Showing posts with label music copyrights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label music copyrights. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 02, 2014

Copyright Law – Ninth Circuit – Is There A DMCA Safe Harbor For Video Sharing Services?



 
UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners LLC, 2013 WL 1092793 (9th Cir. 2013). UMG sued Veoh, a video sharing service that provides both user-generated content and licensed content, for copyright infringement.  Veoh asserted an affirmative defense under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 512(c) (the “DMCA”) which provides a “safe harbor” against liability for copyright infringement for internet service providers who qualify for and follow the statutory scheme which include implementing a notice and takedown system.  Veoh permits subscribers to upload and share video content.  Veoh implemented a filtering system to block users from uploading copyrighted content belonging to others and additionally licensed a third-party audio fingerprinting technology that samples uploads and blocks audio files with fingerprints matching those in the copyright owner database. Through its terms of use, Veoh discourages uploading of copyrighted content.  Veoh has promptly removed any instances of copyrighted content brought to its attention. Although the RIAA sent notices requesting the removal of specifically-identified infringing materials including some UMG works, UMG did not specifically complain of individual infringements before filing a complaint.  The Ninth Circuit reviewed the “safe harbor” provisions and rejected UMG’s arguments, In particular, the Court rejected UMG’s argument that Veoh “disabling access to” infringing materials was sufficient to satisfy the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA.  The Ninth Circuit considered Veoh’s appeal of the district court’s refusal to grant attorneys fees as “costs” as authorized under 17 U.S.C. §505.  In affirming the district court, the Ninth Circuit clarified that where attorneys fees are not awardable as costs in the application of 17 U.S.C. §505, Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Procedure does not provide an independent basis for awarding attorneys fees.  Rule 68, which makes an award of costs mandatory where a judgment obtained is not more favorable than the amount offered, is thus limited by the trial judge’s discretion in awarding attorneys fees under 17 U.S.C. §505.

To read Judge Pregerson, Fisher and Berzon’s decision, click here.

www.dunnington.com
Copyright law, fine art and navigating the courts. All practice, no theory.
Copyright Litigation Handbook (Thomson Reuters Westlaw 2012-2013) by Raymond J. Dowd Copyright Litigation Handbook on Westlaw

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Copyright Law - Eighth Circuit: Is Making Music Available on A Peer-to-Peer Network Copyright Infringement?

Copyright Infringement, Music Copyrights, Peer-to-Peer File Sharing, Statutory Damages, Injunctions

Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset, 692 F.3d 899 (8th Cir. September 11, 2012).  Record companies sued woman who copied copyrighted music files onto a file-sharing service and made songs available for others to copy for free.  First jury awarded $222,000.  New trial granted because of jury instruction that “making available” sound recordings violated Copyright Act regardless of whether there was actual distribution.  Second jury awarded $1.9 million.  Judge remitted award down to $54,000.  Record companies opted for new trial on damages and got $1.5 million.  On appeal, record companies wanted original $222,000 jury award and a ruling that “making available” a sound recording on a peer-to-peer network violates the Copyright Act, regardless of whether anyone downloads it.  Defendant challenged constitutionality of award and scope of injunctive relief against her.  Held: $220,000 jury award for copying with no profit motive constitutional and not shocking to the conscience.  Record companies’ request for ruling on “making available” right moot, even though district court enjoined Defendant from such activity because injunctions often encompass otherwise legal activities by persons who have shown proclivity to disobey the law and where enjoining only illegal act not capable of monitoring to protect victim.
www.dunnington.com
 Purchase Copyright Litigation Handbook 2012-2013 by Raymond J. Dowd from West here  

Friday, July 26, 2013

Copyright Law - Seventh Circuit: Does Kanye West Kill You or Make You Stronger?

Music Copyrights,  Access, Substantial Similarity, Song Lyrics, Motion to Dismiss

Peters v. Kanye West, 692 F.3d 629 (7th Circuit August 20, 2012).  Vince P. gave song “Stronger” quoting Nietzsche to Joe Monopoly.  Monopoly agreed to rep him if a label financed.  Deal fell through.  Less than a year later Kanye West comes out with megahit titled “Stronger” quoting Nietzsche.  Joe Monopoly is a producer on the album.   District court finds the songs not similar, affirms the district court’s dismissal following a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.  Lyrics in opinion, good discussion of access.

www.dunnington.com
 Purchase Copyright Litigation Handbook 2012-2013 by Raymond J. Dowd from West here