A
Sky News live feed of the debate between the US Republican presidential candidates, including Donald Trump, Jeb Bush, and Rand Paul on its YouTube channel focussed on the U.K. was shut down part way through, possibly after the intervention of U.S. sister channel Fox Networks. Both broadcasters are owned by News Corp. The YouTube feed was replaced by an error message: "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Fox News Networks, LLC." although some commentators point to the fact that YouTube's own automatic copyright infringement identifying software might have instigated the take down. Sky's old YouTube channel remains blocked - Sky News has since switched over to a new YouTube URL. In the U.S., the Republican debate, which was hosted by Fox News in partnership with Facebook, was meant to only be available to those with a cable TV subscription.
Google, Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr and Yahoo! are amongst the signatories to a new amicus brief submitted to the New York court that is considering legal action filed by the Motion Picture Association Of America seeking an injunction forcing third parties to block, remove links and stop providing any services to the copyright infringing MovieTube website(s). They say that the injunction the MPAA requests is too wide-ranging, hinders the sometimes controversial safe harbours provided to tech companies in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and is basically "SOPA by the back door" (SOPa was the much maligned Stop Online Piracy Act, ultimately put on the back burner by the legislature. The brief says: "Plaintiffs now appear to be repackaging the excesses of SOPA into the All Writs Act. Indeed, the injunction proposed here would require the same online intermediaries targeted by SOPA to engage in the same kind of content and domain blocking that would have been required under SOPA had it been enacted".
Police in the UK have hailed an operation to halt advertising on piracy sites as a “major success”. The Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) claims that since it launched Operation Creative and the Infringing Website List (IWL) in summer 2013, there has been a 73% decrease in advertising from the UK’s ‘top ad spending companies’ on copyright infringing websites, with PIPCU heralding the success of its 'follow the money' approach. More on MBW here.
Back to SiriusXM and those pre-1972 sound recordings in the USA: As readers may remember, Sirius appealed both the decisions it has so far lost (New York and California) which held that state law DID protect pre-1972 sound recordings and Sirius couldn't therefor use them royalty free , and a similar case against Pandora is also on appeal in California. Last week, EFF, who argue that this effectively creating new public performance rights that might apply to all pre-1972 recordings and all types of broadcasters, filed a brief with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, urging that court to reverse the decision. The National Association of Broadcasters, the New York Broadcasters Association, Public Knowledge, Pandora, and a group of law professors also filed briefs (it seems to be 'brief week') opposing the new right, with the EFF explaining to the court some of the many problems this ruling could cause if it’s not reversed. EFF argued that the courts should leave decisions about expanding copyright law to Congress and also saying that whilst public performance rights in sound recordings are common outside the US, and they exist for digital radio services in the U.S. - they come with important safeguards: explicit limitations like fair use, and statutory licenses that avoid the massive transaction costs that would come with having to negotiate with each rights holder individually.
A report crunching more than six years of copyright lawsuits filed in the U.S. has revealed that Malibu Media is the country's most litigious plaintiff. The company, which TorrentFreak says demands thousands of dollars from individual file-sharers, has filed 4,332 lawsuits since January 2009, fifteen times more than its nearest rival. Overall, it's estimated that 90% of file-sharing cases are settled out of court. However 66 cases reached court with total resulting damages estimated at $3.05 million. The company set up to pursue illegal downloaders of the movie Dallas Buyers Club sits in second place, with a relatively measly 274 cases, fifteen times fewer in volume than Malibu.
ZDNet reports that the Australian Attorney-General has commissioned a cost-benefit analysis of proposed digital copyright reform, which will encompass an economic analysis into the Australian Law Reform Commissions's (ALRC) recommendation to adopt a flexible fair use provision in regards to digital copyright in Australian law, seemingly as the the AG is concerned about the costs to both rights holders and rights users. A new Australian fair use provision would mean the fair use of a copyright material would not constitute infringement, based on a series of as yet incomplete fairness factors -- including the purpose of the use, nature of the material, amount of the material used, and the use's effect on the material's value: in addition research for the purposes of study and education as well as news reporting, review, criticism, satire, parody, quotation, non-commercial private use, professional advice, incidental or technical use, library or archive, and access for people with a disability would be exempted from copyright infringement provisions. The ALRC have said that the reforms are needed to promote the digital economy in Australia, although AG Brandis is seen as a friend to the content industries and unconvinced that despite changing technology, major law reforms are necessary, saying in late 2013 "I want to reaffirm the government's commitment to the content industries. It is the government's strong view that the fundamental principles of intellectual property law, which protect the rights of content creators, have not changed merely because of the emergence of new media and new platforms."
Variety reports that U.S. District Judge Dolly M. Gee’s has ruled that DISH Network’s offering of features that automatically skip ads and another that allows subscribers to watch live broadcasts remotely do not violate copyright law. The ruling by the federal judge came just days after DISH and the network challenging its features, Fox, said that a settlement of their litigation was “highly likely.” The litigation was put on hold until October, when a retransmission contract between the companies is set to expire. CBS Corp and ABC had settled similar litigation last year, as part of broader settlements allowing Dish to broadcast the networks' programs.Similar litigation against Dish by NBCUniversal had been put on hold pending developments in the Fox case.
Variety says that Fox sought to limit key aspects of DISH’s Hopper service, including PrimeTime Anytime, which records and stores entire nights’ worth of programming, along with AutoHop, a feature that allows subscribers to automatically skip commercials. It also challenged DISH Anywhere, using Sling technology, which allows subscribers to view live programming remotely, outside of the home, on a range of devices. But it was mixed results for DISH: Whilst Judge Gee ruled that such offerings did not infringe copyright, she sided with Fox in concluding that some of the DISH's features, like Hopper Transfers, which enables users to download shows onto mobile devices, violated its contract agreements with the broadcaster that restrict copying of programming for use outside the home. She also found that DISH’s copying of Fox programming for quality assurance purposes in its offering of the ad-skipping feature AutoHop violated Fox’s exclusive right of reproduction.
The case of course brings to mind the much reported Aereo case - the now defunct controversial streaming video service which used the much mentioned 'mini antennae' to deliver its service to paying customers. In June 2014 the Supreme Court ruled (6-3) that Aereo had violated US copyright laws by “capturing broadcast signals on miniature antennas and delivering them to subscribers for a fee". But Gee found difference between the now defunct Aereo and DISH, noting that Aereo neither owned the copyright to the broadcast works nor held a license from the copyright owners to perform those works publicly, concluding that Dish's "sling" technology, did not constitute a "public performance" that infringed Fox copyrights saying
“DISH does not, however, receive programs that have been released to the public and then carry them by private channels to additional viewers in the same sense that Aereo did” adding "“DISH has a license for the analogous initial retransmission of the programming to users via satellite”.
She went on to say:
“Aereo streamed a subscriber specific copy of its programming from Aereo’s hard drive to the subscriber’s screen via individual satellite when the subscriber requested it, whereas DISH Anywhere can only be used by a subscriber to gain access to her own home STB/DVR and the authorized recorded content on that box” adding “Any subsequent transfer of the programming by DISH Anywhere takes place after the subscriber has validly received it, whereas Aereo transmitted its programming to subscribers directly, without a license to do so.”
Gee also rejected claims that DISH’s transmissions were a public performance, pointing out that the transmission “travels either to the subscriber herself or to someone in her household using an authenticated device.”
In a statement, DISH said it welcomed the ruling saying: "Consumers are the winners today, as the court sided with them on the key copyright issues in this case".
In a statement Fox spokesman said the company welcomed Gee's contract rulings, but were disappointed by her copyright findings saying: "This case is not, and has never been, about consumer rights or new technology," adding "It's always been about protecting creative works from being exploited without permission."
Judge Gee's 63 page decision was in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dated the 12th January, and had been under seal, and was released in redacted form. Fox Broadcasting Co et al v. Dish Network LLC et al, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, No. 12-04529.
More here from Reuters and on PCWorld here and The Hollywood Reporter here.
