The decision of Ramsay J in AMP v. Persons Unknown is a fascinating look at online content distribution, privacy and the extension of laws to the Internet.
An interesting slant on this case is that the court in the UK ordered that the details of the claimant, and of the files in question, should remain confidential. It would appear that, in submitting a notice to Google under US copyright law, the claimant's lawyers included both the name of the claimant (as the copyright holder) and the links to the files in question, as required by the notice regime in the US.
As was demonstrated with Twitter and super-injunctions, the ease of transnational communications, and differences in national laws, may play havoc with judicial decisions...
An interesting slant on this case is that the court in the UK ordered that the details of the claimant, and of the files in question, should remain confidential. It would appear that, in submitting a notice to Google under US copyright law, the claimant's lawyers included both the name of the claimant (as the copyright holder) and the links to the files in question, as required by the notice regime in the US.
ReplyDeleteAs was demonstrated with Twitter and super-injunctions, the ease of transnational communications, and differences in national laws, may play havoc with judicial decisions...