The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) have filed thousands of lawsuits accusing individuals of unlawful downloading of films and music, “but largely because of the legal costs few have been contested and none have gone to trial. This has left several controversies unresolved, including the lawfulness of how the associations get access to ISP records and whether it’s possible to definitively tie a person to an IP address in the age of Wi-Fi.” That may change, however. Universal Pictures and the MPAA have told Shawn Hogan that they’re suing him for downloading Meet the Fockers over BitTorrent, but Hogan says he didn’t do it and already owned the film on DVD. Hogan happens to be a software millionaire and says he’s prepared to spend $100,000 or more in legal fees to put MPAA and Universal to their proof rather than fork over the demanded $2,500. (David Goldenberg, “Shawn Hogan, Hero”, Wired, Aug.).
Posts Tagged ‘copyright’
Althouse on YouTube lawsuit
The Wisconsin lawprof has this to say (Jul. 19) on that copyright-infringement lawsuit that we mentioned in passing yesterday, the one aimed at the hit site for hosting a video of the beating of Reginald Denny:
Robert Tur, who could have just asked YouTube to remove the video someone had uploaded, instead left it there and then sued demanding $150,000 for each of the 1,000+ viewings that occurred. YouTube took the video down when the lawsuit called attention to the problem.
Well, we knew eventually someone would sue YouTube, but could it be anyone less sympathetic then a guy who once got lucky and was there with a camera when someone else was getting beaten up?
More in her comments section.
YouTube lawyer ads
This injury-lawyer ad (big explosions, wow) and this one (William Shatner endorsement) appear to be real. On the other hand, this one (“Have you forgiven someone for something you shouldn’t have forgiven them for?” and this one (dog lawyer) and this one (trips over potential client) are just parodies (via Bainbridge). Check the YouTube “lawyer” category for more, and maybe get there quickly, before the copyright lawyers get too busy (K.C. Jones, “Journalist Sues YouTube For Copyright Infringement”, TechWeb/InformationWeek, Jul. 18; “YouTube wanders into copyright mire”, Out-Law/The Register (U.K.), Jul. 19). More: Jul. 21.
RIAA [might be] told to pay attorney fees
The recording industry association sued Debbie Foster of Oklahoma along with her daughter Amanda for $5000, saying her broadband account had been used for song downloading. But when Foster resisted the suit, and requested to know the dates and song titles of the allegedly infringing downloads, the association failed to respond. Foster filed for summary judgment and RIAA withdrew its suit against her. A judge said Foster counted as a prevailing party under the terms of the Copyright Act and that RIAA should could apply for RIAA to pay her attorney’s fees. (Eric Bangeman, Ars Tecnica, Jul. 13). See, e.g., Nov. 4, 2005, Feb. 7, 2005. (Fixed Jul. 16 to respond to reader comment noting that the judge did not in fact order a fee shift but only declared Foster eligible to apply for one. A PDF of the ruling is here)
The Bloomsday litigants
The grandson of James Joyce, Stephen James Joyce, has used his control of the copyrights to Joyce’s work to impede scholarly research by threatening to withhold consent to any academic who would veer into investigation of the family history. He spent a hundred thousand dollars of the estate’s money to halt publication of a new edition of “Ulysses”; has “blocked or discouraged” a number of readings; and threatened to sue the National Library of Ireland when it sought to display its copies of Joyce’s manuscripts. In revenge for Michael Groden’s favorable blurb of a scholar Stephen Joyce disliked, Joyce quoted a price of a million and a half dollars for Groden’s right to quote “Ulysses” in the multimedia work he spent seven years preparing. D.T. Max in the June 19 New Yorker explores the younger Joyce’s battles, and also mentions other litigious literary estates.
Whatever happened to the Nitpicker’s Guides?
Ask Paramount, whose lawyers zealously police unauthorized discussion of the Star Trek franchise (NitCentral, May 15, 1998, scroll to Phil Farrand, “I’m afraid I have some bad news”; Aug. 7, 1998, scroll to “Bullies on the Playground”). More on fan literature: Feb. 14, 2005.
Copyright protection for fashion?
The Council of Fashion Designers of America is pushing legislation slated for introduction by Rep. Robert Goodlatte (R-Va.) that would allow fashion innovators to sue competitors who knock off their distinctive look (as distinct from passing off goods under a false trademark, which is already uncontroversially actionable). What next — copyright protection for novel hairstyles? Julian Sanchez at Reason “Hit and Run” comments (Mar. 30; Eric Wilson, “O.K., Knockoffs, This Is War”, New York Times, Mar. 30). See Feb. 27.
Larry Flynt, hero?
[Joe] Escalante, a devout Catholic who says he is no fan of p0rn, knew going in that his show’s name, “Barely Legal Radio,” might run into some copyright issues with Flynt’s Barely Legal brand of adult magazines and videos. But Flynt did not challenge the show’s application for a trademark.
“I heard from some people inside that [Flynt] didn’t think there was any confusion,” Escalante says. “If this is true, he’s the only guy I’ve ever heard of whose response is ‘Why would I sue these people?’ That sort of makes him a hero of the ‘Barely Legal’ show. You never hear something like that. In this town? Usually you’d at least get a letter.”
(Hank Stuever, “The DJ With the JD”, Washington Post, Apr. 10).
If I could sue like the animals
Canadian photographer Gregory Colbert is starting an outfit he calls the Animal Copyright Foundation whose intent is to collect royalty payments on behalf of animal species as compensation for the use in advertising of, for instance, the Budweiser Clydesdales, Target’s spotted dog, the Hartford’s stag, and other furred, finned or feathered creatures, the proceeds to be distributed to conservation causes that benefit animals. In all fairness, media accounts describe Colbert as seeking not obligatory rules requiring payment of the 1 percent royalties when a photo or video is used, but rather a “seal of approval” system in which advertisers vie for consumer favor by voluntarily pledging the set-aside. One almost hesitates to publicize the idea, however, for fear it will percolate in the law schools and emerge after a few years as an asserted new legal entitlement, as “animal standing” has done. (WSJ law blog, Mar. 16; Tim Nudd, AdFreak, Mar. 10; Lunch Over IP, Feb. 25).
A fix for orphan copyright?
In today’s WSJ, Jerry Brito and Bridget C.E. Dooling propose that Congress “create an affirmative defense — along the lines of fair use — for those who copy a work after trying unsuccessfully to locate the copyright owner. …Of course, the user should have to share any future profits with the rightful owner of the work, but he should not have to face the stiff statutory penalties of copyright infringement that now prevent so many orphan works from being used. This would also give copyright owners who value their works an incentive to make themselves relatively easy to be found.” (“Who’s Your Daddy?”, Mar. 25, sub-only). For more on the legal problems occasioned by works whose original creators are unknown or untraceable, see Apr. 14 and Jul. 26 of last year.