M.E.L.O.N.

Tech News: Veoh Sails into "Safe Harbor"

by Shana Dines

In a previous article, we explained the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's "notice and takedown" and "safe harbor" provisions that were meant to insulate certain internet services from copyright infringement committed by their users. 

Viacom sued YouTube in early 2007, alleging that at least 150,000 clips on YouTube included content owned by Viacom that had been viewed at least 1.5 billion times, in total.  Viacom further condemned YouTube for profiting from a "massive copyright infringement."

Veoh, another online video site that offers a combination of licensed studio content and user-generated content, has also come under fire for hosting user-generated videos containing copyright infringements.  While Universal Music Group (UMG) has a case against Veoh still pending, Veoh recently won another case against them based on the safe harbor provision.

(c):Defendant Destroyed Evidence, RIAA Wins

by Shana Dines

In a previous article about the lawsuit against Jammie Thomas, we discussed the arguments on either side of the "make available" theory of copyright infringement.  Just this week, Judge Davis granted the pending motion for a new trial.  The jury award of $222,000 in the Thomas case was considered the pride of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). 

While this decision strikes a definitive blow to the RIAA's campaign to sue illegal file-traders for copyright infringement, there are still plenty of other cases pending on similar issues.  In another case that seemed to be leaning towards the defendants, the RIAA ultimately achieved a small victory earlier this month. 

The latest victims are the Howells, a husband and wife from Phoenix, AZ who decided to proceed in court without an attorney.  They had been faring relatively well for the past year, successfully blocking two summary judgments, however, the decision was ultimately ill-conceived. 

The Howells are now faced with a fine of $40,850 for destroying evidence that was critical to the case against them. 

Introdcuing: The M.E.L.O.N. Podcast!

In the interest of better serving our loyal readers, the M.E.L.O.N. Blog Team is excited to introduce the New M.E.L.O.N. Podcast!

Tony Berman, Esq. is here to answer all of your questions about multimedia and entertainment law.

Today's podcast answers a question from Will in Los Angeles.  Will asked why he should bother copyrighting his original songs and artwork.  Tony will also explain what someone should do if they find out their copyright is being infringed, how to go about registering a copyright, and what damages one can expect to recover if his copyright is infringed.

If you have a question you'd like Tony to answer on the M.E.L.O.N. podcast, please send it to melon@beat-law.com

(C): $200K Victory for RIAA May be Retried

by Shana Dines

In our previous article, Copyright: Registration Pt. 2, we mentioned the case of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) suing Jammie Thomas for 24 counts of copyright infringement through the web-based P2P trading network, KaZaA.  In October 2007, the jury awarded the five record label plaintiffs (including Capitol and Sony/BMG) statutory damages of $222,000, which is less than 10% of what they were legally entitled to. 

Thomas filed an appeal 11 days after the jury verdict was entered on the grounds of excessive damages.  Finally, 7 months later, Judge Michael Davis filed an order stating that he was considering granting a new trial not based on excessive damages, but based on a possible "manifest error of law."  The hearing over this matter was held yesterday, August 4, 2008.  Although a decision will not be entered for another month, many commentators are expecting Judge Davis to declare it a mistrial.

Copyright: Perform. Rights vs. Local Radio Freedom Act

by Shana Dines

Back in February, we reported on the progress of the Performance Rights Act (H.R.4789, S.2500) in a three-part series of articles.  Part 1 provided the background of the bill, Part 2 explained the changes it would make to existing law, and Part 3 discussed the arguments for and against the bill.

On June 11, 2008, hearings on the Performance Rights Act were held in the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property and on June 26, the subcommittee voted on and passed the bill.  Next is consideration by the full Judiciary Committee and, if approved, the bill will move on to the House of Representatives.

However, before the Performance Rights Act was proposed on Dec. 18, 2007, a Concurrent Resolution Supporting the Local Radio Freedom Act had been introduced in the House of Representatives on Oct. 31, 2007 that, if passed, would nullify the P.R.A.'s intended changes.

Imagine No Permissions

by Tony Berman

Researched & edited by Shana Dines

Since the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York decided against Yoko Ono Lennon earlier this month in a well-publicized copyright infringement case, many filmmakers are further confused about where the lines are drawn around the concept of “Fair Use”. 

Ono Lennon was denied an injunction against the makers of the documentary film "Expelled," about Intelligent Design theory, for using a 15-second excerpt from Lennon's renowned song "Imagine" without her permission. 

(C): First Sale Doctrine Pt. 3

by Howie Cockrill

In Part 1 of this article I explained what the First Sale Doctrine is, how the it was first applied in the U.S. and how it became part of federal copyright law.

In Part 2 I began looking at Universal Music Group v. Augusto, the most recent application of the First Sale Doctrine in federal courts.

Part 3 focuses on Augusto's particular arguments, and what the court thought of each. 

(C): First Sale Doctrine Pt. 2

by Howie Cockrill

In Part 1 of this article, I explained the First Sale Doctrine, and we saw how it was first applied in the U.S. and then became part of federal copyright legislation.

The First Sale Doctrine has been in the news lately due to a recent California federal district court ruling. 

So in Part 2, I'll explore a 2008 application of the First Sale Doctrine in Universal Music Group v. Augusto.

Here's what happened:

(C): First Sale Doctrine

by Howie Cockrill

Last week, a federal district judge in California dismissed a copyright infringement suit brought by Universal Music Group against a man selling Universal’s “promo” CDs on eBay. 

This decision is not a minor blip on the music industry’s radar, and at the case’s heart was something called the “first sale doctrine.” 

So – what is the first sale doctrine, and why should you care?

Excellent questions – let’s see if I can answer them.

(C): Notice & Take Down Pt. 3

by Howie Cockrill

In Part 1 and Part 2 of this article, I outlined the 4 types of Service Providers qualifying for protection under the DMCA and explained the 3 types of copyright infringement - strict, contributory and vicarious liability.

In Part 3, I provide an explanation of the DMCA's Section 512 - more commonly referred to as the "notice and take down" or "safe harbor" provisions.