Fire Alarm Companies

There was a recent ruling in a dispute between the copyright Swatch (the watch) and Bloomberg could have troubling implications on issues of wiretapping. Indeed, it has a plan for using copyright block records perfectly legal. Swatch The problem was that, after a call to analysts, like most public companies regularly. It's pretty standard for many financial firms to push the transcripts of the calls and report / analyze it. In this case, Bloomberg registered the call and provides a transcript of their subscribers. Pretty standard stuff. But ... Here copyright claims Swatch

call

. Why? Since I also recorded (via an associate), and since the record was "fixed" one could say that was covered by copyright, and then continued Bloomberg.



This decision was a motion for dismissal of Bloomberg, the judge refused, saying that Swatch duly established that the author of the current record. Also refused to rule on the application of fair use at this point, although it is expected that in a subsequent step, the fair use argument gets stronger audience.



The real problem with this decision is what it might mean when you think about the consequences. As Paul Alan Levy, that seems to extend copyright "beyond its intended scope." Think about this for a minute. This means that while you are recording at the same time do something, you can stop anyone (a) the record or (b) the appointment, if you quote an amorphous "too much" of what he says on the recording. It is not hard to see situations where this is problematic.


more evident in a press conference (which is called Swatch was the same), a journalist who takes his recorder may violate copyright, which is required to the conference. Also, if in the process of reporting on the conference, citing too much what was said ... yes, could face prosecution for copyright infringement. This is clearly not what copyright is for, but it's a real involvement of this statement