Dom

Sharman lawyer JR Ellicot referred to the 1899 case of Boosey v. Whight in addressing the courts concerns over the defence's lack of cross-claim, he stated "It will be our submission in this case that we are exactly in that position now in relation to sound recordings."

Boosey v. Whight (1899) involved copyright charges arising over the production of pianola rolls, in which the court found that the reproduction of the perforated pianola rolls did not infringe the English copyright act protecting sheets of music.

Lawyers in the 1899 case forged their defence on the argument that "to play an instrument from a sheet of music which appears to the eye is one thing; to play an instrument with a perforated sheet which itself forms part of the mechanism which produces the music is quite another thing."

Sharman lawyers indicated that they are planning to present a similar defence against the accusation made by Universal Music Australia and its affiliates.

"However you describe it on a computer hard drive, it is not a copy of a sound recording, and it also has the implication that even if you take from a CD and put it on a computer what is on the computer it not a copy," Ellicot said in court last Friday.

Ellicot maintained that an "infringing copy has to be a sound recording", and said his clients are further removed from liability by the fact that they are not responsible for uploading the songs.

Read More...

___________________
Source: ZDnet