Plaintiffs file notice of appeal in Authors Guild v Google

In Authors Guild v. Google, the plaintiffs have filed a Notice of Appeal from the judgment dismissing their case.

Google books case dismissed on fair use grounds

In Authors Guild v. Google, Google's motion for summary judgment dismissing the case on fair use grounds has been granted.

In a 30-page decision, Judge Denny Chin, who has been presiding over the case since its inception as a District Court Judge, but who is now a Circuit Court judge in the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, reasoned that Google's "Library Project", which involved scanning books from libraries without permission of the copyright holders:

-was transformative in transforming "expressive text" into a "word index" and searchable data;
-does not supplant or supersede books since it is not a tool for reading books;
-adds value to the original;
-serves educational purposes, even though Google's own motive is commercial profit;
-limits the amount of text it displays in response to a search; and
-enhances, rather than detracts from, the value of the works.

Judge Chin concluded:

Google Books provides significant public benefits. It advances the progress of the arts and sciences, while maintaining respectful consideration for the rights of authors and other creative individuals, and without adversely impacting the rights of copyright holders. It has become an invaluable research tool that permits students, teachers, librarians, and others to more efficiently identify and locate books. It has given scholars the ability, for the first time, to conduct full-text searches of tens of millions of books. It preserves books, in particular out-of-print and old books that have been forgotten in the bowels of libraries, and it gives them new life. It facilitates access to books for print-disabled and remote or underserved populations. It generates new audiences and creates new sources of income for authors and publishers. Indeed, all society benefits.

Similarly, Google is entitled to summary judgment with respect to plaintiffs' claims based on the copies of scanned books made available to libraries. Even assuming plaintiffs have demonstrated a prima facie case of copyright infringement, Google's actions constitute fair use here as well. Google provides the libraries with the technological means to make digital copies of books that they already own. The purpose of the library copies is to advance the libraries' lawful uses of the digitized books consistent with the copyright law. The libraries then use these digital copies in transformative ways. They create their own full-text searchable indices of books, maintain copies for purposes of preservation, and make copies available to print-disabled individuals, expanding access for them in unprecedented ways. Google's actions in providing the libraries with the ability to engage in activities that advance the arts and sciences constitute fair use.

Decision granting defendant's motion for summary judgment, November 14, 2013, Hon. Denny Chin, Circuit Judge

Commentary & discussion:

Slashdot

TechDirt: Prenda Loses Big Again; Court Orders It To Pay Back Settlement Money, Refers To Law Enforcement

Interesting article in TechDirt about Prenda's growing difficulties:

Prenda Loses Big Again; Court Orders It To Pay Back Settlement Money, Refers To Law Enforcement

And here we go again. In yet another Prenda court case, Team Prenda has lost big. These are the cases in Minnesota that were reopened earlier this year, after the court became aware of Judge Wright's ruling in California, showing how Paul Hansmeier, John Steele, Paul Duffy and Mark Lutz appeared to be engaged in fraud on the court. In August, the magistrate judge assigned to review the cases, Franklin Noel, started demanding real answers to questions -- answers which never came.

Instead, we got a hearing in Minnesota that revealed some explosive new info, while Mark Lutz disappeared never to be heard from again. While Hansmseier and Duffy were never able to produce Lutz or answers to Judge Noel's questions, they did try to get Judge Noel kicked off the case.

None of the above strategies worked. At all. Judge Noel today not only rejected the request to pull him off the case, but also slammed Team Prenda, yet again, ordered them to pay back all the settlement money they got from the specific cases involved and then referred the case to law enforcement to look into the activities of Hansmeier, Steele, Duffy and Lutz....

Complete article

Preliminary injunction denied in Hearst v. Aereo

In Hearst v. Aereo, brought in the District of Massachusetts, the Court has denied Hearst's motion for a preliminary injunction. The court also denied Aereo's motion to change venue to the Southern District of New York.

October 8, 2013, decision denying preliminary injunction, Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, District Judge

Aereo officers required to be deposed about patent applications

In ABC_v_Aereo, Magistrate Pitman has overruled Aereo's attorney/client privilege objections to testifying about their patent applications at deposition.

October 7, 2013, decision of Magistrate Judge Pitman, order further depositions of CEO & CTO re patent applications

[Ed. note] It seems a little scary to me to give copyright plaintiffs yet another 'in terrorem' power and motivation to sue -- the opportunity to use the lawsuit as a means for delving into the non-public details of a defendant's patented technology. ~ R.B.

Vimeo held to be covered by DMCA safe harbor in Capitol Records v. Vimeo

In Capitol Records v. Vimeo, LLC, the Court has partially granted and partially denied both sides' summary judgment motions, holding that Vimeo is protected by the DMCA "safe harbor", but that there are factual issues over certain videos:

-as to 10 of the videos, whether they were stored "at the direction of the user"; and
-as to 55 of the videos whether Vimeo had either "red flag" or actual knowledge.

September 18, 2013, Memorandum Decision and Order, Partially Granting and Partially Denying Summary Judgment Motions

Commentary & discussion:

Slashdot

Government seeks input as to copyright policy for digital age

The United States Department of Commerce Internet Policy Task Force has issued a 122-page paper which, among other things, calls for comment as to changes which should be made in the copyright law to accommodate the technological advances of the digital age, entitled "COPYRIGHT POLICY, CREATIVITY, AND INNOVATION IN THE DIGITAL ECONOMY" (PDF).

In a blog post about the paper, issued by the United States Patent & Trademark Office, entitled "We Want to Hear from You on Copyright Policies in the Digital Economy", Chief Policy Officer and Director for International Affairs Shira Perlmutter writes:

The Green Paper calls for new public input on critical policy issues that are central to our nation’s economic growth, cultural development and job creation..... [W]e will soon be reaching out to the public for views on a variety of topics. Please stay tuned for announcements about how to share your thoughts, insights, and recommendations.

In recent years, the debates over copyright have become increasingly contentious. Too often copyright and technology policies are seen as pitted against each other, as if a meaningful copyright system is antithetical to the innovative power of the Internet, or an open Internet will result in the end of copyright. We do not believe such a dichotomy is necessary or appropriate.....

By intention, the Green Paper does not set out substantive policy recommendations, except where the administration is already on record with a stated position. Rather, it seeks to provide a thorough and objective review of the lay of the land—describing changes that have already occurred, identifying areas where more work should be done, and setting out paths to move that work forward.....

... In the coming weeks, we will begin to move forward on the specific items outlined in the paper for IPTF action:

Establishing a multistakeholder dialogue on improving the operation of the notice and takedown system for removing infringing content from the Internet under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

Soliciting public comment and convening roundtables on:

The legal framework for the creation of remixes—user-generated content that uses portions of copyrighted works in creative ways.

The relevance and scope of the first sale doctrine in the digital age.

The appropriate calibration of statutory damages in the context of
(1) individual file sharers and
(2) secondary liability for large-scale infringement.

Whether and how the government can facilitate the further development of a robust online licensing environment, including access to comprehensive public and private databases of rights information.

Commentary & discussion:

Slashdot

Dismissal motions denied in NY cases Patrick Collins v Doe 1 & Malibu Media v Does 1-11

In two New York cases, Malibu Media v. Does 1-11 in White Plains, and Patrick Collins v. Doe 1, in Central Islip, defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim have been denied.

May 18, 2013, Decision Denying Motion to Dismiss, Patrick Collins v. Doe 1
July 16, 2013, Decision Denying Motion to Dismiss, Malibu Media v. Does 1-11

First Circuit affirms $675k verdict, calls Tenenbaum conduct "egregious"

In SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has affirmed the jury verdict of $675,000, or $22,500 per downloaded mp3 single, terming Mr. Tenenbaum's conduct "egregious".

June 25, 2013, Opinion, US Court of Appeals, First Circuit

No multiple statutory damage award for single infringed work ~ Agence France Presse v Morel

In Agence France Presse v. Morel, a copyright case pending in Manhattan, Judge Alison Nathan clarified that there can be no more than a single statutory damages award per infringed work.

Memorandum and order dated May 21, 2013, Hon. Alison J. Nathan, District Judge

Magistrate judge recommends severance, dismissal, and quashing of subpoenas in Elf-man v Does 1-57 in Oregon

In Elf-man v. Does 1-57, and several other cases brought by Elf-man, LLC, in Oregon, the Magistrate Judge has recommended that the cases be severed and dismissed as to all Does other than Doe #1, and that the subpoenas as to those parties be quashed.

May 14, 2013, Order, Findings, and Recommendation, Hon. Thomas M. Coffin, Magistrate Judge

Severance, dismissal, and quashing of subpoenas granted in Oregon in Voltage Pictures v Does 1-198

In Voltage Pictures v. Does 1-198, and certain companion cases, the District Court of Oregon has severed and dismissed, and quashed the subpoenas, as to all Does other than Doe #1, both on the ground that allegations of being in a BitTorrent swarm are not subject to joinder, and on the ground that discretionary factors do not warrant joinder.

May 4, 2013, Order, Hon. Ann Aiken, District Judge

Aereo moves for summary judgment dismissing remaining claims

In WNET v. Aereo, and its companion case, defendant has moved for summary judgment dismissing the remaining claims, in the wake of last month's Second Circuit ruling affirming denial of plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion.

Defendants' memorandum of law in support of motion for summary judgment

[Updated] Court withdraws much of its ruling exonerating MP3Tunes in Capitol Records v MP3Tunes

Update with correction: Hat tip to Barry Werbin of Herrick, Feinstein LLP, Chairperson of the New York City Bar Association’s Copyright and Literary Property Law Committee, who pointed out to me what I had missed -- where in his opinion Judge Pauley partially granted a defendant's motion for reconsideration:

On page 13, the court opens up the direct infringement judgment previously issued against Robertson only as to "EMI's ownership of the copyrights for two of the songs he sideloaded, ‘White Christmas’ by Frank Sinatra and ‘Devil in Me’ by 22-20s, because Plaintiffs did not provide registrations for those copyrights... Further, EMI relies on copyrights registered as compilations for thirteen of the songs Robertson sideloaded. Because compilations contain pre-existing constituent works that may have been fixed prior to February 15, 1972 or that may have been previously registered by another owner, Robertson has created an issue of fact with respect to those songs."

So defendant’s Roberson's motion was granted in part to that limited extent

My original post was as follows:

In Capitol Records v. MP3Tunes, in which the Court had been asked to reconsider its earlier decision, in light of the Second Circuit's subsequent ruling in Viacom v. YouTube, the record companies' motion has been granted almost entirely, and the defendants' motions denied.*

The district court:

-accepted the record companies' argument that there were several documents in the record which a jury could reasonably have interpreted as requiring further inquiry into specific and identifiable instances of infringement, thus possibly triggering the 'wilful blindness' issue and requiring explicit fact-finding
-"reluctantly" accepted the record companies' argument that MP3Tunes's "red flag" knowledge could not be resolved on summary judgment
-denied the record companies' request for reinstatement of their seperate "inducement" claim
-rejected defendants' argument that the algorithm which copied plaintiffs' cover art was covered by the DMCA safe harbor
-rejected defendant Robertson's argument that his personal liability for 'sideloading' some files due to evidence of an implied license by virtue of the record companies' making free downloads available
-rejected defendant Robertson's argument that the district court in New York did not have personal jurisdiction over him
-rejected defendant Robertson's argument that the vicarious liability claim against him should be dismissed

Memorandum and Order granting plaintiffs' motions for reconsideration and denying defendants' motions

*Although the decision states that defendants' motions were partially granted, I could not find any part of the decision which granted any part of defendants' motions. If you find anything, please shoot me a comment and let me know so I can correct this blog post. Thanks. -R.B.

Plaintiffs' lawyers sanctioned $81,319.72 & referred for disciplinary & criminal investigations in Ingenuity 13 v Doe

In a Los Angeles case, Ingenuity 13 LLC v. John Doe, the Court has issued sanctions in the amount of $81,319.72 against plaintiffs' attorneys, including Prenda Law, and referred them to both disciplinary and criminal authorities for further investigation. Among other things, the decision stated:

Plaintiffs have outmaneuvered the legal system. They’ve discovered the nexus of antiquated copyright laws, paralyzing social stigma, and unaffordable defense costs. And they exploit this anomaly by accusing individuals of illegally downloading a single pornographic video. Then they offer to settle—for a sum calculated to be just below the cost of a bare-bones defense. For these individuals, resistance is futile; most reluctantly pay rather than have their names associated with illegally downloading porn. So now, copyright laws originally designed to compensate starving artists allow, starving attorneys in this electronic-media era to plunder the citizenry.

and

Plaintiffs can only show that someone, using an IP address belonging to the subscriber, was seen online in a torrent swarm. But Plaintiffs did not conduct a sufficient investigation to determine whether that person actually downloaded enough data (or even anything at all) to produce a viewable video. Further, Plaintiffs cannot conclude whether that person spoofed the IP address, is the subscriber of that IP address, or is someone else using that subscriber’s Internet access.

May 6, 2013, Order Issuing Sanctions, Hon. Otis D. Wright, II, District Judge

Viacom appeals from judgment dismissing YouTube case

Judgment has been entered dismissing Viacom v. YouTube, and some of the losing plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal.

Plaintiff in Oregon ordered to show cause why John Doe cases should not be severed, Voltage v Does 1-198

In a group of Oregon cases brought by plaintiff Voltage Pictures against more than 600 "Doe" defendants, the Court has ordered plaintiff to show cause why the cases should not be severed.

Order to show cause why cases should not be severed, April 10, 2013, Hon. Ann Aiken, District Judge

Motion to sever, dismiss & quash granted in NJ case, Malibu Media v John Does 1-10

In a Newark, New Jersey, case, Malibu Media v. John Does 1-10, the Court has granted the motions of several defendants to sever, to dismiss the complaints, and to quash the subpoena.

April 19, 2013, Opinion and Order, Hon. Stanley R. Chesler, District Judge

YouTube wins again

Once again, YouTube has won, in Viacom v. YouTube.

The plaintiffs had previously convinced the Second Circuit to remand the case to the district court for determination of some factual issues relating to specific videos. District Judge Louis L. Stanton has now resolved all of the issues in favor of YouTube, and once again dismissed the case.

In doing so he held that
-YouTube did not have knowledge or awareness of any specific infringement
-YouTube did not engage in "willful blindness" towards any specific infringement
-YouTube did not induce its users to commit copyright infringement or otherwise interact with its users to a point where it might be said to have participated in their infringements
-YouTube's syndication of videos did not involve manual selection or delivery of videos

April 18, 2013, Opinion Granting Summary Judgment to Defendant After Remand, Hon. Louis L. Stanton

Commentary & discussion:

Slashdot

2nd Circuit affirms denial of plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion in WNET v Aereo

In a rare interlocutory appeal, in WNET v. Aereo, Inc., the Second Circuit has affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiff broadcasters' motion for preliminary injunction, following its earlier ruling against the MPAA in Cartoon Networks v. CSC Holdings.

The 62 page decision (35 pages for main decision, 27 pages for dissenting opinion) concluded that Aereo's system for allowing individual users to record and replay broadcasts did not constitute a "public performance" and therefore did not implicate the "public performance" right.

Since the plaintiffs were unlikely to prevail on the merits, the Court held, they were not entitled to a preliminary injunction.

Opinion of US Court of Appeals 2nd Circuit

California BitTorrent case dismissed with prejudice for failure to post undertaking, AF v Trinh

A San Francisco case, AF Holdings v. Trinh, has been dismissed with prejudice, based upon the plaintiff's failure to post an undertaking in the amount of $47,500.

Subsequent to the dismissal, defendant has moved for his attorneys fees.

November 9, 2012, Order, directing plaintiff to file undertaking in amount of $47,500, Hon. Charles R. Breyer, District Judge
February 25, 2013, Order, granting motion to dismiss with prejudice, Hon. Charles R. Breyer, District Judge
Declaration in support of motion for attorneys fees

Court sua sponte severs as to Doe defendants in Ohio cases, Safety Point v Does 1-14 et al

In a group of Cleveland, Ohio, cases, Safety Point Products v. Does 1-14, and three other cases, District Judge James S. Gwin of the Northern District of Ohio has sua sponte severed as to all John Does, on the grounds that "participation" in a BitTorrent "swarm" is too imprecise a factor to justify joinder under the Federal Rules and the Court was "unconvinced that Plaintiff has even pleaded a prima facie case of copyright infringement", as well as on the alternative ground that permitting joinder "violates a sense of fairness".

The Court further ruled that, even apart from the joinder question, it "would hesitate to subpoena the ISPs without further information regarding Defendants’ alleged conduct."

Opinion and Order, District Judge James S. Gwin, April 4, 2013

"ReDigi Loses: You Can't Resell Your MP3s (Unless You Sell Your Whole Hard Drive)" ~ TechDirt

Article by Mike Masnick in TechDirt:

ReDigi Loses: You Can't Resell Your MP3s (Unless You Sell Your Whole Hard Drive)
from the a-big-first-sale-loss dept

This is hardly a surprise at all. In fact, we expected this kind of ruling all along. ReDigi, the company that was trying to build a "market" around "used MP3s" has lost at the district court. As you may recall, ReDigi tried to set up a system that monitors your own files, so that if you "sell" a used MP3, you have to make sure it's been removed from your own system. As you might imagine, that system is not foolproof, but some effort has been made (and it's only allowed for reselling MP3s ReDigi can prove you've purchased, such as via iTunes, and not for files just ripped from CDs). While I fully expected ReDigi to lose, the ruling is still fairly distressing in just how badly it distorts other parts of the law, which may harm other, even more reasonable uses. Hopefully, ReDigi will appeal and fight back against the more extreme interpretation from the district court here.

First, the court looks into the question of whether or not a transfer of a copyrighted file, where only one file remains at the end, still violates the "reproduction" right. That is, if Bob transfers a file to Alice, and Bob's copy of the file is immediately deleted, is that still a reproduction under the Copyright Act? The court says yes:......

Complete article


Opinion, March 30, 2013

YouTube moves for summary judgment in Viacom v. YouTube

In Viacom v. YouTube, the defendant has made a new motion for summary judgment asking the court to now dismiss the remainder of the case.

Defendant's memorandum of law in supuport of motion for summary judgment
Plaintiffs' opposition memorandum
Defendant's reply memorandum

Online publication of court records is privileged under the 1st Amendment: Nieman v VersusLaw

Hat tip to Prof. Eric Goldman's Technology & Marketing Law Blog:

The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has dismissed a case against a group of search engine companies for linking to public judicial records, in Nieman v. VersusLaw Inc. The Court ruled that publicly available judicial records are privileged under the 1st Amendment, noting that that judicial "[o]pinions are not the litigants' property. They belong to the public, which underwrites the judicial system that produces them".

March 19, 2013, Decision, Affirming Dismissal of Complaint

Cert denied in Capitol Records v Thomas-Rasset

Hat tip to Phil Usher and Wired.com

The United States Supreme Court has denied certiorari in Jammie Thomas's case, Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset. This means that the award of $222,000, for downloading 24 files, stands.

US Supreme Court order list, March 18, 2013

Commentary & discussion:

Jon Newton
Copmputer World

9th Circuit adheres to decision dismissing UMG v. Veoh on DMCA Safe Harbor grounds

In UMG v. Veoh, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has reaffirmed its previous ruling granting Veoh summary judgment dismissing the complaint, on the grounds that Veoh qualified for safe harbor treatment under the DMCA, and had complied with any legitimate takedown notices.

March 14, 2013, Decision granting rehearing and upon rehearing adhering to original decision, US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit

Commentary & discussion:

Slashdot

Ray Beckerman, PC

Report & recommendation affirmed in Combat Zone v Does 1-84, Does 2-84 severed, dismissed

In Combat Zone v. Does 1-84, a Massachussets case, the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Jennifer C. Boal severing and dismissing as to Does 2-84 has been adopted in full by District Judge Michael A. Ponsor.

March 14, 2013, Order & Decision Adopting Report & Recommendation of Severance & Dismissal, Hon. Michael A. Ponsor, District Judge

Ray Beckerman, PC

Prenda law firm sues bloggers for criticizing them; EFF represents bloggers

Prenda Law Firm, one of the "copyright troll" law firms bringing mass "John Doe" cases for alleged BitTorrent downloading copyright infringements, and its principal, have sued two bloggers who have been critical of Prenda and the other "troll" lawyers. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has entered the fray to defend the bloggers.

Ray Beckerman, PC

Joel Tenenbaum files his appeal brief in 1st Circuit

In SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, Joel Tenenbaum has filed his Appellant's Brief.

Appellant's Brief

Ray Beckerman, PC

RIAA files opposition to Jammie Thomas-Rasset Certiorari Petition

In Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset, the RIAA has filed a brief opposing the grant of certiorari requested by Jammie Thomas-Rasset.

RIAA Brief In Opposition to Certiorari

Ray Beckerman, PC

Jammie Thomas-Rasset files reply brief in support of petition for certiorari

In Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset, the petitioner has filed a reply brief in support of her petition for certiorari.

Petitioner's Reply Brief
Ray Beckerman, PC

Court severs, dismisses, quashes, In Combat Zone v Does 1-84, & sanctions plaintiff's attorney

In a Boston case, Combat Zone v. Does 1-84, the Court, by Magistrate Judge Jennifer C. Boal, has issued (a) a report and recommendation that the case be severed and dismissed, and subpoena quashed, as to Does 2-84, and (b) an order sanctioning plaintiff's counsel for using subpoenaed information to obtain a settlement during the pendency of defendants' motion to quash.

Report and recommendation for severance and dismissal of case, and quashing of subpoenas
Order granting sanctions against plaintiff's attorney

Ray Beckerman, PC

Motion to dismiss complaint for failure to state a claim granted in AF Holdings v Rogers

In a San Diego, California, case, AF Holdings v. Rogers, a motion to dismiss the complaint, for failure to state a claim, has been granted. Chief Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz ruled as follows:

[T]he Court is concerned about the lack of facts establishing that Defendant was using that IP address at that particular time. Indeed, the [complaint] does not explain what link, if any, there is between Defendant and the IP address. It is possible that Plaintiff sued Defendant because he is the subscriber to IP address .... As recognized by many courts, just because an IP address is registered to an individual does not mean that he or she is guilty of infringement when that IP address is used to commit infringing activity.

January 29, 2013, Order Partially Granting Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, Hon. Barry Ted Moskowitz, Chief Judge
Defendant's memorandum of law in support of motion to dismiss

Commentary & discussion:

Slashdot

Ray Beckerman, PC

Oral argument of reconsideration motions scheduled for February 14th in Capitol v MP3Tunes

A new scheduling order has been entered in Capitol Records v. MP3Tunes, LLC, fixing February 14th as the date for oral argument of the parties' respective reconsideration motions.

January 25, 2013, Scheduling order

Ray Beckerman, PC

Plaintiff's discovery motion denied in Third Degree v John Does 1-110: "infringer might be someone other than subscriber"

In Third Degree Films v. John Does 1-110, a Newark, New Jersey, case, the Court has denied the plaintiff's motion for discovery, on the ground that the plaintiff had not submitted a discovery plan which takes into account the Court's concerns about ensnaring, and burdening, innocent people:

Plaintiff fails to define John Does 1-110 in its complaint other than to state that “[e]ach Defendant is known to Plaintiff only by an IP address.” (Comp. ¶ 2.) In some instances, the IP subscriber and the John Doe defendant may not be the same individual. Indeed, the infringer might be someone other than the subscriber; for instance, someone in the subscriber’s household, a visitor to the subscriber’s home or even someone in the vicinity that gains access to the network. See VPR Internationale v. Does 1-1017, No. 11-2068, 2011 WL 8179128 (C.D.Ill. Apr. 29, 2011). As a result, Plaintiff’s sought after discovery has the potential to ensnare numerous innocent internet users into the litigation placing a burden on them that outweighs Plaintiff’s need for discovery as framed.

Granting Plaintiff’s motion has the potential to permit Plaintiff to obtain detailed personal information of innocent individuals. This could subject an innocent individual to an unjustified burden.

Order denying discovery


Ray Beckerman, PC

Huffington Post: Verizon Copyright Alert System Would Throttle Internet Speeds Of Repeat Online Pirates

From Gerry Smith at the Huffington Post:

Verizon Copyright Alert System Would Throttle Internet Speeds Of Repeat Online Pirates 

 

Guilty of online piracy? Verizon may slow your high-speed Internet service to a crawl.
The company is considering punishing subscribers who illegally share movies or songs on the Internet by temporarily throttling their Web service to dial-up speeds.

An internal Verizon document leaked online Friday outlines the proposed "copyright alert program." The plan is part of a controversial strategy being rolled out in coming weeks by the entertainment industry and major Internet providers to crack down on Internet piracy, which content creators say costs them billions in lost revenue each year.

Under Verizon's proposed program, subscribers accused of copyright infringement will receive a series of alerts, which critics of such programs call "six strikes." After the first two offenses, Verizon will send emails to subscribers with a link allowing them to see if illegal file-sharing is operating on their computers and how to remove it, according to the leaked document, which was confirmed as authentic by a Verizon spokesman.....

Complete article

 

Ray Beckerman, PC

My take on the Aaron Swartz tragedy: MIT & MA US Attorney can go to Hell

As a lawyer who's spent a lot of time trying to defend people from the Corporatocracy's iron grip on our judicial system, I am saddened but not in the least surprised over the assassination suicide of Aaron Swartz.

Here was an idealistic young man who essentially committed what was at worst a prank, for the purpose of making a statement on the importance of sharing -- as opposed to hoarding -- important research. He returned all of the data, and the organization which was supposedly 'victimized' dropped its charges, and expressed regret that it had ever been drawn into a criminal prosecution in the first place.

There is a special place in Hell for the a**holes at MIT who insisted on pursuing this matter, and for the heartless clones in the US Attorney's Office who insisted on seeking 30 years imprisonment.

That's what happens in a facist society, where big business owns the government and the universities.

Those at MIT and in the US Attorney's office responsible for the persecution prosecution of Aaron Swartz are a disgrace to their families, and have caused a black mark on their respective institutions which will never, ever be erased.

I call upon anyone who is the recipient of a request from MIT for money or anything else to tell them to go to Hell, and to tell them why.




Ray Beckerman, PC

Defendant moves for summary judgment or dismissal in DC case, Patrick Collins v John Does 1-6

In a District of Columbia case, Patrick Collins, Inc. v. John Does 1-6, one of the defendants has moved for summary judgment or dismissal of the complaint.

Defendant's memorandum of law in support of motion for summary judgment or dismissal of complaint

Ray Beckerman, PC

John Doe 8 moves to sever, dismiss, quash in NJ case, Malibu Media v John Does 1-19

In a Trenton, New Jersey, case, Malibu Media v. John Does 1-19, John Doe #8 has moved to sever, dismiss, and quash.

Memorandum of law in support of John Doe #8 motion to sever, dismiss, and quash


Ray Beckerman, PC