Showing posts with label copyright suits. Show all posts
Showing posts with label copyright suits. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

Supreme Court legalizes downloading music

Published: 04 October, 2011


The United State Supreme Court has refused an appeal that would have made downloading music an infringement of federal copyright law. Take that, Metallica!

The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, or ASCAP, had been attempting to appeal to the Supreme Court an early ruling by an appeals court in New York that said that a downloaded song constituted a public performance of the song under federal copyright law. Attorneys for ASCAP were fighting to reverse that decision in hopes that they’d be able to collect additional royalties off of songs downloaded from the Web.

ASCAP had insisted that digital downloads were on par with public performances, which would thus allow copyright owners to receive compensation for each download. A federal judge and an appeals court had rejected that argument, however, and now the Supreme Court is also refusing to hear it.

According to the appeals court, “Music is neither recited, rendered, nor played when a recording (electronic or otherwise) is simply delivered to a potential listener.” US Solicitor General Donald Verrilli agreed with the appeals ruling and that just because a song was transferred over the Internet did not mean that it was being performed, reports Reuters.

Theodore Olson, a Bush administration-appointed solicitor general representing ASCAP in the matter believes otherwise. He argues that the earlier ruling placed the United States in violation of intellectual property treaties and other international agreements, says Reuters, but the Supreme Court said they wouldn’t bother to go over the appeal and issued no comment.

ASCAP, who has nearly 300,000 members, first lost the case back in September of 2010. In the last year, however, they have taken several routes in hopes of getting additional revenues for their clients that they say lose profits through digital downloads.

In the meantime, ASCAP members do indeed still receive revenue from downloads, just not the additional compensation that the group was hoping to get them. A mechanical royalty is offered to copyright owners through a separate body than that that handles performance royalties, which ASCAP was hoping to have applied to digital downloads.

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

‘Copyright troll’ Righthaven may have lied in hundreds of lawsuits

By Stephen C. Webster, RAW Story
Wednesday, June 15th, 2011

The liberal political forum Democratic Underground, LLC. (DU) has escaped a lawsuit filed by Righthaven, LLC. that claimed a user illegally appropriated several paragraphs of a news story.

In the ruling, a Las Vegas judge wrote that Righthaven's claims were invalid because it did not actually hold a copyright on the story -- and that it may have mislead judges in hundreds of other lawsuits.

The user's excerpt was five sentences long, taken from a 50-sentence story in The Las Vegas Review Journal, and included a hyperlink for DU users to read more.

U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt wrote that Righthaven "made multiple inaccurate and likely dishonest statements to the court" and ordered them to explain why they should not be sanctioned for it.

He also allowed DU's counterclaim against Stephens Media, owner of The Las Vegas Review Journal and true holder of the copyright Righthaven claimed ownership of, to move forward in seeking to recover attorney's fees.

The group, which makes its business on suing websites, had asserted in court documents that the copyright had been transferred to them. It was later revealed that they had simply agreed to represent the paper's claim for a cut of the potential profits.

This detail went undisclosed in hundreds of prior Righthaven lawsuits, the judge noted, suggesting that other courts may have been mislead.

"In dismissing Righthaven's claim in its entirety, Chief Judge Hunt's ruling decisively rejected the Righthaven business model of conveying rights to sue, alone, as a means to enforce copyrights," Laurence Pulgram, an attorney representing DU, said in a media advisory issued by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). "The ruling speaks for itself."

Righthaven, known to critics as a "copyright troll," generally does not end up in court when it files lawsuits. The suits are typically filed without prior warning as a means of demanding settlement, which they tend to get. Some Righthaven copyright claims exceed $150,000 at their outset, and the company said it had filed 275 of these suits at time of this writing.

"This kind of copyright trolling from Righthaven and Stephens Media has undermined free and open discussion on the Internet, scaring people out of sharing information and discussing the news of the day," EFF staff attorney Kurt Opsahl said in a release. "We hope this is the beginning of the end of this shameful litigation campaign."

The judge's full ruling follows.

####

Righthaven v. Democratic Underground - No Standing Ruling by Chief U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt

Righthaven v. Democratic Underground - No Standing Ruling by Chief U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt
Disclosure: Raw Story Media, Inc. was sued by Righthaven earlier this year over use of a photograph, but the two parties reached an amicable agreement out of court.

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

EFF Argues Against Mass Copyright Infringement Lawsuits in Wednesday Hearing

Predatory Suits Improperly Lump Thousands of Defendants Together

Washington, D.C. - On Wednesday, June 30, at 2:15 p.m., a federal court in Washington, D.C., will hear oral argument from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) about dividing up the mass copyright infringement lawsuits that improperly and unfairly target thousands of BitTorrent users.

A Washington, D.C., law firm calling itself the "U.S. Copyright Group" (USCG) has filed "John Doe" lawsuits on behalf of seven filmmakers that implicate well over 14,000 anonymous individuals in alleged unauthorized downloading of independent films, including "Far Cry" and "The Hurt Locker." EFF and co-amici Public Citizen and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Foundation contend that these suits improperly lump thousands of defendants together, a shortcut that deprives the defendants of fair access to individual justice. In court on Wednesday, EFF Senior Staff Attorney Corynne McSherry will argue that USCG has not offered enough evidence of a relationship between the defendants to justify suing them together.

The stakes are high for anyone identified in USCG's slipshod cases. USCG's strategy appears to be to threaten a judgment of up to $150,000 per downloaded movie -- the maximum penalty allowable by law in copyright suits and a very unlikely judgment in cases arising from a single, noncommercial infringement -- in order to pressure the alleged infringers to settle quickly for $1,500 - $2,500 per person. Earlier this month, EFF, the ACLU, and Public Citizen filed an amicus brief in three of these cases, outlining how the lawsuits flout the legal safeguards that protect individuals' rights.

WHAT:
Achte-Neunte v. Does
West Bay One v. Does

WHEN:
Wednesday, June 30
2:15 p.m.

WHERE:
United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Courtroom 2
333 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001

For more on these cases:
http://www.eff.org/cases/achte-neunte-v-does