BT 2006 trials of Phorm

[Ian Batten]

Bear in mind this is devil's advocacy, but it does strike me that if  
you're going to attack your opponent on the grounds of the copyright  
in your web traffic you need to be fairly clean yourself to avoid  
getting into the mire.

On 05 Jun 08, at 1438, Alexander Hanff wrote:

> Well I never saw any copyright notice anywhere in the document  
> (which yes I know doesn't mean it is not copyrighted).

Correct: under the Berne Convention, to which the UK is a signatory,  
everything is born copyright.

>   Secondly BT were aware this document was already "out there".

So what?  That doesn't mean it's been published, and it doesn't mean  
that they've relinquished copyright.

>   But more importantly, it is a document of significant public  
> interest and last I checked I am pretty sure Copyright doesn't apply  
> to journalistic use of works (although I am happy to be told  
> otherwise).

Not for posting the complete document.  Try it: ``Today's big news is  
next week's launch of the latest volume of J K Rowling's Harry Potter  
series. As our readers will be fascinated to learn why there are  
already queues outside bookshops, we include a 600 page supplement  
containing the text everyone is trying buy, which we got from our mate  
at the printing house.  Enjoy!''

Fair dealing exemptions require that the document actually is  
published (which the document in question probably isn't) and that you  
use reasonable excerpts sufficient for your critical work (which is  
hard to demonstrate at 100%).

Sure, BT would be throwing petrol on smouldering ashes if they argued  
copyright in this.  But as a tactic, using a document with to say the  
least a questionable copyright status as a stick to beat people we're  
accusing of playing fast and loose with copyright might not be the  
best move.

ian