Three Cyberspace Courts now online and open for business

9 07 2019

Zhen Feng, Suyu Yuan & Helen Xia
LexBlog
October 16, 2018

On 9 August and 28 September 2018, the new Cyberspace Courts in Beijing and Guangzhou were officially opened. These new specialised courts, along with their equivalent one that was formed in Hangzhou in August 2017, are meant to tackle the quickly swelling stream of internet-related court procedures in China. The establishment of these specialised courts is an encouraging step for the Chinese internet sector as well as for IP owners: it promises a more flexible procedure, less bureaucracy in obtaining evidence and higher quality judgments, handed down by specialist judges.

more

The content in this post was found at https://www.lexblog.com/2018/10/16/three-cyberspace-courts-now-online-and-open-for-business/ Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post. and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com

Powered by WPeMatico



Western Tennessee Judge Denies Spotify’s Motions to Dismiss Copyright Infringement Claims Brought by Bluewater Music

9 07 2019

Steve Brachmann
IP Watchdog
October 15, 2018

U.S. District Judge Jon McCalla of the Western District of Tennessee recently issued an order denying motions made by interactive streaming music provider Spotify to dismiss a case including copyright infringement claims brought by independent music publisher and copyright administration company Bluewater Music Corporation. Judge McCalla’s order determined Bluewater has standing for all 2,142 music compositions it has asserted based on ownership or an exclusive license of the works. Given Bluewater is seeking the maximum statutory damages of $150,000 per infringed work, Judge McCalla’s order allows Bluewater to continue pursuing a maximum damages award of $321.3 million.

more

The content in this post was found at https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/10/15/spotifys-motions-dismiss-copyright-infringement-claims-bluewater-music/id=102059/ Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post. and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com

Powered by WPeMatico



Epic Games Likely DMCA’d Its Own Fortnite Trailer, Showing The Problems With YouTube’s DMCA Process Yet Again

9 07 2019

Timothy Geigner
Tech Dirt
Oct 11th 2018

We’ve had plenty of stories revolving around content owners and publishers issuing DMCAs over trailers and advertisements. These stories are always head-scratching in one way or another, typically centering around the question of why anyone would ever want to take down free advertising, even imperfect free advertising. We’ve also seen plenty of examples of content owners accidentally sending DMCA notices over their own content, all of which help to highlight both the flaws in the DMCA process and just how difficult it is for even content owners themselves to know just what is infringing and what isn’t.

But when these two worlds collide, it becomes something special. We’re not yet 100% certain, but it sure looks like Epic Games DMCA’d its own trailer for the upcoming Fortnite Season 6.

more

The content in this post was found at https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20181010/09400640812/epic-games-likely-dmcad-own-fortnite-trailer-showing-problems-with-youtubes-dmca-process-yet-again.shtml Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post. and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com

Powered by WPeMatico



Buying and Selling Music in the Digital Era

9 07 2019

JetLaw
Carter Gantt
September 30, 2018
. . . .

There are two types of streaming services. In noninteractive services, the listener is passive and unable to choose their music. Interactive services allow the listener to select her own music. For the non-interactive streaming companies, Congress allows them to have a copyright to this music so long as they pay a standard royalty rate to the copyright holders. Every five years, the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), which oversees the copyright board’s licenses, sets that standard rate.

When deciding on what the rate will be for the next term the board first waits for parties to negotiate a rate. If they are unable to do so, the CRB holds an adversarial proceeding to decide on the rates, and endeavors to “establish rates and terms that most clearly represent the rates and terms that would have been negotiated in the marketplace between a willing buyer and seller.”

In a recent decision, SoundExchange, Inc. v. Copyright Royalty Board and Librarian of Congress, the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the recent royalty rate that was established by the CRB for noninteractive services.

more

The content in this post was found at http://www.jetlaw.org/2018/09/30/buying-and-selling-music-in-the-digital-era/ Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post. and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com

Powered by WPeMatico



Creative Commons Continues To Try To Help Courts Understand What Its NonCommercial License Means

9 07 2019

Mike Masnick
Tech Dirt
Oct 10th 2018 2018

Over the years we’ve expressed some concerns about the NonCommercial license option from Creative Commons. Even as we’re incredibly supportive of CC, the NonCommercial license often seemed to raise more questions than answers — to the point that some have argued that it actually harmed CC’s brand and resulted in significant confusion for how CC licenses work. There have even been suggestions that CC should drop the NC license option altogether.

To its immense credit, people at Creative Commons have appeared to take these concerns quite seriously over the past few years, doing quite a bit of work to try to clarify what NonCommercial means for the purpose of the license. Our specific concern is that NonCommercial could mean all different things to different people. If you’re using a NonCommercial CC-licensed image on a personal blog and you have ads on that blog (even if you don’t make much money from it) is that non commercial? If you use it in a tweet and your Twitter bio promotes your business is that non commercial?

more

The content in this post was found at https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20181003/17594740775/creative-commons-continues-to-try-to-help-courts-understand-what-noncommercial-license-means.shtml Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post. and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com

Powered by WPeMatico



Court Shoots Down Record Label’s Attempt To Expand The Definition Of ‘Vicarious’ Infringement

9 07 2019

Mike Masnick
Tech Dirt
Oct 1st 2018

. . . . Meanwhile, down in Texas, there’s the UMG v. Grande Communications case, which many had seen as a parallel case to the BMG v. Cox case. This was another case that involved an ISP being bombarded with shakedown (not takedown) notices from Rightscorp, in which Righscorp and its clients felt that ISP was not willing to pass on those notices (thus denying Rightscorp and its clients the ability to collect money in exchange for a promise not to sue). . . .

Vicarious and contributory infringement are often lumped together, but they are different. For there to be vicarious infringement, you have to show that the party being sued both had the right and ability to supervise the activity, and that it would directly financially benefit from the infringement. The court rejected that in the case of Grande, noting that just because Grande makes money from its subscribers, that’s not enough to show that it was profiting from the infringement.

Universal Music tried to amend the complaint to show that it had “more evidence” that Grande and its management company, Patriot, were still vicariously liable — but the magistrate judge says it’s just trying to re-litigate what it lost last time.

more

The content in this post was found at https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180923/12051040696/court-shoots-down-record-labels-attempt-to-expand-definition-vicarious-infringement.shtml Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post. and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com

Powered by WPeMatico



Supreme Court To Review Whether Or Not You Can Copyright State Laws

4 07 2019

Mike Masnick
Tech Dirt
June 26, 2019

Last fall we were happy to see the 11th Circuit rule that, obviously, a state’s official laws couldn’t be covered by copyright . . .

the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case.

more

The content in this post was found at https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190624/10311942465/supreme-court-to-review-whether-not-you-can-copyright-state-laws.shtml Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post. and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com

Powered by WPeMatico



Supreme Court Holds Ban on Immoral or Scandalous Trademarks Unconstitutional

4 07 2019

Ira Sacks & Mark Lafayette
LexBlog
June 30, 2019

On June 24, 2019, the United States Supreme Court, in Iancu v. Brunetti, reviewing the trademark application for “FUCT”, held that the Lanham’s Act’s provision, prohibiting the registration of “immoral[] or scandalous” trademarks, 15 U.S.C. 1052(a)(1), violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Supreme Court first reviewed its decision in Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744, 582 U.S. ___ (2017), which found unconstitutional the Lanham Act’s bar on the registration of “disparage[ing]” trademarks.  The Court noted that although the eight-Justice Court divided evenly between two opinions and could not agree on the overall framework for deciding the case, all Justices agreed on two propositions. First, if a trademark registration bar is viewpoint-based, it is unconstitutional. Second, the disparagement bar was viewpoint-based.  Thus, in Tam, the Justices found unanimous common ground in that the government may not discriminate against speech based on the ideas or opinions it conveys. Accordingly, the Court observed that, under Tam, that “[i]f the “immoral or scandalous” bar similarly discriminated on the basis of viewpoint, it must also collide with the First Amendment.” . . .

Accordingly, the Court found the “immoral and scandalous” bar viewpoint-based and violative of the First Amendment.

more

The content in this post was found at https://www.lexblog.com/2019/06/30/supreme-court-holds-ban-on-immoral-or-scandalous-trademarks-unconstitutional Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post. and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com

Powered by WPeMatico



Section 230 Protects Snapchat from Liability for Cyberbullying–Grossman v. Rockaway Township

4 07 2019

Eric Goldman
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
July 1, 2019

This case involves the heartbreaking suicide of 12 year old Mallory Grossman, driven by offline and online peer bullying that included mean Snapchat messages. (Note: the opinion refers to Mallory as “MG,” but poor redactions reveal her name in the opinion; and her story has been extensively covered by name in New Jersey papers and a newly passed NJ anti-bullying law is named after her). The parents sued the school district and Snapchat. The procedural facts aren’t clearly laid out, but it appears the school district piggybacked on the parents’ claims against Snapchat, essentially pointing at Snapchat as the real wrongdoer instead of itself.

This devolves into a fairly straightforward Section 230 defense win, aided by defense-friendly NJ-area precedents such as Donato v. Moldow, DiMeo v. Max, Obado v. Magedson, and Parker v. Google, Reviewing the applicable complaints, the court says:

MORE

Case citation: Grossman v. Rockaway Twp., 2019 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1496  (N.J. Superior Ct. June 10, 2019). The initial complaint.

The content in this post was found at https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2019/07/section-230-protects-snapchat-from-liability-for-cyberbullying-driven-grossman-v-rockaway-township.htm Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post. and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com

Powered by WPeMatico



Former FCC Official Attempts To Create An Aereo That The Supreme Court Won’t Kill

4 07 2019

Mike Masnick
Tech Dirt
Wed, Feb 6th 2019

If you’ve been following copyright issues for more than a few years, you surely remember Aereo, a company that attempted to set up a bunch of micro-TV antennas which it could then use to stream broadcast TV to paying subscribers. . . .

And then, even more bizarre, the Supreme Court ruled against Aereo using no actually defined standard, but basically just saying that it looked too much like a cable service, so they’ll call it a cable service (something I’ve referred to as the Supreme Court’s “looks like a duck” doctrine). . . .

However, it appears that at least one operation is trying again with an Aereo-like approach. And once again, it’s taken a very legally-focused approach. Perhaps that’s because it’s been set up by a lawyer, David Goodfriend, who formerly worked for the FCC (and in the media industry). The NY Times has a big article about his Locast operation, and how he’s hoping to get sued to prove that his approach is legal, where Aereo’s failed.

more

The content in this post was found at https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190204/10274241525/former-fcc-official-attempts-to-create-aereo-that-supreme-court-wont-kill.shtml Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post. and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com

Powered by WPeMatico