 2012 too painful.

It's one of life's little ironies that the Chairman of the UK Pirate Party (aka Loz Kaye) and I share exactly the same name. Name sharing v. file sharing!

Olivia Solon of 'Wired' magazine recently interviewed Loz and me on a range of digital media law issues. You can find the piece published today in 'Wired' here.

Although we disagreed a quite a few issues (e.g. Digital Economy Act), we also had a lot in common, especially our recognition of the role that the creative industries can play in getting UK plc out of the current economic mess.

I hope you enjoy the read. If you want any more detail on any of the points discussed, just let me know.

Have a good week.

Laurie Kaye

London Book Fair - 'e-books: the hot legal issues'

Dear Reader,

As promised, here are my slides from the seminar I chaired on Wednesday at the London Book Fair on 'e-books: the hot legal issues'.

Have a great and hopefully sunny weekend.

Laurie Kaye

London Book Fair - "e-books: the hot legal issues"

Dear Reader,

This is a bit last minute but if you happen to be at the London Book Fair tomorrow, Laurie is chairing a discussion  on e-books ('the hot legal issues'). It's at 2.30pm, in the Cromwell Room, Earls Court 1.

For those of you who won't be attending (whether prevented by volcanic ash or otherwise), we will blog about the key points discussed and we'll put the slides in Knowledge Zone on our website in due course.

In the meantime, an article of mine has been published in this month's edition of the 'e-commerce law and policy' newsletter.

The article seeks to outline the scope of the various debates over the wide-ranging principle of net neutrality. In particular, the article considers the various proposals to regulate the internet (e.g. to protect legitimate interests of copyright owners and consumers) and the counter arguments that the internet should operate free of restrictions in an open, accessible and unfettered way. You won't be able to access the newsletter unless you are a subscriber, so we have posted the article on our website here.

We hope to see some of you tomorrow,

Yasmin Joomraty

Laurence Kaye Solicitors

Italy's data protection laws knock Google sideways

Dear Reader,

Last week brought the shock news that an Italian court was sentencing Google executives under Italian data protection laws in relation to user generated content (UGC) posted on a You-Tube type service operated by Google.

Bullies

The UGC in question showed a teenager with Down's syndrome being taunted and filmed by his bullies on a mobile phone. In a further act of harassment, the bullies posted the footage online for the world to see.

There is no doubt that the act of bullying itself was shameful and that the bullies should be punished for it (whether or not they were, I do not know). That is not the main point here.

Similarly, it is undisputed that the victim's privacy was invaded. Needless to say, he did not consent to being bullied in the first place, let alone being filmed and published online. In the UK, this could amount to breach of privacy (or, more accurately, the common law breach of confidence as stretched by the judiciary and Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998).

By publishing this private content, the bullies are the ones primarily in the wrong as their 'analogue' bullying becomes, in addition, cyberbullying (in the UK, the civil wrong and criminal offence of harassment). But that is not the main point either. They are primarily in the wrong, but the Italian court pointed the finger of blame beyond them to a 'bigger bully', Google.

Google

The shock factor in this case is that certain US-based Google executives were held criminally liable (in an Italian court) for hosting the UGC in question on Google's (internationally available) site. The sting in the tail is that the cause of action was under Italian data protection law (rather than, for example, defamation, privacy or e-commerce) laws.

We'll need to wait for the Italian judgment to be published in order to examine the exact facts of the case and the judge's reasoning. In the meantime, let's consider the headline issues raised by the case:

• applicable law and jurisdiction;
• the 'hosting exemption'; and
• data protection laws.

Applicable Law and Jurisdiction

Applicable law and jurisdiction in an online context is a can of worms so I will touch on it very briefly here.

Websites often state in their terms and conditions that use of the website is subject to the laws of a particular country. Despite this, there are certain 'mandatory provisions' of third party countries which will override that country's laws where the website is seen to target the citizens of those third party countries. This will depend on the type of law (e.g. data protection and consumer protection laws are often 'exported' in this way). This case has the added complexity of Italy being a member state of the EU and, as such, subject to certain Directives, etc.

Even if one country's laws apply, that doesn't mean that all disputes must be heard in that country's courts. There have been instances where one country has heard a dispute in its courts by applying the laws of another country. As Italy is an EU member state, appeals on European points of law may be made to the ECJ.

I should also add that the extent to which officers/directors can be held personally liable for their company's acts and omissions depends largely on the applicable law (e.g. Italian or US) and the cause of action (e.g. defamation or privacy).

Hosting Exemption

Of course, the Google executives did not - could not possibly - have known about the video in question. They did not make the video, did not post it, did not authorise it to be posted, and undoubtedly discouraged it from being posted (the terms and conditions would have made it clear that users are not permitted to upload unlawful UGC).

In considering whether Google is liable for displaying unlawful (e.g. defamatory) UGC, the question is whether it should have known about the video and removed it. This comes down to constructive, or imputed, knowledge, 'notice and take down' mechanisms, and whether Google went far enough to discharge its 'duty of care' as host of UGC. It seems that Google did, in fact, remove the video without undue delay upon notification.

Section 19 of the UK's E-Commerce Regulations contains a well-established exemption from liability for Google-type internet intermediaries hosting UGC. This exemption is what enables Google and countless other online companies, from ISPs like AOL to auction sites like eBay to forums like Mumsnet, to conduct their businesses. Without this exemption, they would face astronomical costs in moderating all content, and/or face countless lawsuits. This would have the effect of stifling UGC and the Internet as we know it would not exist. The US has similar provisions in its legislation. So does Italy, in line with Article 14 of the E-Commerce Directive.

The hosting exemption is, however, qualified by the requirement for Google et al to operate effective and expeditious 'notice and take-down' policies. That is, when they are notified of offensive content, they must act swiftly to remove it. This mechanism has worked to date in that it seems to strike a workable balance between fostering sharing of information (e.g. UGC) and safeguarding people's rights (e.g. privacy).

In ruling that Google's executives are personally, criminally liable for UGC hosted by a site owned by Google, the Italian court's decision would, at first glance, seem to upset this balance. However, upon closer examination, this is not the case because, in fact, one of the counts against Google was for defamation and it was dismissed (it can be safely assumed) on the basis of the hosting exemption.

Data Protection

The indictment of the Google executives, in fact, related to the second charge made against them of unlawful processing of personal data under the Italian Privacy Code.

I do not intend to examine this charge, or the judge's reasoning, until I have had the opportunity to review the judgment in full. The main point to bear in mind is that Article 1(5) of the E-Commerce Directive expressly states that its provisions shall not apply to the Directives governing data protection. Therefore Google would not have had the protection of the hosting exemption under this count of breach of Italy's data protection laws. Recital (14) of the E-Commerce Directive explains:

"The protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data is solely governed by Directive 95/46/EC ...and Directive 97/66/EC ...which are fully applicable to information society services; these Directives already establish a Community legal framework in the field of personal data and therefore it is not necessary to cover this issue in this Directive in order to ensure the smooth functioning of the internal market... the implementation and application of this Directive should be made in full compliance with the principles relating to the protection of personal data, in particular as regards unsolicited commercial communication and the liability of intermediaries; this Directive cannot prevent the anonymous use of open networks such as the Internet."

Conclusion

So the indictment of the Google executives under Italian data protection law does not threaten to deprive internet intermediaries of the hosting exemption in relation to unlawful UGC. However, it does highlight that online companies must be vigilant as to the multitude of data protection laws which may govern their activities. In our experience, all companies tend to underestimate the importance of complying with data protection laws. This case may herald a turning point that sees data protection compliance rising up the agenda for online businesses.

On a different note, I think it is quite telling that, although many people left outraged comments on Google's website against the video in question in this case, not one of them actually clicked the button to flag it. As Google cannot be expected to monitor every item of UGC uploaded, so it cannot be expected to monitor every comment made in relation to each post. If, at the time, the Google site did not feature such a panic button, then the lesson to online UGC hosts is to include one. If, however, there was a panic button but users did not think to click it, then users need to be educated to do so. The UK's click clever click safe campaign drives home the message of how to use the Internet safely by following simple steps. It is aimed at children, but adults and children alike would do well to observe its 'zip it, block it, flag it' mantra.

We all need to act responsibly online, from cyberbullies (who leave cyber footprints as evidence of their bullying), to teens and adults (who can be too free with the personal information they make available online), to the internet intermediaries, who cannot simply claim ignorance and blanket exemptions against all potential liability, particularly in the field of data protection.

Yasmin Joomraty

Laurence Kaye Solicitors 

Future Regulation of the Internet

Dear Reader,

Laurie is busy with work on SABIP and apologises for the radio silence. He'll be back and blogging soon but in the meantime, I'm afraid, you'll have to make do with me...

The correct title for this post is in fact "Net Neutrality (what is it and why should I care)"... but please don't run away.

I admit it's a cheap trick - but one that I was caught by recently when I went to a lecture given by Chris Marsden. I turned up to the friendly sounding "Future Regulation of the Internet" only to be told that in fact the seminar was on "Net Neutrality 'Lite': The European Approach".

  If it weren't for the free cakes, I would have left.

But I'm glad I stayed. Net neutrality is one of those terms I often hear people use but never quite fully understand. For me, it's in that category of frightening webby concepts including folksonomies and convergence. What's more: it's about the pipes and I'm really more interested in the content. Chris managed to get me interested in it, though, and in reading around the subject after the seminar, I am on a quest to get to the bottom of it because it is clearly something that people get evangelistic about. For example, the US Federal Communication Commission has recently launched a site for the preservation of a "free and open internet", advocating net neutrality principles (see here for Mashable's commentary on the issue).

The reason that the term 'net neutrality' causes me such consternation is that it seems to mean different things to different people. Google explains it as "the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet" (it would - it is, of course, a mere facilitator). Techies describe it as "the idea that every packet of information...carries equal importance. That is, a message from me moves no faster or slower over the Internet than a message from the Queen." Chris defined it as the principle that there is no ISP interference with the packets of data; i.e. that ISPs do not open packets to see inside and that they do not discriminate between packets.

Combining these, I understand net neutrality to be the principle that the Internet is a method of communicating packets of information from one end to another which does not: (a) investigate the packets; or (b) discriminate between the packets. This seems to me to be similar to Google's argument in the case I recently blogged about: i.e. Google, like the Internet, is a mere facilitator and is neither responsible for the content it carries nor obliged to monitor the same (the latter principle is enshrined in Art.15 of the E-Commerce Directive).

Apparently, ISPs breach the principle of net neutrality (and, possibly, their contracts with their subscribers) by advertising 'unlimited broadband' and then slowing different types of traffic to suit them. They may do this for practical purposes ('traffic management'), for selfish purposes (to save money), to get the competitive edge (to promote their own bundled services over those offered by third parties), out of the goodness of their heart (by blocking spam)...the list goes on. The interesting thing is that when an ISP selectively slows traffic, it is extremely difficult to tell if this is because of a legitimate attempt to avoid congestion, or because the ISP has underprovisioned (i.e. advertised speeds faster than it is capable of achieving all of the time), or a deliberate attempt to do so for a particular purpose (and then there are problems with evidencing that purpose). So far, so conspiracy theory!

Putting that can of worms aside, what interests me are the overarching principles - the way the net neutrality principle interacts with the fact that certain controls are necessary to ensure protection of consumers, content providers and other policy concerns. It is not a great leap to draw parallels with the freedom of expression -v- protection of privacy debate, or the free -v- paid-for content debate.

Also, from a legal perspective, as we often mention in our posts, offline laws apply in the online world and no amount of web-specific principles can undermine that. So the Data Retention Directive means that internet intermediaries have to keep records of communications, and the exemptions for ISPs in the E-Commerce Directive are defeated if the ISP has not observed notice and take down. I think this is what Chris meant by net neutrality 'lite'. The principle of net neutrality is all well and good but must in certain circumstances be diluted by regulations (which reflect real and practical concerns) in order to find the middle ground wherever the principle of net neutrality clashes with other equally important principles (e.g. privacy, crime prevention, consumer protection).

As always, this is a small taster of the whole debate and please forgive me any inaccuracies - it was my first foray specifically into this area. There are consumer protection, competition and so many more issues involved. But I hope that if you, like me, secretly baulked at the mention of net neutrality, you'll have found that this taster whets your appetite.

Yasmin Joomraty

Laurence Kaye Solicitors

Different Playground, Same Old Bullies

Dear Reader,

I was quoted in the Times recently in relation to a teenage 'cyberbully', Keeley Houghton, who was jailed and issued with a restraining order for bullying another teenage girl. The reporter asked me if this case marks a turning point in online bullying cases - here are my thoughts on the issue.

Without knowing the exact facts of the case, it seems to me that Houghton must have been prosecuted under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 ("the Act"), under which offenders can be sentenced for up to 6 months' improsonment.

It should be noted that the victim had "been victimised by Houghton for four years...and had previously suffered a physical assault as well as damage to her home." This would have been a significant factor in leading the judge to believe that Houghton had pursued a "course of conduct" which: (a) "amounts to harassment of another" under s.1(1) of the Act; and/or (b) "causes another to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence will be used against him" under s.4(1) of the Act.

For this reason, I don't think that this case marks a turning point in online harassment or cyberbullying cases. On the facts, there was a long prior course of conduct including assault and criminal damage against the victim. It would, of course, be different if a person were sentenced for using social networks to bully another person without having also bullied that person 'offline'. The wording of the Act does not preclude an offence being committed in such a scenario - but to my knowledge nobody has been imprisoned on that basis in the UK yet.

However, this case does underline the point that people do not have a carte blanche to behave online in a way that is unacceptable offline. It also demonstrates that courts will take threats and comments made through social networking sites very seriously. Needless to say, there have been numerous online defamation cases and even a revival of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 in a lawsuit against a blogger. With the explosion in UGC and social networking sites, it is likely that online harassment cases will likewise occur more frequently, whether in civil or criminal actions.

As we've seen from people's behaviour on the gamut of websites from Facebook to Secondlife, Mumsnet to Owlstalk, the online world follows the offline world in all things bad as well as good. At the same time, laws that were drafted pre-Web 2.0 are being stretched to cover all sorts of new online behaviours. Put another way, the same old laws are applied to cover the activities of the same old bullies in a new playground.

Unfortunately, as every playground has a bully, so social networking sites have spawned cyberbullying and this case shows that harassment laws are flexible enough to step in to protect the victims.

Yasmin Joomraty,

Laurence Kaye Solicitors

Banksy - an unlikely copyright ambassador?

Dear Reader,

Whilst Laurie remains heavily involved in SABIP's work on the future of copyright, I want to share a thought with you which struck me at the Banksy exhibition in Covent Garden recently. This scribbled card was displayed amongst the graffiti, chunks of wall and ghetto rat stencils and, for me, it set the black-letter reproduction right in a very real, straightforward way:

 

As I took my photo (getting sympathetic looks from people who didn't have the heart to tell me I was photographing the wrong thing!) and queued to buy a postcard, I thought about how Banksy was successfully connecting with the exhibition-goers in exploiting his copyright. He understood his target audience and made them understand the give and take of his creative endeavour. I have since looked at his online shop and the copyright notice there is similarly straightforward ("Everything in the shop is free, simply download the file and process the artwork. Please note:This shop is for personal amusement only. Please don't use it to start a business. Thanks.") This keeps the artist in control and highlights the fact that the works do have a value arising from rights which only the artist is entitled to exploit (even if he chooses to exploit these rights by allowing free downloads).

It is well established that people don't always understand the acts restricted by copyright - or, indeed how the underlying copyright regime works. In other words, in order to prevent ignorance, disdain or flouting of the copyright system, "a key necessity if this problem is to be solved is to change the minds of the vast number of, predominantly young, people who think that downloading content without paying for it is OK."

Having been somewhat sceptical of the emphasis on 'education and awareness' in Digital Britain, the consultation on legislative options to address illicit P2P file-sharing and other government papers and industry association initiatives, I am now a convert. I think it is of paramount importance to demonstrate to the wider population (particularly the MySpace generation) the value of creativity and the creative process that the copyright system is designed to protect. If people do not understand the reasoning underpinning the copyright system and the importance of ensuring creators are fairly remunerated for their works, they are far more likely to disregard the entire system as irrelevant in the modern age.

You may think this is all very well and has been said before, which is fair enough. However, what Banksy's scribbled message, displayed amongst the exhibits, tangibly demonstrated to me was that the 'education and awareness' message needs to be tailored to each target audience within the creative industry. What appeals to visitors of Banksy's exhibitions will not affect online gamers, for example. MySpacers will respond in a different way to messages sent to them by their favourite artists than those sent out by the government.

A certain degree of creativity is required in order to get the copyright message across to different groups. Even then, their response to this message and subsequent behaviour will differ in an online as opposed to offline environment, and even from site to site.

Laurie will be blogging soon about the Infopaq case, which raises some important copyright issues.

Yasmin Joomraty