Eriq Gardner, ABCNEWS.com; Why Hollywood Should Be Nervous About Court Pick:
"Hollywood may have some reason to be nervous about President Obama's nomination of Elena Kagan to be the next U.S. Supreme Court justice.
Not a whole lot is known about Kagan's judicial philosophy, which in some ways, makes her the perfect pick to win confirmation by the Senate. Her record on issues the industry cares about, though, isn't entirely opaque.
Hollywood's biggest worry about Kagan might be her philosophy on intellectual property matters. As dean of Harvard Law School from 2003 to 2009, she was instrumental in beefing up the school's Berkman Center for Internet & Society by recruiting Lawrence Lessig and others who take a strongly liberal position on "fair use" in copyright disputes.
Most notably, during those years, Professor Charles Nesson at the Berkman Center represented accused file-sharer Joel Tenenbaum in the defense of a lawsuit by the Recording Industry Association of America, the trade group representing the major U.S. record labels. Professor Nesson led his cyberlaw class in alleging that "the RIAA is abusing law and the civil process" with excessive damage claims in piracy cases. It was Kagan herself who wrote a personal letter to the U.S. District Court to help certify the students.
Paradoxically, the Obama administration later weighed in on the side of the RIAA in the case. But that was before Kagan was fully confirmed as U.S. Solicitor General. At the time, Professor Nesson expressed some doubts about whether Kagan would back the government's amicus brief and also called her "enlightened" on these issues.
Kagan got her biggest opportunity to showcase her feelings on IP when the U.S. Supreme Court asked her, as U.S. Solicitor General, to weigh in on the big Cablevision case.
Hollywood was upset when Cablevision announced its intention to allow subscribers to store TV programs on the cable operator's computer servers instead of a hard-top box. The introduction of remote-storage DVR kicked off furious litigation, and the 2nd Circuit overturned a lower court ruling by saying that the technology wouldn't violate copyright holder's rights. The studios appealed to the Supreme Court."
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=10610313
Sunday, May 16, 2010
'Hurt Locker' producers about to sue an army of pirates; Hollywood Reporter, 5/11/10
Eriq Gardner, Hollywood Reporter; 'Hurt Locker' producers about to sue an army of pirates:
"EXCLUSIVE: The war against movie piracy is getting downright explosive. We've learned that the producers of the Oscar-winning "The Hurt Locker" are preparing a massive lawsuit against thousands of individuals who pirated the film online. The case could be filed as soon as tomorrow.
Voltage Pictures, the banner behind the best picture winner, has signed up with the U.S. Copyright Group, the Washington D.C.-based venture that, as we first reported in March, has begun a litigation campaign targeting tens of thousands of BitTorrent users.
According to Thomas Dunlap, a lawyer at the firm, the multi-million dollar copyright infringement lawsuit should be filed this week. He declines to say exactly how many individuals will be targeted, but expect the number to be in the tens of thousands, if not more. "Locker" first leaked onto the web more than five months before its U.S. release and was a hot item in P2P circles after it won six Oscars in March. Despite the accolades, the film grossed only about $16 million in the U.S.
The U.S. Copyright Group has already filed lawsuits over about 10 other films, including Uwe Boll's "Far Cry," "Call of the Wild 3D" and "Uncross the Stars." Reports of those suits raised alarms in some circles, whereas others joked that the movie industry was merely suing those with poor taste.
"You can guess that relative to the films we've pursued already, the order of magnitude is much higher" with "Hurt Locker," says Dunlap, adding that the lawsuit will also cover other Voltage pictures such as "Personal Effects," starring Ashton Kutcher.
If the addition of "Locker" to this litigation campaign could shake things up, so too could news about cooperation by ISPs in this escalating fight.
After filing the lawsuits, the plaintiffs must subpoena ISP records in an effort to match IP addresses with illicit behavior on BitTorrent.
According to lawyers at Dunlap's firm, 75 percent of ISPs have cooperated fully. Those that have resisted are mostly doing so, they say, because of the amount of work involved in handing over thousands of names. But the clock may be ticking. For example, in the lawsuit over "Far Cry," Comcast has until next Wednesday to file motions to quash subpoenas. (Here's the stipulation by the parties.) By the end of next week, thousands of Comcast subscribers could be turned over.
Of the some 50,000 individuals who have been sued thus far, only three have tried to quash the subpoena. In one instance, a Georgia man tried to invoke the state's shield law protecting journalists from having to disclose their sources. The judge denied the motion. In another instance, a woman successfully got a court to throw out the subpoena because her IP address wasn't listed in the original complaint. Unfortunately for her, the complaint was then amended.
After unmasking individuals who have illegally downloaded films, the U.S. Copyright Group then sends a settlement offer.
Lawyers at the firm are seeing some returns on the first two lawsuits filed back in January. About 40 percent have settled, according to the U.S. Copyright Group. Those who haven't settled will be sent another round of settlement offers, and the group promises to eventually serve lawsuits on these individuals.
Since we first broke news about the litigation campaign, Dunlap says he's been besieged by e-mails from 20 to 30 independent film groups that have expressed frustration about rampant piracy and interest in joining up. The firm plans to send people to this month's Festival de Cannes, where they've already arranged meetings with a number of other film producers to discuss further lawsuits."
http://thresq.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/05/hurt-locker-producer-to-sue-pirates.html
"EXCLUSIVE: The war against movie piracy is getting downright explosive. We've learned that the producers of the Oscar-winning "The Hurt Locker" are preparing a massive lawsuit against thousands of individuals who pirated the film online. The case could be filed as soon as tomorrow.
Voltage Pictures, the banner behind the best picture winner, has signed up with the U.S. Copyright Group, the Washington D.C.-based venture that, as we first reported in March, has begun a litigation campaign targeting tens of thousands of BitTorrent users.
According to Thomas Dunlap, a lawyer at the firm, the multi-million dollar copyright infringement lawsuit should be filed this week. He declines to say exactly how many individuals will be targeted, but expect the number to be in the tens of thousands, if not more. "Locker" first leaked onto the web more than five months before its U.S. release and was a hot item in P2P circles after it won six Oscars in March. Despite the accolades, the film grossed only about $16 million in the U.S.
The U.S. Copyright Group has already filed lawsuits over about 10 other films, including Uwe Boll's "Far Cry," "Call of the Wild 3D" and "Uncross the Stars." Reports of those suits raised alarms in some circles, whereas others joked that the movie industry was merely suing those with poor taste.
"You can guess that relative to the films we've pursued already, the order of magnitude is much higher" with "Hurt Locker," says Dunlap, adding that the lawsuit will also cover other Voltage pictures such as "Personal Effects," starring Ashton Kutcher.
If the addition of "Locker" to this litigation campaign could shake things up, so too could news about cooperation by ISPs in this escalating fight.
After filing the lawsuits, the plaintiffs must subpoena ISP records in an effort to match IP addresses with illicit behavior on BitTorrent.
According to lawyers at Dunlap's firm, 75 percent of ISPs have cooperated fully. Those that have resisted are mostly doing so, they say, because of the amount of work involved in handing over thousands of names. But the clock may be ticking. For example, in the lawsuit over "Far Cry," Comcast has until next Wednesday to file motions to quash subpoenas. (Here's the stipulation by the parties.) By the end of next week, thousands of Comcast subscribers could be turned over.
Of the some 50,000 individuals who have been sued thus far, only three have tried to quash the subpoena. In one instance, a Georgia man tried to invoke the state's shield law protecting journalists from having to disclose their sources. The judge denied the motion. In another instance, a woman successfully got a court to throw out the subpoena because her IP address wasn't listed in the original complaint. Unfortunately for her, the complaint was then amended.
After unmasking individuals who have illegally downloaded films, the U.S. Copyright Group then sends a settlement offer.
Lawyers at the firm are seeing some returns on the first two lawsuits filed back in January. About 40 percent have settled, according to the U.S. Copyright Group. Those who haven't settled will be sent another round of settlement offers, and the group promises to eventually serve lawsuits on these individuals.
Since we first broke news about the litigation campaign, Dunlap says he's been besieged by e-mails from 20 to 30 independent film groups that have expressed frustration about rampant piracy and interest in joining up. The firm plans to send people to this month's Festival de Cannes, where they've already arranged meetings with a number of other film producers to discuss further lawsuits."
http://thresq.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/05/hurt-locker-producer-to-sue-pirates.html
Open Book Alliance tosses brick at Google; backs Amazon, Microsoft Corp., AT&T; Baltimore Examiner, 5/11/10
Peter Kelton, Baltimore Examiner; Open Book Alliance tosses brick at Google; backs Amazon, Microsoft Corp., AT&T:
"The Open Book Alliance (OBA) has tossed another brick at the Google Books Settlement now pending a supposedly final decision in federal court. Many believe the decision may shape the future of book publishing. Most assume the decision will be appealed.
OBA released an analysis it bought from a law firm that finds “numerous provisions of the proposed Google Books settlement would, if approved, violate the treaty obligations of the U.S. If the settlement is approved, it may give rise to legal action against the U.S. before an international tribunal and will certainly expose the U.S. to diplomatic stress.”
Open Book Alliance includes the following members: Amazon, American Society of Journalists and Authors, Council of Literary Magazines and Presses, Internet Archive, Presidio of San Francisco, Microsoft, National Writers Union, New York Library Association, Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, Small Press Distribution, and Yahoo!
The 18-page analysis is available from (OBA).
The Justice Department had recommended that folks keep negotiating the ultimate terms of settling the $125 million lawsuit against Google."
http://www.examiner.com/x-15737-Albuquerque-Contemporary-Literature-Examiner~y2010m5d11-Open-Book-Alliance-tosses-brick-at-Google-backs-Amazon-Microsoft-Corp-ATT
"The Open Book Alliance (OBA) has tossed another brick at the Google Books Settlement now pending a supposedly final decision in federal court. Many believe the decision may shape the future of book publishing. Most assume the decision will be appealed.
OBA released an analysis it bought from a law firm that finds “numerous provisions of the proposed Google Books settlement would, if approved, violate the treaty obligations of the U.S. If the settlement is approved, it may give rise to legal action against the U.S. before an international tribunal and will certainly expose the U.S. to diplomatic stress.”
Open Book Alliance includes the following members: Amazon, American Society of Journalists and Authors, Council of Literary Magazines and Presses, Internet Archive, Presidio of San Francisco, Microsoft, National Writers Union, New York Library Association, Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, Small Press Distribution, and Yahoo!
The 18-page analysis is available from (OBA).
The Justice Department had recommended that folks keep negotiating the ultimate terms of settling the $125 million lawsuit against Google."
http://www.examiner.com/x-15737-Albuquerque-Contemporary-Literature-Examiner~y2010m5d11-Open-Book-Alliance-tosses-brick-at-Google-backs-Amazon-Microsoft-Corp-ATT
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
LimeWire Found to Infringe Copyrights; Wall Street Journal, 5/13/10
Ethan Smith, Wall Street Journal; LimeWire Found to Infringe Copyrights:
"A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the makers of LimeWire, a popular file-sharing application, were liable for copyright infringement and related claims brought by a consortium of 13 major music labels.
The blistering, 59-page ruling from Judge Kimba Wood of U.S. District Court in Manhattan granted several requests for summary judgment made by the music labels, which are represented by the Recording Industry Association of America.
For many in the music industry the ruling is a throwback to an earlier digital era. LimeWire and similar software had their heyday several years ago, and while still present on many people's computers they have been eclipsed by newer downloading methods such as BitTorrent.
In a statement, LimeWire Chief Executive George Searle said: "LimeWire strongly opposes the court's recent decision." RIAA CEO Mitch Bainwol, in a statement, called the ruling "an extraordinary victory for the entire creative community."
Nonetheless, it is unclear whether the ruling will have a tangible effect on illegal downloading of music and other media, experts said, given the diffuse nature of the networks on which the material travels.
Judge Wood's ruling didn't shut down LimeWire, though she could do so after subsequent hearings.
But even if she does issue such an order, experts say it is unlikely to stop its use by people who have already installed the software on their computers, since the file-trading network operates independently, out of the control of the company or any other central authority.
LimeWire was the last major commercial distributor of software that lets users access the once-popular Gnutella network, where people shared music.
NPD Group, which tracks consumer behavior, said LimeWire is present in 1.7 million households and used by 58% of people who download music using so-called peer-to-peer networks. NPD added that most people who download music from such networks use more than one kind of software, meaning that LimeWire users are also likely to use BitTorrent and other method.
Illegal downloading activity is difficult to measure but by many estimates it far exceeds paid downloads, despite the growth of Apple Inc.'s iTunes Store.
"The music marketplace and the digital entertainment marketplace is overwhelmingly a pirate market," said Eric Garland, CEO of BigChampagne LLC, which monitors file-sharing activity for clients including media companies.
Mr. Garland offered what he called a "conservative" estimate that around one billion songs a month, or 12 billion a year, are downloaded illegally. That compares with 1.2 billion songs downloaded in all of 2009 from paid services in the U.S.—by far the world's largest market for digital downloads. Even adding in other nations' downloading, peer-to-peer sharing likely dwarfs paid music downloads by about seven to one."
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748704247904575240572654422514-lMyQjAxMTAwMDEwMjExNDIyWj.html
"A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the makers of LimeWire, a popular file-sharing application, were liable for copyright infringement and related claims brought by a consortium of 13 major music labels.
The blistering, 59-page ruling from Judge Kimba Wood of U.S. District Court in Manhattan granted several requests for summary judgment made by the music labels, which are represented by the Recording Industry Association of America.
For many in the music industry the ruling is a throwback to an earlier digital era. LimeWire and similar software had their heyday several years ago, and while still present on many people's computers they have been eclipsed by newer downloading methods such as BitTorrent.
In a statement, LimeWire Chief Executive George Searle said: "LimeWire strongly opposes the court's recent decision." RIAA CEO Mitch Bainwol, in a statement, called the ruling "an extraordinary victory for the entire creative community."
Nonetheless, it is unclear whether the ruling will have a tangible effect on illegal downloading of music and other media, experts said, given the diffuse nature of the networks on which the material travels.
Judge Wood's ruling didn't shut down LimeWire, though she could do so after subsequent hearings.
But even if she does issue such an order, experts say it is unlikely to stop its use by people who have already installed the software on their computers, since the file-trading network operates independently, out of the control of the company or any other central authority.
LimeWire was the last major commercial distributor of software that lets users access the once-popular Gnutella network, where people shared music.
NPD Group, which tracks consumer behavior, said LimeWire is present in 1.7 million households and used by 58% of people who download music using so-called peer-to-peer networks. NPD added that most people who download music from such networks use more than one kind of software, meaning that LimeWire users are also likely to use BitTorrent and other method.
Illegal downloading activity is difficult to measure but by many estimates it far exceeds paid downloads, despite the growth of Apple Inc.'s iTunes Store.
"The music marketplace and the digital entertainment marketplace is overwhelmingly a pirate market," said Eric Garland, CEO of BigChampagne LLC, which monitors file-sharing activity for clients including media companies.
Mr. Garland offered what he called a "conservative" estimate that around one billion songs a month, or 12 billion a year, are downloaded illegally. That compares with 1.2 billion songs downloaded in all of 2009 from paid services in the U.S.—by far the world's largest market for digital downloads. Even adding in other nations' downloading, peer-to-peer sharing likely dwarfs paid music downloads by about seven to one."
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748704247904575240572654422514-lMyQjAxMTAwMDEwMjExNDIyWj.html
Ireland Is Latest With Plan to Cut Into Copyright Violations; New York Times, 4/16/10
Eric Pfanner, New York Times; Ireland Is Latest With Plan to Cut Into Copyright Violations:
"A judge in Ireland on Thursday cleared the way for the implementation of a crackdown on Internet piracy, dismissing the Irish Data Protection Commissioner’s concerns that the plan could result in the invasion of privacy.
The judge upheld the legality of an agreement between Eircom, the largest Internet service provider in Ireland, and the music industry. Under the deal, Eircom has agreed to suspend digital pirates’ Internet connections if they ignore repeated warnings to stop the unauthorized copying of music.
In his ruling, the judge, Peter Charleton, issued a strong defense of the rights of copyright owners.
“The Internet is only a means of communication,” he wrote. “It is not an amorphous extraterrestrial body with an entitlement to norms that run counter to the fundamental principles of human rights. There is nothing in the criminal or civil law which legalizes that which is otherwise illegal simply because the transaction takes place over the Internet.”
The music industry has been urging Internet service providers to take stronger action against piracy, though they have generally resisted measures like those agreed to by Eircom. In France and Britain, governments have approved laws authorizing suspension of pirates’ Internet accounts, though these measures have not yet gone into effect.
The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry hailed the decision in Ireland.
“This sends a strong message to governments that are now considering how to help their creative industries address the threat of mass online piracy,” the group said."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/17/technology/17eircom.html?scp=2&sq=copyright&st=cse
"A judge in Ireland on Thursday cleared the way for the implementation of a crackdown on Internet piracy, dismissing the Irish Data Protection Commissioner’s concerns that the plan could result in the invasion of privacy.
The judge upheld the legality of an agreement between Eircom, the largest Internet service provider in Ireland, and the music industry. Under the deal, Eircom has agreed to suspend digital pirates’ Internet connections if they ignore repeated warnings to stop the unauthorized copying of music.
In his ruling, the judge, Peter Charleton, issued a strong defense of the rights of copyright owners.
“The Internet is only a means of communication,” he wrote. “It is not an amorphous extraterrestrial body with an entitlement to norms that run counter to the fundamental principles of human rights. There is nothing in the criminal or civil law which legalizes that which is otherwise illegal simply because the transaction takes place over the Internet.”
The music industry has been urging Internet service providers to take stronger action against piracy, though they have generally resisted measures like those agreed to by Eircom. In France and Britain, governments have approved laws authorizing suspension of pirates’ Internet accounts, though these measures have not yet gone into effect.
The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry hailed the decision in Ireland.
“This sends a strong message to governments that are now considering how to help their creative industries address the threat of mass online piracy,” the group said."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/17/technology/17eircom.html?scp=2&sq=copyright&st=cse
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Publishers get together to beat down pirates [Updated]; ComicBookResources.com, 5/5/10
Brigid Alverson, ComicBookResources.com; Publishers get together to beat down pirates [Updated]:
"The FBI has served a warrant on the pirate site HTMLcomics.com and shut down their servers.
Acting on a warrant that alleged criminal copyright infringement, they shut down the site and confiscated the servers, according to this press release from the law firm Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP.
According to the release, DC, Marvel, Dark Horse Comics, Bongo Comics, Archie Comics, Conan Properties Int’l LLC, Mirage Studios Inc., and United Media set aside their differences, formed a consortium, and lawyered up in order to shut down the site, which claimed an average of 1.6 million visits per day and offered 6,630,021 pages of comics available for unrestricted reading.
Rich Johnston blogged about these guys a few weeks ago, noting that they claimed that they weren't violating any copyright laws because they make the pages available for viewing online but not for download. Of course, it took his commenters about 30 seconds to defeat that, and anyway, the Department of Justice begs to differ with them on the legal issues.
UPDATE: Colleen Doran has some experience with this site and its proprietor."
http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2010/05/publishers-get-together-to-beat-down-pirates/
"The FBI has served a warrant on the pirate site HTMLcomics.com and shut down their servers.
Acting on a warrant that alleged criminal copyright infringement, they shut down the site and confiscated the servers, according to this press release from the law firm Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP.
According to the release, DC, Marvel, Dark Horse Comics, Bongo Comics, Archie Comics, Conan Properties Int’l LLC, Mirage Studios Inc., and United Media set aside their differences, formed a consortium, and lawyered up in order to shut down the site, which claimed an average of 1.6 million visits per day and offered 6,630,021 pages of comics available for unrestricted reading.
Rich Johnston blogged about these guys a few weeks ago, noting that they claimed that they weren't violating any copyright laws because they make the pages available for viewing online but not for download. Of course, it took his commenters about 30 seconds to defeat that, and anyway, the Department of Justice begs to differ with them on the legal issues.
UPDATE: Colleen Doran has some experience with this site and its proprietor."
http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2010/05/publishers-get-together-to-beat-down-pirates/
Monday, May 3, 2010
German Court: Google Image Search Not a Copyright Violation; PC Mag, 4/29/10
Chloe Albanesius, PC Mag; German Court: Google Image Search Not a Copyright Violation:
"Google's Image Search is not a copyright violation, according to a German court.
The German Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that images pulled from the Web and displayed on Google's Image Search results does not infringe on the owner's rights.
"Today's ruling makes it clear not just for Google, its users in Germany and all owners of Web sites containing images, but also for all providers of image search services operating in the country: showing thumbnail images within search results is legitimate and millions of users in Germany benefit from being able to discover virtual information at the click of a mouse," Arnd Haller, managing counsel for Google Germany, wrote in a blog post.
The case dates back several years: A German artist who had uploaded photos of her paintings to her Web site sued Google for copyright infringement when those photos showed up in Google Image Search.
Haller said Google is still waiting for the full decision, but "what we know today [is that] thousands of Web sites and companies in Germany will be able to benefit from Google Image Search in the future as well," Haller wrote."
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2363263,00.asp
"Google's Image Search is not a copyright violation, according to a German court.
The German Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that images pulled from the Web and displayed on Google's Image Search results does not infringe on the owner's rights.
"Today's ruling makes it clear not just for Google, its users in Germany and all owners of Web sites containing images, but also for all providers of image search services operating in the country: showing thumbnail images within search results is legitimate and millions of users in Germany benefit from being able to discover virtual information at the click of a mouse," Arnd Haller, managing counsel for Google Germany, wrote in a blog post.
The case dates back several years: A German artist who had uploaded photos of her paintings to her Web site sued Google for copyright infringement when those photos showed up in Google Image Search.
Haller said Google is still waiting for the full decision, but "what we know today [is that] thousands of Web sites and companies in Germany will be able to benefit from Google Image Search in the future as well," Haller wrote."
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2363263,00.asp
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)