Euro Court Refereeing In Online Jurisdiction Football Case

If a web service in one country infringes the copyright of one in another country, where should the case be heard?

That’s the question the European Court of Justice is being asked to answer by the UK’s Court of Appeal.

The appeal court had been hearing an appeal by German operator Sportradar, against a November 2010 High Court ruling that its sports betting site Betradar illegally pilfered goal flash, scorer and other match data from the UK’s PA Sport, the sports data wire licensed by the English and Scottish football associations’ Football DataCo.

As Out-Law reports, Sportradar appealed on the grounds that the verdict should have been determined in Austria or the Netherlands, where its servers are based and its servers are located, or its native Germany.

That issue is doubly contentious because Betradar also supplies the data back to the UK betting services Bet364 and Stan James. The appeal court’s Lord Justice Laws’ is referring that contention up to the ECJ.

Sportradar also claims there can be no copyright as to the data (ie. scorers’ names, goal timings, number of match fouls) since these are matters of fact - an assertion which, if true, would undermine the whole of Football DataCo‘s business and which would jeopardise PA Sport. In the appeal court, Lord Justice Laws agrees that this data does not constitute intellectual creation.

Here is Lord Justice Laws’ full verdict on Bailii.

http://www.paidcontent.co.uk

US court questions Australia bank case jurisdiction

WASHINGTON, Supreme Court justices questioned whether Australians who bought shares of National Australia Bank Ltd on an Australian stock exchange can sue in an American court over large writedowns related to bank's onetime U.S. mortgage unit.

"It has Australia written all over it," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told the attorney for the foreign plaintiffs and said the most appropriate way to decide the case would be under Australia law.

The bank purchased the mortgage company, HomeSide Lending, for $1.22 billion in 1998 and announced two writedowns totaling $2.2 billion in 2001. It later sold HomeSide to Washington Mutual Inc, whose banking assets were acquired by JPMorgan Chase (JPM.N) in 2008.

The National Australia Bank said in 2001 that it had used incorrect interest assumptions to calculate the fees it would generate from servicing mortgages in future years.

Three Australian plaintiffs want to proceed with their lawsuit in this country, but a federal judge and a U.S. appeals court in New York dismissed the case on the grounds that American courts do not have jurisdiction.

Justices questioned Thomas Dubbs, a New York attorney arguing on behalf of the plaintiffs, on whether U.S. securities law applied.

Justice Samuel Alito asked whether the plaintiffs would have an adequate remedy in the Australian court system.

Justice Stephen Breyer questioned whether a win for the plaintiffs would interfere with efforts of foreign countries, such as Australia, to regulate their securities markets.

Justice Antonin Scalia said Australia had taken the position that it decides any misrepresentation and whether that had been relied upon by those who bought or sold stock. "Here, you're dragging the American court into it," he said to Dubbs.

George Conway, a New York attorney arguing for the bank, said the law at issue only covered securities purchased or sold in the United States. He said foreign nations have different rules in such areas as liability and disclosure.

The court's ruling is expected by the end of June.

http://www.reuters.com/

Arizona Website Operator Subject to Jurisdiction 

in Kentucky

The defendant operated a website known as "thedirty.com" which solicits and publishes "dirt" about individuals posted by visitors to the site.  Plaintiff Sarah Jones was a high school teacher in Kentucky and a member of the BenGals,the cheerleading squad for the Cincinnati Bengals.  In 2009, a visitor to the website posted a message accusing Jones of engaging in promiscuous behavior with Bengal players and, in another, implied that Jones had contracted several STDs from an ex-boyfriend and engaged in sexual activity in several locations at the high school where she worked. After repeated requests to have the content removed, Jones filed suit on December 23, 2009 against Dirty World, LLC, the Arizona-based business responsible for operating the site, alleging defamation,libel per se,false light publicity,and intentional infliction of emotional distress.The defendant's motion to dismiss followed. 

Applying well-settled principles of personal jurisdiction jurisprudence, the Court began by analyzing whether the defendant had purposefully availed itself of the forum state.Citing a Sixth Circuit opinion delineating different categories of websites and the personal jurisdiction standards applied to those sites, the Court held that "thedirty.com," as an interactive website, occupied a middle ground where "the exercise of jurisdiction is determined by examining the level of interactivity and commercial nature of the exchange of information that occurs on the Web site."

The Defendant countered by arguing that it only knew of the plaintiff's activities in Ohio as a member of the BenGals, but did not purport to have knowledge of any activities in Kentucky.the Court noted that "in the age of the Internet, specific, targeted conduct may be expressly aimed at a particular individual or entity, despite the fact that the person engaging in the conduct may not know of the geographic location of the individual or entity.'"Not only did the Court find personal jurisdiction proper under principles of due process, but it went on to hold that jurisdiction was independently sufficient under the Calder "effects test."  Based on the theory that the injury in a defamation case occurs where the defamatory material is circulated, the "effects test" confers personal jurisdiction in locations where the brunt of the harm is felt, most often, locations where the defamed individual resides.

http://ecommercelaw.typepad.com/ecommerce_law/2011/03/in-a-defamation-suit-against-an-interactive-gossip-websitethe-us-district-court-for-theeastern-district-of-kentuckyheld-th.html#ixzz1Qa1XArE2

Indonesian President Reacts To ‘Defamation’ in Social Media

Recently the Government of Indonesia has endured much criticism on social media platforms like Twitter, blogs, and even in text messages. During the past week the political world in Indonesia was turned upside-down by the emergence of a specific SMS text containing allegations of corruption against the nation’s government.

The message originated from a Singapore-based number from someone claiming to be Nazaruddin, an Indonesian political figure currently involved in a corruption case who has fled to Singapore. The text message was sent to Indra Piliang, a political opponent of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.

When the text message eventually spread among the public, it clearly upset the president. He held a press conference to explain the contents of the SMS which he says are entirely slanderous.

The translated contents of the SMS message are below, along with a picture of the original:

I swear before God, I am M Nazaruddin, and I have been set up, sacrificed, and slandered. From Singapore I will pay this back. I will reveal the homosexual sex scandal between (President) SBY and Daniel Sparingga, and the Mega (former Indonesian’s President) Century Banks corruption case, and the Andi Malaranggeng (Presidential spokesman) corruption case in Wisma Atlit, and the data manipulation of 18 million voices in the general election”

President Yudhoyono asserted in his speech:

Defamation thrown by someone with a dark heart is really outrageous. It attacks, personally insults, and harasses me. They’re irresponsible, its not a knightly act, its cowardly, because they do not dare to show themselves, and they are not accountable for the statement”

http://www.penn-olson.com

Former employees accuse Spring medical group of malicious acts, defamation

Gastroenterologists are suing after, they say, their former employer refuses to pay them as required under their employment agreement.

Medical doctors Atif Shahzad and Udayini Kodali filed a lawsuit on June 17 in Harris County District Court against Digestive Liver & Disease Specialists, of Spring, and others citing breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties and defamation.

Board-certified gastroenterologists Shahzad and Kodali say that after they terminated their employment with the defendants, they were maliciously denied the amounts owed to them under their employment contracts, including money owed for unused vacation, sick leave and professional meeting days.

According to the brief, the defendants also committed a crime by refusing to give the plaintiffs the names and addresses of the patients seen by them within the past two years, in accordance with 22 Texas Administrative Code section 165.5(c)(2).

The doctors are seeking injunctive relief and damages, as well as attorney’s fees and court costs. They are being represented in the case by Houston attorney Cynthia Levin Moulton.

http://www.ultimatespringtx.com/

Katie Holmes settles libel suit on drugs claim

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – Actress Katie Holmes has reached a settlement in her $50 million defamation lawsuit against celebrity magazine Star over an article that falsely suggested she was a drug addict, her representative said on Wednesday.

Star magazine also published an apology in its May 9 edition, on news stands on Wednesday, and said it was making a “substantial donation” to a nonprofit dance foundation supported by the actress.

Holmes, the wife of Tom Cruise, filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles in March over a January edition of the magazine with the coverline “Addiction Nightmare. Katie Drug Shocker!”

The inside story made no allegations of drug use but referred to counseling sessions in the Church of Scientology. Cruise is one of Hollywood’s leading Scientology followers, and his five-year marriage to Holmes is a frequent source of speculation in celebrity media.

Star magazine said in its printed apology that the magazine “did not intend to suggest Katie Holmes was a drug addict or was undergoing treatment for a drug addiction.”

Holmes was seeking $50 million in damages but the financial terms of the settlement were confidential, her representative said in a statement. Star magazine is published by Florida-based American Media Inc, whose group includes tabloid weekly The National Enquirer.

“I’m pleased that this lawsuit could be resolved amicably and accept American Media’s apology. With this dispute out of the way, I look forward to once again focusing my attention on my family and career,” Holmes said in a statement.

http://news.hqcelebspics.info

        Hisham wants Anwar’s defence struck off

KUALA LUMPUR: Home Minister Hishammuddin Tun Hussein has claimed that Anwar Ibrahim had ill intentions when he uttered  malicious words at a press conference in connection with a sex video featuring someone resembling the opposition leader.

Hishammuddin said the words which were later widely reported in the media and the Internet, were not published in good faith and that the main motive of Anwar was to injure his (Hishammuddin’s) reputation as a minister and politician.

In his reply to Anwar’s statement of defence filed on June 1, Hishammuddin said Anwar was indifferent to the falsity of words spoken.

He contended that the tone of language used by Anwar was reckless without any care whether the aspersions cast on him were true or false.

Hishammuddin said the words were not factual, pure conjecture and grossly inaccurate.

As such Hishamuddin said he wants the statement of defence filed by Anwar on May 16 to be struck out.

In his reply to Anwar’s counter-claim, Hishammuddin said the words uttered by him (Hishammuddin) relating to the sex video were made in discharging his public duties as Home Minister to the public, who had a corresponding and a legitimate interest in receiving the same.

He also denied any misuse or malfeasance of his position or office or any action which was contrary to his duties and responsiblities and that he was asking the court to dismiss the counter-claim.

Defamation suit

On April 26, Hishammuddin had filed a defamation suit against Anwar for uttering defamatory words against him during an interview with the media on March 22 after Anwar had lodged a report on the video with the Dang Wangi police here.

Hishammuddin, 50, said the words were understood to mean that he was responsible for screening the video to a group of editors and journalists at Carcosa Seri Negara Hotel on March 21.

The Minister said the words were also understood to mean that he arranged for the screening of the video and plotted with the Prime Minister and the police top brass to have it done.

Anwar defended that the words uttered by him were published on an occasion of qualified privilege and published in the reasonable protection of his own legitimate interest as opposition leader to the public who had a corresponding interest in receiving the information.

In his counter-claim, Anwar contended that Hishammuddin’s words in his press conference on March 21, gave weight to the assertion by the three persons who exposed the video that it was him (Anwar) in it.

High Court Judicial Commissioner Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera set July 25 for case management to allow Anwar to counter Hishammuddin’s reply.

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/