3 Count: Copyright Exhaustion

Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.

1: Government Pauses Plans to Rewrite UK Copyright Laws After Authors Protest

First off today, Alison Flood at The Guardian reports that, in the United Kingdom, the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) has announced that they are pausing any changes to their copyright laws after authors expressed concern the change could drastically hurt their income.

The rule, entitled copyright exhaustion, places limits on the import of international editions of books. According to authors, this enables authors and publishers to sell books at different prices for different countries. Without this rule, many authors fear the UK market would be flooded with cheaper international copies.

When the IPO announced it was looking to change this rule, authors launched a Save Our Books campaign. That campaign was successful as it has, for now at least. The IPO has said that it will continue evaluating potential changes to copyright law but did not set a timetable.

2: Maryland Defends Its Library E-book Law, Seeks Dismissal of AAP Lawsuit

Next up today, Andrew Albanese at Publishers Weekly reports that the state of Maryland has hit back at a publisher lawsuit targeting their new e-book law, saying that the issue has nothing to do with copyright but “unfair and discriminatory trade practices” on the part of publishers.

The law, which took effect January 1, requires publishers that distribute e-books to offer a license to libraries on “reasonable” terms. However, publishers filed a lawsuit to stop the law, saying that it is unconstitutionally vague, violates interstate commerce laws and is preempted by the federal Copyright Act.

However, the state has now responded saying that the law is meant to address “biased pricing practices” that burden the library system. Furthermore, the state claims that a “contextual reading” of the law shows that no publisher will be forced to enter into an involuntary agreement. Finally, the state claims that this is not a copyright law, but an attempt to regulate unfair trade practices.

3: Ad Blockers Altering Website Code is Not a Copyright Violation, German Court Rules

Finally today, Thomas Claburn at The Register reports that, in Germany, the ad-filtering company Eyeo has scored a major win as it defeated a copyright infringement lawsuit that alleged ad blocking software violated the copyright of publishers.

The lawsuit was filed by Axel Springer, which claimed Eyeo’s product Adblock Plus unlawfully altered their websites. The company first tried to argue that the company was anti-competitive by both blocking ads and simultaneously running an “Acceptable Ads” program. However, that was defeated by the German Supreme Court in 2018.

In response to that, Axel Springer then tried to argue that the HTML code of a website is protectable under copyright and that altering it without permission was an infringement. This could have had a serious knock on effect, making any website alteration (not just ad blocking) illegal. However, the court tossed this argument, saying that such manipulation is not a copyright infringement.

The 3 Count Logo was created by Justin Goff and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License.