Skip to main content

Are e-mail messages hearsay?

Could evidence of 2000 emails be used in court, even if the sender was not in court to testify and be questioned?

Cybernet Ventures operated the Age Verification Service "Adult Check" and sold users access to the Adult Check family of sites, which featured nude pictures. Perfect 10, held the copyright in many nude pictures, and sued Cybernet Ventures for copyright infringement because the Adult Check sites contained over 10,000 images that belonged to Perfect 10.

This case required Perfect 10 to prove that Cybernet had knowledge of the infringing activities.

The court decided that Cybernet had actual notice (knowledge) of copyright infringement. This was because the Association for the Protection of Internet Copyright had sent them about 2000 e-mails "notifying Cybernet of alleged copyright infringement on its system". Even though the Association was not in court to testify or be questioned, the evidence was only being used to prove that Cybernet had received them, NOT to prove that the emails were true.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

When your boss emails you to transfer money, what do you do?

Earlier today, M, the treasurer at our society received an email, apparently from B, the former president of the society. Look at the header in graphic 1 - it shows B's name and B's usual email address. In the email, B asked M to initiate payment of $2950 to a vendor today.
M followed correct procedure and hit 'reply', asking B for more details. However, she did not see at the time (because many email apps don't show all the details) that her message was not going to B's usual email address, but instead to 'chairboard777@yahoo.com' - a scammer.
The scammer then replied to M, again using B's name and usual email address, telling her to make payment for a fake event.

Fortunately, M then emailed the current president and asked for approval, because (unknown to the scammer), B is no longer the president of the society. He checked with the real B, and we quickly established that this was a scam. That was a close call: if B was still the president, "…

Chapelton v Barry UDC (Exclusion Clauses)

Mr Chapelton went to a beach run by Barry UDC. See saw deckchairs. A notice next to them said,
"Barry Urban District Council. Cold Knap. Hire of chairs 2d. per session of 3 hours ... tickets should be obtained from attendants."  He got two chairs from an attendant, paid the money and got two tickets. He put them in his pocket. On the ticket was written,
"Available for three hours. Time expires where indicated by cut-off and should be retained and shown on request. The council will not be liable for any accident or damage arising from the hire of the chair."  When he sat on the chair it gave way and he was injured. Would the exemption clause work? The Court of Appeal held that Barry UDC made an offer when the chairs were on display, Mr Chapelton accepted when he picked up the chairs from the defendant, and the ticket was merely a receipt of the contract, so the exclusion clause could not be incorporated as a term, because it was too late.

A Picture Speaks a Thousand Words to Show Lee Kuan Yew's Impact on Singapore Economy

He led the team that turned mudflats into a metropolis, but could one graphic describe the impact that the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew had on Singapore? This one from the Economist does a pretty good job of representing it.

The underlying philosophy of the Visual Law School site is that complex issues and concepts (such as the law and legal principles) can be made more understandable by showing them in a visual or graphical format. This infographic will not replace the reams of text and hours of eulogies that will mark the life and impact the Mr Lee had on our country. But it is a relatively fair and balanced window into the story that helps to put that impact into a global and historical perspective. Read the full article at The Economist
Rest in Peace, Mr Lee, we will always be grateful for what you did.