In UMG Escape Media, the Court has granted summary judgment finding the individual defendants to be liable for copyright infringement.
Monday, September 29, 2014
In Capitol Records v. MP3Tunes, the Judge has denied individual defendant Michael Robertson's motion for a new trial, but reduced the punitive damages award on the state law claims for pre-1972 recordings.
Friday, June 13, 2014
In Authors Guild v. HathiTrust, the US Court of Appeals has ruled that scanning whole books for research purposes is fair use.
In HathiTrust, a group of universities took digital scans prepared by Google and stored them in a "digital library".
The library permitted 3 uses of the material:
(1) The public was allowed to search by keyword. The search results showed only the page numbers for the search term and the number of times it appeared; none of the text was visible.
(2) People with disabilities which prevented them from holding books and/or turning pages could be provided access to the full texts.
(3) Members could create a replacement copy of a lost, stolen, or destroyed book if a replacement was not obtainable in the market at a "fair" price.
The Court held the search function to be a fair use, finding that
-the creation of a searchable, full text database is a "quintessentially transformative use";
-it was "reasonably necessary" to make use of the entire works, and to maintain 4 copies of the database;
-the library did not impair the market for the works.
The Court likewise found it to be a fair use to make copies available to the disabled who are unable to access print books.
The Court declined to rule on the replacement book issue, on the ground that the plaintiffs lacked standing to raise that question.
June 10, 2014, Decision, US Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit
Wednesday, June 04, 2014
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
In the first appellate decision of its kind, the D. C. Circuit Court of Appeals has dealt a death knell to the type of mass John Doe fishing expedition cases pioneered by the RIAA and carried on by pornographic filmmakers and other high volume plaintiffs seeking the identity of possible defendants.
In AF Holdings v. Does 1-1058, the appeals court overruled the district court's grant of ex parte discovery, ruling that mass John Doe cases could not be brought where there was no known basis for the assertion of personal jurisdiction over the unknown defendants, and on alternative grounds that there could be no joinder merely because defendants allegedly downloaded the same file through BitTorrent and therefore possibly in the same "swarm".
(Ed. note: A cynic might argue that the key difference in this case was that, for a change, the ISP's, and not merely defendants, were challenging the subpoenas; but of course we all know that justice is 'blind'. An ingrate might bemoan the Court's failure to address the key underlying fallacy in the "John Doe" cases, that because someone pays the bill for an internet account that automatically makes them a copyright infringer; but who's complaining over that slight omission? A malcontent like myself might be a little unhappy that it took the courts ten (10) years to finally come to grips with the personal jurisdiction issue, which would have been obvious to 9 out of 10 second year law students from the get go, and I personally have been pointing it out and writing about it since 2005; but at least they finally did get there. And a philosopher might wonder how much suffering might have been spared had the courts followed the law back in 2004 when the John Doe madness started; but of course I'm a lawyer, not a philosopher. :) Bottom line, though: this is a good thing, a very good thing. Ten (10) years late in coming, but good nonetheless. - R.B. )
Friday, May 09, 2014
In Keiler v. Harlequin Enterprises, a class action royalty claim on behalf of authors whose works were being distributed as e-books by Harlequin was sustained, and the lower court's dismissal of the complaint reversed.
The complaint alleged that Harlan, in a scheme to deprive the authors of their contractual royalties for e-books, had established a subsidiary, was paying royalties to the subsidiary at a below-market rate, and was paying the authors based on the low receipts of the subsidiary rather than on the actual receipts of Harlan itself.
May 1, 2014, US Court of Appeals for 2nd Circuit
Friday, April 11, 2014
In Capitol Records v. Vimeo, the Second Circuit has granted both sides' motions for leave to file an interlocutory appeal from the lower court's decision partially granting both sides' motions for summary judgment.
Monday, April 07, 2014
Andrew Bridges is the fine California attorney who wrote one of the great amicus curiae briefs in Elektra v. Barker, and also wrote an excellent request to file amicus curiae brief in Capitol Records v. ReDigi.
Recently, he submitted this outstanding comment to the Copyright Office on the subject of "making available".
Sunday, March 23, 2014
"Florida Judge dismisses a Malibu case because Lipscomb failed to establish a connection between an IP address and person" ~ @FightCopyTrolls
Good article on the Fight Copyright Trolls website:
Florida Judge dismisses a Malibu case because Lipscomb failed to establish a connection between an IP address and person
We saw it coming: in less than two months in the Southern District of Florida, a venue where copyright troll Keith Lipscomb’s command and control is located,
Judge Federico Moreno ruled that there is no “good cause” to deviate from Rule 26(d), thus denying early discovery in Malibu Media v. John Doe, 14-cv-20216;
Magistrate Frank Lynch also denied Lipscomb’s motion for ex-parte discovery citing untimely copyright registrations in Malibu Media v. John Doe, 13-cv-14458;
Magistrate Andrea Simonton recommended to sanction Lipscomb in Malibu Media v. Pelizzo, 12-cv-22768;
Judge Ursula Ungaro denied Lipscomb’s routine motion for extension of time to serve the defendant and closed Malibu Media v. John Doe, 13-cv-23714.
In the latter case, on 10/29/2013 the judge sua sponte ordered to show cause why the Court may reasonably rely upon the Malibu’s usage of geolocation to establish the identity of the defendant (and also establish that the defendant may be found within this district).
Lipscomb responded on 11/12/2013, and apparently satisfied Magistrate Torres, to whom Judge Ungaro referred the case. As already mentioned, the case was closed not because of the OSC outcome, but for failure to serve the defendant.
Fast forward to March 2014. On 3/5/2014 in Malibu Media v Doe (FLSD 14-cv-20213), an identical order to show cause was issued by Judge Ursula Ungaro. Lipscomb replied, but this time he was not so lucky: .....
Thursday, March 20, 2014
Ex-MP3tunes chief held liable in music copyright caseComplete article
By Nate Raymond
(Reuters) - The former chief executive of bankrupt online music storage firm MP3tunes was found liable Wednesday for infringing copyrights for sound recordings, compositions and cover art owned by record companies and music publishers once part of EMI Group Ltd.
A federal jury in Manhattan found Michael Robertson, the former MP3tunes chief executive, and the defunct San Diego-based company liable on various claims that they infringed on copyrights associated with artists including The Beatles, Coldplay and David Bowie.
The jurors also found MP3tunes was willfully blind to copyright infringement on its website, in what a lawyer for the recording companies suggested before the verdict would be the first ruling by a jury of its kind.
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
Sunday, February 23, 2014
Interesting article by Ben Jones at TorrentFreak:
Why YouTube's Automated Copyright Takedown System Hurts ArtistsComplete article
By Ben Jones
For some, getting a copyright claim on their YouTube video might be an inconvenience. For others, it’s a massive headache that ignores copyright law… in the name of enforcing copyright law.
Day in and day out automated bots detect and report millions of alleged copyright infringements, which are then processed by the receiving site without a human ever looking at them.
Needless to say, this process is far from flawless. In the past we’ve covered countless false, inaccurate, and just plain hilarious DMCA claims, but YouTube’s takedown process is particularly problematic.
Friday, February 21, 2014
Motions for summary judgment and spoliation sanctions filed in Grooveshark case, Arista v Escape Media
In the RIAA's case against Grooveshark, Arista Records v. Escape Media, the RIAA has filed a motion for summary judgment and a motion for judgment based on spoliation of evidence.
Motion for spoliation sanctions, memorandum of law
Motion for summary judgment, memorandum of law
The trial in Capitol Records v. MP3 Tunes is scheduled to begin Tuesday, February 25th, in Manhattan, at the federal courthouse located at 500 Pearl St., New York, NY 10007-1312, courtroom 20B.
Tuesday, February 04, 2014
In Killer Joe Nevada v. Does 1-39, and four similar BitTorrent downloading cases, in the Southern District of Iowa, the cases were dismissed and severed as to all defendants other than Doe 1, by District Judge Stephanie M. Rose. Doe #18 in one of the cases had moved to sever and dismiss. The court granted that Doe's motion, and sua sponte severed and dismissed in the other cases as well.
December 20, 2013, Decision, Severing and Dismissing as to Does 2-39, Hon. Stephanie M. Rose, US District Judge
Commentary & discussion:
Friday, January 24, 2014
In Capitol Records v. Vimeo, the Court has certified its September, 2013, decision of the respective summary judgment motions for an interlocutory appeal.
The Court also partially granted defendant's motion for reconsideration seeking summary judgment dismissing the case as to additional videos, and granted plaintiff's motion for leave to amend its complaint.
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
In ESRT v. Henson, the Empire State Building has sued a photographer for photographing a topless model on the building's observation deck.
Monday, January 13, 2014
In ABC v. Aereo and WNET v. Aereo, the District Court has denied both summary judgment motions on the grounds that (a) it would be more efficient for them to be made after discovery is completed and (b) it might be more efficient to determine them after the U.S. Supreme Court has weighed in on the legal issues, after having granted certiorari to review the preliminary injunction ruling.
January 13, 2014, Decision, Denying Both Summary Judgment Motions Without Prejudice, Hon. Alison J. Nathan, District Judge
Friday, January 10, 2014
The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in WNET v. Aereo Inc.
The Washington Post reported:
Supreme Court to take on high-stakes TV disputeComplete article
The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide a high-stakes dispute between the nation’s broadcast networks and an upstart Web company that is providing live television programming over the Internet.
Both the networks and Barry Diller-backed Aereo asked the justices to settle the legal fight that could radically change the way live television is delivered to American consumers and disrupt an economic model that accounts for billions of dollars in fees for the broadcasters.......
The Second Circuit opinion to be reviewed was reported by us here