Copyright

Runescape Copyright and CFAA Case Fails at Preliminary Injunction Stage, But Runescape is Not Down for the Count: Jagex v. Impulse Software

September 25, 2010

A decision in Jagex v. Impulse Software, issued by Massachusetts U.S. District Court Judge Gorton in August, has some interesting (albeit not nonobvious) lessons for software developers seeking to protect their websites from copying or reverse engineering.  The decision arises in the context of a preliminary injunction – a request by Jagex to provide it with legal relief at the outset of the case, before discovery or trial – so Jagex may yet prevail in this case, particularly since most of the reasons the court denied it relief that this stage can be corrected before the case progresses much further. The plaintiff, Jagex operates an online role-playing game called “Runescape.”  Runescape is a “massively multiplayer online role-playing game” (MMORPG for short, but we’ll just call it “the game”). Impulse offers online cheat tools – software that lets users advance through the levels of the game without actually playing the game.  Moving to higher and more challenging levels is the goal of the game, and the Impulse software allows users to reach those hallowed grounds without investing the time and effort the game expects users to endure.  And, it is possible to invest a great deal of time and effort with this game – Judge Gorton noted that the top three Runescape players averaged about 20,000 hours of playing time.

Read the full article →

Hey Dude, That Program’s Mine! Vernor v. Autodesk

September 17, 2010

You’re out cruising garage sales on a hot summer Sunday morning when you spot an unopened copy of AutoCAD sitting on a card table for $40 – 40 buckeroos for a program people spend $700 for new.  Yeah, it’s a couple of versions back, but you figure you can get $340 for it on eBay, and not break a sweat.  You buy it from the clearly clueless seller, and the next thing you know you’re watching bids come in at over $300.  Except that Autodesk, proud owner of this high-end computer aided design program, objects.  You don’t own that program, they say, we licensed it to the original seller, and she had no right to sell it, no right at all.  You are infringing our copyright by reselling the software, so take it off eBay right now, Autodesk’s lawyers insist in a hand delivered, “sign-here-to-acknowledge-receipt-sir” letter.  In the meantime, they’ve sent eBay a DMCA take-down notice and eBay has killed your sale.

Read the full article →

Decision in Viacom v. YouTube: Dog Bites Man (Mark Cuban was wrong)

June 25, 2010

Despite all the hoopla, this week’s copyright decision in Viacom v. YouTube (link on Scribd) was predicatable – a decision in the opposition direction would have been a shocker.  Viacom accused YouTube (owned by Google) of massive copyright infringement.  The court dismissed the case on summary judgment in favor of YouTube. Of course, there is no question that copyright infringement is taking place on YouTube every instant of the day.  The court noted that video is being uploaded to YouTube at the rate of 24 hours per minute.  My calculator tells me that this is over 12.6 million hours of video per year.  It’s no secret that people are uploading copyright material at a fantastic rate – a search of YouTube will find that almost any popular song can be located.  it’s a simple matter to download the clip (either video of just audio), and share it with friends or on peer-to-peer networks.   YouTube “ground zero” for online copyright infringement. However, as I’ve noted in the past, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act – the DMCA – is a federal law that protects publishers such as YouTube as long as they follow the DMCA’s “notice and take-down” procedures (aka “whack-a-mole”), which YouTube has faithfully done.  Thus, YouTube was able to claim that it followed “the letter of the law” and therefore its conduct fell within this statutory safe harbor. Southern District…

Read the full article →

Defendant Choses a New Trial in Minnesota File Sharing Case

February 1, 2010

When I wrote about the trial judge’s remittitur order in the Jamie Thomas case last week, I didn’t mention that a legal aspect of remittitur is that the plaintiff may accept it, or reject it and demand a new trial. I now understand that the plaintiff in this case has not accepted the judge’s remittitur, and has informed the court that it elects instead to proceed with a new trial. This would be the third trial in this case, since the first was set aside by the judge following verdict.  Obviously, this decision is a matter of principle, not finances, since the cost of the new trial alone will likely exceed the damages offered by the judge. However, this case, like the Tenenbaum case in Boston, is all about principle, and very little about hard, cold cash. There’s an interesting discussion of remittitur on the Copyrights and Campaigns web site, here.

Read the full article →

“$2 Million for Stealing 24 Songs for Personal Use is Simply Shocking” Says Minnesota Federal Judge, Issuing Remittitur Order

January 23, 2010

Out of more than 30,000 cases filed against downloaders by the record companies only two end-user download cases have gone to trial and judgment: the Tenenbaum case in Boston, and the case against Jammie Thomas-Rassett in Minnesota. In the second case, the jury awarded the copyright owners $2 million for downloading (and allegedly distributing) 24 songs.  The federal judge to whom the case is assigned has now lowered that amount to $2,250 per song (the legal term of the judge’s action is “remittitur”). Some quotes from the Thomas-Rassett January 22, 2010 decision: After long and careful deliberation, the Court . . . remits the damages award to $2,250 per song – three times the statutory minimum. The need for deterrence cannot justify a $2 million verdict for stealing and illegally distributing 24 songs for the sole purpose of obtaining free music. . . . although Plaintiffs were not required to prove their actual damages, statutory damages must still bear some relation to actual damages. . . .  This reduced award is significant and harsh. It is a higher award than the Court might have chosen to impose in its sole discretion, but the decision was not entrusted to this Court. . . . Thomas‐Rasset argues that the ratio of the statutory damages award to actual damages in this case, when measured in songs, is 1:62,015. She bases this calculations on…

Read the full article →

An Early Open Source License

December 29, 2009

One of the first open source copyright licenses: This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright # 154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don’t give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that’s all we wanted to do. Said to be Woody Guthrie’s copyright notice.

Read the full article →

Tenenbaum Final Judgment

December 8, 2009

Update: Link to First Circuit’s Decision Rejecting Constitutional Grounds for Reducing Statutory Damages, issued September 16, 2011. ____________________ Final judgment in Sony v. Tenenbaum entered by Judge Nancy Gertner today.  The 30 day appeal clock starts to run.  Should be interesting to see what the First Circuit does with this one, although I suspect that the betting is heavy in favor of quick affirmance. A few choice quotes from Judge Gertner’s opinion, which is provided in full below on scribd.com. “the Court, deeply concerned by the rash of file-sharing lawsuits, the imbalance of resources between the parties, and the upheaval of norms of behavior brought on by the Internet, did everything in its power to permit Tenebaum to make his best case for fair use.…The Court did what it could to focus the issue, notwithstanding what can only be described as a truly chaotic defense.” … Tenenbaum “tailor[ed] his fair use defense to suggest a modest exception to copyright protections,” he “mounted a broadside attack that would excuse all file sharing for private enjoyment. It is a version of fair use so broad that it would swallow the copyright protections that Congress created, defying both statute and precedent.” … “As this Court has previously noted, it is very, very concerned that there is a deep potential for injustice in the Copyright Act as it is currently written. It urges –…

Read the full article →

First Circuit: Judge Gertner, You Do Not Have the Authority to Permit Webcasting in Your Courtroom

April 17, 2009

The First Circuit’s decision upholding the RIAA’s challenge to Judge Gertner’s decision to permit webcasting of a motion hearing in the RIAA v. Tenenbaum case was issued on April 16, 2009, very shortly after oral argument. The First Circuit, interpreting a D. Mass. Local Rule, held that U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner’s interpretation of the local rule concerning photographing recording and broadcasting of courtroom proceedings was “palpably incorrect”. This result is quite disappointing for many people who had hoped that the First Circuit would hold that Massachusetts District Court Judges have have the discretion to webcast court proceedings in their courtrooms, and that this would be a first step toward allowing the public to view federal district court civil proceedings. The decision will, many hope, lead to a change in the pre-Internet Age Rule that was found to prohibit the webcast.

Read the full article →

First Circuit Affirms Preliminary Injunction in Copyright Case

April 13, 2009

Here is the First Circuit’s recent decision upholding a preliminary injunction in a copyright case  out of D. Puerto Rico.  The sole issue on appeal was the holding on substantial similarity.  The products were stuffed animals, specifically, frogs.  Or, more specifically, the Puerto Rican tree frog, the Coqui.   I’ve tried to find a picture of the defendant’s stuffed animal frog  with no luck. Link: Coquico, Inc. v. Rodriguez-Miranda.

Read the full article →

Oh, Sweet Irony, How Thou Doest Tease Me

April 9, 2009

Massachusetts U.S. District Court Judge Nancy Gertner issued an order permitting the webcast of a scheduled in-court motion hearing in the RIAA/Tenenbaum copyright downloading case.  The RIAA challenged the order, arguing that a federal rule prohibits the webcast.  Here is yesterday’s audio of the First Circuit oral argument, with Harvard Law Prof. Charles Nesson arguing for Tenenbaum.

Read the full article →

"Copyright in the Age of YouTube"

April 8, 2009

Great article by Steven Seidenberg in the February 2009 ABA Journal on the legal tensions between user-generated content sites (UGC, in the lingo) and the content owners under the “notice and take down” regime established by the DMCA. Interesting fact from the article: On YouTube alone ten hours of video content are put online every minute of every day, more than 250,000 clips per day. Link to article. Cases and sites mentioned in the article: Lenz v. Universal Music Corp Io Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc. Viacom page on the YouTube case

Read the full article →

Podcast Interview of Professor Charles Nesson: Why Statutory Damages Under the Copyright Law are Unconstitutional in the Tenenbaum Case

April 7, 2009

As everyone in the copyright law community knows by now, Harvard Law School Professor Charles Nesson, and a team of HLS students, are defending Joel Tenenbaum in an RIAA action. Nesson’s primary argument is that the copyright statute’s statutory (aka punitive) damages of as much as $150,000 per infringement is unconstitutional, least as applied to Tenenbaum who downloaded seven songs for personal use, not profit. Over $1 million in damages ($150,000 x 7) seems a bit much for such a violation, and Nesson argues that punitive damages of this magnitiude are unconstitutional. Nesson is courteously interviewed by Professor Doug Lichtman on the Intellectual Property Colloquium podcast here. Apart from the legal issue raised by Professor Nesson, this case has a great deal of humor in it, not the least of which is that Nesson and company are defending Joel Tenenbaum.  This is kind of like picking on a little kid on the playground, who then shows up with The Hulk, who just happens to be his big brother and refuses to go away until he’s fought the bully to the death. Oh, and Nesson’s team is “immortal” for all practical purposes – I suspect there’s nothing that Nesson would like more than to take the constitutional challenge to the Court of Appeals and then the Supreme Court.  I doubt that the RIAA ever expected this, but they can’t exactly back…

Read the full article →
Page 1 of 4
1
2
3
4