by Lee Gesmer | Mar 20, 2014 | Copyright, DMCA/CDA
According to my count, I’ve written seven posts on the Viacom v. Youtube DMCA copyright case. The first time I mentioned Youtube and the DMCA was in October 2006, over 7 years ago. Referencing Mark Cuban’s comment that Youtube would be “sued into oblivion” I stated:
Surprisingly few observers have asked the pertinent question here: do the Supreme Court’s 1995 Grokster decision and the DMCA (the Digital Millennium Copyright Act) protect YouTube from liability for copyright-protected works posted by third parties . . ..?
In fact, Youtube was acquired by Google for $1.65 billion. It was then sued by a group of media companies, resulting in a marathon lawsuit that never went to trial, but yielded two district court decisions and one Second Circuit decision on the issues I identifed in 2006. As I described in a two-part post in December 2013/January 2014, the second appeal to the Second Circuit had been fully briefed and was awaiting oral argument. Now the case has settled, on confidential terms of course. However, demonstrating the extent to which the interests of the media companies and Youtube have converged, the joint press release contained the unusual statement that the “settlement reflects the growing collaborative dialogue between our two companies on important opportunities, and we look forward to working more closely together.”
We may never know the terms of the settlement, but rumor has it that the plaintiffs received no money in this settlement. My guess is they recovered a token amount, if anything. All three decisions favored Youtube, and Viacom’s case had been whittled down to next to nothing, even if it had been able to persuade the Second Circuit to crack the door a bit and remand the case a second time for damages on a limited number of video clips.
However, the settlement leaves some important questions unanswered:
- Viacom’s argument that web sites don’t have to take any actions to “induce infringement” – that this basis for liability can be found based on the owner’s intent or state of mind alone – remains unresolved. This is the Grokster issue I identified in 2006. While I think Viacom’s argument was weak, it would have been helpful to have the Second Circuit resolve it.
- Since the Second Circuit’s first ruling in April 2012 the courts have read the decision to reduce protection for web sites. Courts in New York applying the Second Circuit decision have held that a website can lose DMCA protection if it becomes aware of a specific infringement, or if it is aware of facts that would make it “obvious to a reasonable person” that a specific clip is infringing. Because the case has settled, the Second Circuit will have no opportunity to clarify this standard, at least in this case.
- The Second Circuit will have no opportunity to clarify the “actual knowledge”/”facts or circumstances” sections of the DMCA. The distinction between these two provisions remains confusing to the lower courts and to lawyers who must advise their clients under this law.
- The Second Circuit will have no opportunity to clarify its controversial comments (in its first decision) on “willful blindness,” and help the courts reconcile this concept with the DMCA’s notice-and-takedown procedure. As noted above, the settlement leaves in place the Second Circuit’s implication that awareness of specific infringement may result in infringement liability even in the absence of a take-down notice.
It’s likely that other cases presenting these issues will make their way to the Second Circuit (arguably the nation’s most influential copyright court), but it could be years before that happens. The industry could have used additional guidance in the meantime, and one consequence of this settlement is that it will get it later rather than sooner, if at all.
by Lee Gesmer | Mar 14, 2014 | DMCA/CDA
According to Massachusetts U.S. District Court Judge O’Toole the defendants in Moving and Storage, Inc. v. Payanatov are in the moving business and operate a web site at MyMovingReviews.com which, they claim, reflects neutral consumer reviews of moving companies.
Not true, assert some of their competitors and the plaintiffs in this case. The plaintiffs allege that MyMovingReviews manipulates the reviews, deleting positive reviews of the plaintiffs and deleting negative reviews of their own company.
Web sites that allow consumer reviews are protected from copyright infringement under the DMCA, and from tort (e.g. defamation) claims under the Communications Decency Act (CDA) assuming, in each instance, that they meet the often strict requirements of the statutes. The defendants claimed the protection of the CDA, and moved to dismiss under that law. Not so, held Judge O’Toole –
The plaintiffs’ claims do not arise from the content of the reviews, whether they be disparaging, laudatory, or neither, but instead, the defendants’ alleged ill-intentioned deletion of positive reviews of the plaintiffs’ moving companies and deletion of negative reviews of their own company, coupled with various representations – that the website offers “accurate” data, that it is “serious about reviews quality,” and that readers “see the most accurate and up to date rating information to base your decision on.” The manner in which the information is presented, or withheld, is the conduct at issue, as well as the allegedly misleading ratings which result from such alleged manipulations. Such conduct provides substantial basis to find that the defendants were developers of the alleged misinformation.
The defendants argued that they were allowed to delete reviews under Section 230(c)(2) of the CDA, which provides that no operator of a website shall be liable for restricting access to material it deems (among other things) objectionable. However, the CDA requires that the website owner show good faith, and the plaintiffs had alleged bad faith.
The court also refused to dismiss a claim of copyright infringement based on the allegation that MyMovingReviews had copied text from a website belonging to one of the plaintiffs.
The court did, however, dismiss claims based on false advertising, unfair competition, tortious interference and trademark infringement. As to the last of these claims, the court rejected an argument in support of trademark infringement based on the controversial (and largely discredited) “initial interest confusion” doctrine, finding that plaintiffs had failed to adequately allege “confusion.”
by Lee Gesmer | Mar 14, 2014 | Weekly Updates
by Lee Gesmer | Mar 6, 2014 | Miscellaneous
The Boston Bar Association has done a nice interview and profile of me on its blog, “Tipping the Scales.”
Lee Gesmer is a founder and partner of Gesmer Updegrove LLP, a Boston-based firm formed in 1986 that focuses on the representation of technology companies and emerging businesses. Lee’s practice focuses on litigation in the areas of business and intellectual property law. He is a former Council member and former Co-Chair of the BBA Intellectual Property Section, as well as the Computer and Internet Law and Business Litigation Committees.
1. What inspired you to take the leap and start your own firm?
My father owned his own business, and I worked for him summers in my teens. He taught me how important it is to work for yourself. He really believed America was the land of opportunity for people willing to take the risk of starting their own businesses. He embedded that idea in me at an impressionable age. When I graduated from law school, my plan was to work for a couple of good firms and get enough experience that I could start my own firm.
Continue reading . . ..
by Lee Gesmer | Feb 28, 2014 | Weekly Updates
The week ending February 21, 2014 was a light week, so this week’s Update covers the two weeks ending February 28, 2014
- 9th Circuit holds actress owns copyright in her individual performance, reverses lower court’s denial of preliminary injunction. Garcia v. Google (link). See blog post on this case here.
- Utah federal district court issues preliminary injunction order against Aereo, limited to Tenth Circuit. Aereo’s first loss in court, although courts in California and the District of Columbia had enjoined FilmOn X, which provides retransmission of over-the-air broadcasting using the same technology. Communityy Television of Utah v. Aereo.
- Southern District of Florida grants motion to dismiss in case alleging copyright infringement of architectural works. Sieger Suarez v Arquitectonica
- The USPTO has published more material relating to the Green Paper on Copyright Policy, Creativity and Innovation in the Digital Economy (link). A transcript of the December 12, 2013 public hearing is available here. Post-hearing public comments are available here.
- The Copyright Office’s announcement requesting comments and announcing a roundtable on the “making available” right for copyright holders has been published in Federal Register (link)
- The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota has issued an injunction, under the authority of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), against a defendant that allegedly broke into a company’s computer system and took confidential information. Reliable Property Services v. Capital Growth Partners.
- The broadcasters have filed their initial Supreme Court brief in American Broadcasting v. Aereo (link)
- Motion to dismiss action based on a DMCA takedown notice targeting a trademark (as opposed to a copyright, which is the only appropriate subject of a DMCA takedown notice), denied by N.D. Cal. court. Crossfit v. Alvies (link)
- Ninth Circuit finds no trademark infringement based on “trademark fair use.” Webceleb v. Proctor & Gamble (link).
- Billboard reports on “Songwriter Equity Act,” which would update the factors considered by the Copyright Royalty Board when determining compulsory licenses for songwriters, composers and publishers (link)
