tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-53835123046396327352024-03-17T20:03:16.206-07:00Copyrights & CampaignsBen Sheffner's notes on copyright, First Amendment, media, and entertainment law, and political campaignsBen Sheffnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.comBlogger788125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-66937214972037708112011-03-07T09:44:00.000-08:002011-03-07T09:49:27.046-08:00A Blogging Hiatus<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.5pt">When I <a href="http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2008/12/welcome-to-copyrights-campaigns.html">started this blog in December 2008</a>, I said I wanted to counter the “<span class="apple-style-span"><span style="color:#333333">shocking lack of balance in discussion of copyright and related issues on the Internet.” For almost two and a half years, I’ve tried to do just that. Armed with nothing but free <a href="http://www.blogger.com/">Blogger</a> software and a not-so-free <a href="http://www.pacer.gov/">PACER</a> account, I’ve done my best to provide copyright owners’ side of the story on the major anti-piracy cases of the day, while countering the misinformation about copyright that too often dominates the blogosphere. And, thanks to help, tips, and encouragement from countless others who fight in obscurity for creators’ rights – not to mention the antics of <a href="http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/search/label/tenenbaum">Joel Tenenbaum</a>, <a href="http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/search/label/Jammie%20Thomas">Jammie Thomas-Rasset</a>, and most of all, <a href="http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2009/06/nesson-im-under-ridicule-and-attack.html">Charlie Nesson</a> – it’s been a blast. And hopefully I’ve done a small part to demonstrate why, when the studios, record labels, and music publishers go to court to enforce their rights, they usually win.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="font-size:11.5pt; color:#333333">So it’s with a sense of accomplishment but some regret that that I’m putting the blog on hiatus for the foreseeable future. On February 28 I started in a new position as Content Protection Counsel at the <a href="http://www.mpaa.org/">Motion Picture Association of America</a>, where my primary responsibility will be litigating anti-piracy cases on behalf of the MPAA’s member studios. For reasons that I think most litigators will understand, I’ve concluded that it won’t be possible to continue the blog in my current role; the issues of privilege, confidentiality, and conflicts, even if ultimately surmountable, are simply too dicey to worry about day-to-day. I plan to leave the blog up as long as Blogger will host it; the disclaimer that I’ve posted since the beginning still applies</span></span><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="font-size:11.5pt">: “This is Ben's personal blog and does not necessarily represent the views of any past, present, or future clients or employers.”</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="font-size:11.5pt; color:#333333">I encourage anyone and everyone who knows and cares about these issues to speak out, blog, comment on other blogs, and do whatever you can consistent with your day job. There is plenty of room out there for thoughtful commentary; I’d particularly recommend readers bookmark Terry Hart’s “<a href="http://www.copyhype.com/">Copyhype</a>,” which since last summer has been providing rigorously researched debunking of some of the copyleft’s latest tropes.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="font-size:11.5pt; color:#333333">Thanks again to everyone who has helped out over the past couple years. I’m still </span></span><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="font-size:11.5pt">reachable at copyrightsandcampaigns [at] gmail.com.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Georgia","serif";color:#333333"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p>Ben Sheffnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-86140409481657827682011-02-23T16:28:00.000-08:002011-02-23T16:57:01.227-08:00Court: Merchandising of Shepard Fairey 'Obama Hope' image not fair use; factual issues remain on substantial similarityThe court in the case involving Shepard Fairey's use of an AP photograph in his famous "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_%22Hope%22_poster">Obama Hope</a>" poster has ruled that a company that manufactured and distributed clothing bearing the Obama Hope image under license from one of Fairey's corporate entities did not engage in fair use. The court, however, held that there remains a factual dispute whether the images used by One 3 Two, Inc. on its merchandise were "substantially similar" to the AP photo. Judge Alvin Hellerstein did not explain his reasoning in his brief summary order. Trial on the remaining issues is set for March 21. Here is <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/46748647/One-3-Two-Inc-s-motion-for-summary-judgment-in-AP-v-Shepard-Fairey-case">One 3 Two's opening brief</a>, and the <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/46748595/AP-motion-for-summary-judgment-vs-One-3-Two-Inc">AP's</a>.<br /><a title="View Shepard Fairey Summary Judgment Order on Scribd" href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/49434123/Shepard-Fairey-Summary-Judgment-Order" style="margin: 12px auto 6px; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; display: block; text-decoration: underline;">Shepard Fairey Summary Judgment Order</a> <object id="doc_667987317277653" name="doc_667987317277653" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf" style="outline-color: -moz-use-text-color; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;" width="100%" height="600"> <param name="movie" value="http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf"> <param name="wmode" value="opaque"> <param name="bgcolor" value="#ffffff"> <param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"> <param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"> <param name="FlashVars" value="document_id=49434123&access_key=key-2bpkn2zbv44qfw4d76j1&page=1&viewMode=list"> <embed id="doc_667987317277653" name="doc_667987317277653" src="http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=49434123&access_key=key-2bpkn2zbv44qfw4d76j1&page=1&viewMode=list" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" wmode="opaque" bgcolor="#ffffff" width="100%" height="600"></embed> </object> <br /><br />The claims between the AP and Fairey and his corporate entities have been dismissed pursuant to settlement.Ben Sheffnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-47576216287352096362011-01-12T08:55:00.000-08:002011-01-12T09:27:50.127-08:00AP and Shepard Fairey settle case; claims against corporate entities remainThe Associated Press announced that it has "settled in principle" its <a href="http://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nysdce/1:2009cv01123/340121/">copyright case</a> against artist Shepard Fairey over his use of an AP photograph in the iconic "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_%22Hope%22_poster">Obama Hope</a>" poster. The announcement of the settlement comes a little more than seven months after the judge in the case <a href="http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2010/05/court-ap-is-going-to-win-shepard-fairy.html">stated at a hearing</a>, "sooner or later, The Associated Press is going to win" the case and urged settlement.<br /><br />According to the <a href="http://www.ap.org/pages/about/pressreleases/pr_01122011a.html">AP's announcement</a>:<br /><blockquote>In settling the lawsuit, the AP and Mr. Fairey have agreed that neither side surrenders its view of the law. Mr. Fairey has agreed that he will not use another AP photo in his work without obtaining a license from the AP. The two sides have also agreed to work together going forward with the image and share the rights to make the posters and merchandise bearing the image and to collaborate on a series of images that Fairey will create based on AP photographs. The parties have agreed to additional financial terms that will remain confidential.</blockquote>The AP's claims against other Fairey-related entities, however, remain. So do its claims against One 3 Two, Inc., a company that manufactured and distributed clothing bearing the Obama Hope image under license from Obey Giant, one of Fairey's entities. <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/46748647/One-3-Two-Inc-s-motion-for-summary-judgment-in-AP-v-Shepard-Fairey-case">One 3 Two's summary judgment brief</a> argues that it didn't copy protectable elements of the AP's photo but, for procedural reasons, does not address fair use. The <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/46748595/AP-motion-for-summary-judgment-vs-One-3-Two-Inc">AP's brief</a> does argue that Fairey's and One 3 Two's use of its photo was not fair.<br /><br />Still unknown is the status of the <a href="http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2010/02/revealed-details-of-shepard-fairey.html">federal grand jury investigation</a> of Fairey for his <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/arts/design/18fairey.html?_r=1">admitted falsehoods</a> and evidence spoliation regarding which photograph he used as a basis for the poster.Ben Sheffnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-86182719236076192522010-12-14T14:35:00.000-08:002010-12-14T14:42:24.643-08:00Harvard shocker: Crimson rails against piracy, endorses university 'three strikes' penaltyIt's <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=23+Everett+St,+Cambridge,+MA+02138&daddr=14+Plympton+Street,+Cambridge,+MA&hl=en&geocode=FeiqhgIdfdPC-ymb4nv2QHfjiTFznQuwPk8xXw%3BFQqMhgIdodnC-ynB-2xJQ3fjiTFiwl44-5iadw&gl=us&mra=ltm&dirflg=w&sll=42.376617,-71.118579&sspn=0.016803,0.027595&ie=UTF8&ll=42.375888,-71.118085&spn=0.008401,0.013797&z=16">less than a mile</a> from Harvard Law School's <a href="http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/">Berkman Center</a> to the offices of the <a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.thecrimson.com/">Harvard Crimson</a>. But it doesn't seem that the Berkman Center's ideas have made that short journey south. From a <a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2010/12/13/universities-intellectual-copyright-unauthorized/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Crimson</span> editorial</a> that ran Monday:<br /><blockquote>Recently, the Motion Picture Association of America began sending thousands of letters to colleges and universities across the country, reminding them of their obligation to set up a "written plan to effectively combat the unauthorized distribution of copyright material by users of the institution's network" under the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008. Because we believe that intellectual property rights are important and the unauthorized downloading of copyrighted music, movies, and television programs is wrong, we applaud this move and hope that universities abide by the guidelines set down in the HEOA.<br /><br />Our support for the MPAA’s actions is based on our belief that the unauthorized downloading of music, movies, and television programs, although easy, is questionable at the most basic level. In our postindustrial economy, the protection of intellectual property rights is important for several reasons. First, these rights must be safeguarded in order to provide an incentive for innovation. Without any guarantee of legitimacy, entrepreneurs will have no motivation to create new intellectual property, as it could be stolen at any time. Second, at a broader level, intellectual property rights are important because each person has a fundamental right to enjoy the fruits of his or her mental labor. Intellectual entrepreneurship requires a broad societal commitment to the rule of law and the importance of private enterprise.</blockquote>Read the <a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2010/12/13/universities-intellectual-copyright-unauthorized/">whole, excellent, thing</a>.Ben Sheffnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-40763486281144454902010-12-14T12:55:00.000-08:002010-12-14T12:59:34.004-08:00Washington Legal Foundation: 'The Supreme Court Left Most Copyright Litigants Wanting in 2010'On the Washington Legal Foundation's blog, <a href="http://www.reedsmith.com/our_people.cfm?cit_id=29403&widCall1=customWidgets.content_view_1">Brad R. Newberg</a> of Reed Smith LLP has a <a href="http://wlflegalpulse.com/2010/12/14/the-supreme-court-left-most-copyright-litigants-wanting-in-2010/">good summary</a> of the Supreme Court's action (and inaction) on copyright in 2010. Here's the intro:<br /><blockquote>It has been a busy month for the Supreme Court not tackling copyright issues. On November 29, 2010, the Court denied certiorari in two copyright cases, <span style="font-style: italic;">Harper v. Maverick Recording Co</span>., No. 10-94, and <span style="font-style: italic;">Bryant v. Media Right Productions</span>, No. 10-415. Then, on December 13, it announced that no decision would be issued in <span style="font-style: italic;">Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Omega</span>, S.A., No. 08-1423, due to a 4-4 split (Justice Kagan was recused). Along with the Court’s decision back in March to avoid the Section 411 registration/application issue in <a href="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-103.pdf"><span style="font-style: italic;">Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick</span></a>, 2010 will end with the Supreme Court having missed some opportunities to clarify parts of the Copyright Act that have real-world ramifications for copyright owners, users, and legal practitioners.</blockquote>Definitely read the <a href="http://wlflegalpulse.com/2010/12/14/the-supreme-court-left-most-copyright-litigants-wanting-in-2010/">whole thing</a>.Ben Sheffnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-77003306290757592422010-12-08T09:15:00.000-08:002010-12-08T09:26:35.785-08:00New House Judiciary Chaiman Smith vows to protect IP<a href="http://lamarsmith.house.gov/">Rep. Lamar Smith</a> (R-TX), currently the ranking Member on the House Judiciary Committee, <a href="http://lamarsmith.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=217084">announced today</a> that he will serve as chairman in the next Congress. And he made clear that he will continue the committee's strong support for intellectual property rights:<br /><blockquote>As Chairman of the Committee, I will focus on efforts to strengthen national security, protect intellectual property, prevent frivolous lawsuits and keep children safe from Internet sex predators. The Judiciary Committee will support industries that employ millions of Americans by protecting their patents and copyrights.</blockquote>(h/t <a href="http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2010/12/smith-to-chair-house-judiciary.php">TechDailyDose</a>)Ben Sheffnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-7446249970171914382010-12-07T19:55:00.000-08:002010-12-07T20:13:41.294-08:00Thomas-Rasset: I owe nothing; labels seek injunction; court to Nesson: you're no amicus of mineSeveral developments in the case of Jammie Thomas-Rasset following the third jury's award of $1.5 million to the major record labels in their copyright infringement suit:<br /><ul><li>Thomas-Rasset is <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/44877205/Defendant-s-Motion-to-Reduce-Award">seeking to have the award reduced to zero</a>, on constitutional grounds. She is explicitly forgoing an argument based on common-law remittitur, the means by which the court <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/25590909/Order-on-Jammie-Thomas-Rasset-s-motion-for-new-trial">reduced the second jury's award</a> of $1.92 million down to $54,000. The court's decision on this motion -- which I expect him to grant, at least in part -- will allow one or both sides to appeal immediately to the Eighth Circuit, mercifully sparing all parties a fourth trial.</li><li>The labels are <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/44877203/Motion-for-Injunction">seeking an injunction</a> against further infringement by Thomas-Rasset via peer-to-peer or other means.</li><li>The <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/44877208/Order-Denying-Nesson-Amicus">court told Harvard Law Professor Charles Nesson</a> "thanks, but no thanks," rejecting his <a href="http://www.scribd.com/Nesson-Amicus-Brief/d/44877207">proposed <span style="font-style: italic;">amicus</span> brief</a> attacking the jury's award. "The proposed brief would not be of assistance to the Court," ruled Chief Judge Michael Davis of the District of Minnesota. " "Not so much as a thank you for the effort," <a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/nesson/2010/12/07/motion-denied/">lamented Nesson</a>, adding, ":<("</li></ul>Ben Sheffnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-25018552946998836222010-11-30T09:12:00.000-08:002010-11-30T09:18:56.246-08:00C&C again named to ABA Journal's top 100 law blogsI'm pleased to report that for the second year in a row the editors of the <a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.abajournal.com/">ABA Journal</a> have named <span style="font-style: italic;">Copyrights & Campaigns </span>one of the <a href="http://www.abajournal.com/blawg100/">top 100 legal blogs</a>. Thanks to all who have read, commented, tipped, passed along documents, and otherwise contributed to this effort. Posting hasn't been as frequent this year because of my <a href="http://www.nbcuni.com/">day job</a>, but I'm still blogging, as well as writing a regular legal column for <a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.billboard.biz/">Billboard</a>.<br /><br />If you're so inclined, you can vote for <span style="font-style: italic;">C&C</span> as the top blog in the IP category <a href="http://www.abajournal.com/blawg100/2010/iplaw">here</a>.Ben Sheffnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-1667747170699812362010-11-29T07:59:00.001-08:002010-11-29T08:10:22.934-08:00Supreme Court denies cert. in Harper 'innocent infringer' caseThe Supreme Court today <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/112910zor.pdf">declined to hear</a> a case challenging a lower court's decision that the "innocent infringer" defense under <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/504.html">17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2)</a> does not apply in a case of peer-to-peer infringement where the copyright owner had affixed proper notices on physical CDs embodying the work at issue. <span style="font-style: italic;">See </span><a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/402.html">17 U.S.C. § 402(d)</a> ("If a notice of copyright in the form and position specified by this section appears on the published phonorecord or phonorecords to which a defendant in a copyright infringement suit had access, then no weight shall be given to such a defendant’s interposition of a defense based on innocent infringement in mitigation of actual or statutory damages, except as provided in the last sentence of section 504."). The High Court's action leaves in place the Fifth Circuit's decision in in <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2326217699099161708&q=harper+maverick+fifth+circuit+&hl=en&as_sdt=2003&as_ylo=2008"><span style="font-style: italic;">Maverick Recordings v. Harper</span></a>, one of the major record labels' cases against an individual p2p user. In <span style="font-style: italic;">Harper</span>, the defendant, a teenage girl, argued that she qualified for the defense -- actually, a limitation on statutory damages to $200 per work -- because she was not aware that she was engaged in infringing activity. <span style="font-style: italic;">Accord</span> <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13750328162489237159&q=BMG+Music+v.+Gonzalez,+430+F.3d+888&hl=en&as_sdt=2003"><span style="font-style: italic;">BMG Music v. Gonzalez</span></a>, 430 F.3d 888 (7th Cir. 2005).<br /><br />Justice Samuel Alito filed a dissent to the denial of cert., questioning whether Section 402(d) was meant to apply to a digital file, as opposed to a copy made directly from a physical object like a CD. <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/112910zor.pdf"><span style="font-style: italic;">See</span> Order at 26</a>.Ben Sheffnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-6121441034471040662010-11-10T18:20:00.000-08:002010-11-10T18:26:27.594-08:00CLE event to explore uses of music in political campaignsNext Wednesday, Nov. 17 I'll be <a href="http://www.abanet.org/cle/programs/t10stb1.html">participating in a CLE event</a> that will explore various legal issues related to the use of music in political campaigns. Anyone can participate (<a href="https://www.abanet.org/aba_timssnet/meetings/tnt_meetings.cfm?action=long&primary_id=CET0STB&webtextid=54330&Subsystem=MTG&related_prod_flag=0">for a fee</a>) via telephone conference or live webcast hosted by the ABA. Details below:<br /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:medium;" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style=";font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;" ><div class="module" style="margin: 10px 0px; padding: 0px;"><div class="module-content" style="margin: 0px; padding: 3px 5px; overflow: hidden;"><table width="98%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2" class="feature" style="padding: 0px 0px 10px 10px; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);" valign="top"><h1 style="margin: 3px 0px; padding: 0px; font-size: 17px; font-weight: bold; font-family: Verdana,Arial,sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 51, 153);"><strong style="font-weight: bold;">The Politics of Fair Use:</strong></h1><h2 style="margin: 3px 0px; padding: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bold; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; color: rgb(51, 77, 85);"><strong style="font-weight: bold;">A Practical Discussion of Fair Use Principles Using Recent Examples of Popular Music in Political Campaigns</strong></h2><br /><h5 style="margin: 3px 0px; padding: 0px; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 77, 85);font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Date:</span><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Wednesday, November 17, 2010</h5><h5 style="margin: 3px 0px; padding: 0px; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 77, 85);font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Format:</span><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://www.abanet.org/cle/cle_faq.html#tech-live-format-chart" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(0, 102, 153); -moz-background-clip: inherit; -moz-background-origin: inherit; -moz-background-inline-policy: inherit;">Teleconference and Live Audio Webcast</a></h5><h5 style="margin: 3px 0px; padding: 0px; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 77, 85);font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Duration:</span><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>60 minutes</h5></td></tr><tr><td class="feature" style="padding: 0px 0px 10px 10px; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);" valign="top" width="125" align="left"><h4 face="Arial,sans-serif" size="13px" style="margin: 3px 0px; padding: 0px; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"> </h4><br /></td></tr><tr></tr></tbody></table><table class="feature" style="padding: 0px 0px 10px 10px; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);" width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2"><tbody><tr valign="top" align="left"><td style="font-size: 13px;" height="38"><h6 style="margin: 3px 0px; padding: 0px; font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Sponsors:</h6></td><td style="font-size:13px;"><h4 style="margin: 3px 0px; padding: 0px; font-size: 13px; font-weight: bold; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">The American Bar Association<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b style="font-weight: bold;"><a href="http://www.abanet.org/intelprop/" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(0, 102, 153); -moz-background-clip: inherit; -moz-background-origin: inherit; -moz-background-inline-policy: inherit;">Section of Intellectual Property Law</a></b><strong style="font-weight: bold;">,<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b style="font-weight: bold;"><a href="http://new.abanet.org/forums/entsports/Pages/default.aspx" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(0, 102, 153); -moz-background-clip: inherit; -moz-background-origin: inherit; -moz-background-inline-policy: inherit;">Forum on the Entertainment and Sports Industries</a></b></strong><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>and the<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://www.abanet.org/cle" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(0, 102, 153); -moz-background-clip: inherit; -moz-background-origin: inherit; -moz-background-inline-policy: inherit;"><b style="font-weight: bold;">ABA Center for Continuing Legal Education</b></a></h4></td></tr></tbody></table><table class="feature" id="pagetitle" style="padding: 0px 0px 10px 10px; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);" width="100%" bgcolor="#ffffff" border="1" bordercolor="#ffffff" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr bordercolor="#CCCCCC" valign="top"><td style="font-size: 13px;" width="50%"><div align="center"><h4 style="margin: 3px 0px; padding: 0px; font-size: 13px; font-weight: bold; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">12:30 PM-1:30 PM Eastern</h4></div></td><td style="font-size: 13px;" width="50%"><div align="center"><h4 style="margin: 3px 0px; padding: 0px; font-size: 13px; font-weight: bold; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">11:30 AM-12:30 PM Central</h4></div></td></tr><tr bordercolor="#CCCCCC" valign="top"><td style="font-size: 13px;"><div align="center"><h4 style="margin: 3px 0px; padding: 0px; font-size: 13px; font-weight: bold; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">10:30 AM-11:30 AM Mountain</h4></div></td><td style="font-size: 13px;"><div align="center"><h4 style="margin: 3px 0px; padding: 0px; font-size: 13px; font-weight: bold; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">9:30 AM-10:30 AM Pacific</h4></div></td></tr></tbody></table></div></div><div class="module-dkbl" style="border: 1px solid rgb(1, 1, 121); margin: 10px 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative;"><h2 class="module-header-dkbl" style="margin: 0px; padding: 2px 5px; font-size: 13px; font-weight: bold; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; color: rgb(255, 255, 255); background-image: url(http://www.abanet.org/images/modules/h2bg_dkblue.gif); background-color: rgb(1, 1, 121); background-position: 0px 50%;"><a name="description" id="description" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(0, 0, 153); -moz-background-clip: inherit; -moz-background-origin: inherit; -moz-background-inline-policy: inherit;"></a>Program Description</h2><div class="module-content" style="margin: 0px; padding: 3px 5px; overflow: hidden;"><p style="margin: 2px 0px; padding: 5px 0px;">Recently, high profile politicians including John McCain, Charlie Crist, and Chuck DeVore have had lawsuits brought against them for using the music of famous musicians such as Jackson Browne, David Byrne, and Don Henley in their campaigns without receiving the necessary permissions and licenses. What rights do politicians have to use popular music at their live events and in advertisements? Are such uses a "fair use"? Our expert panel will discuss these issues and use them as a means to review principles of the Fair Use doctrine.</p></div></div><div class="module-dkbl" style="border: 1px solid rgb(1, 1, 121); margin: 10px 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative;"><h2 class="module-header-dkbl" style="margin: 0px; padding: 2px 5px; font-size: 13px; font-weight: bold; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; color: rgb(255, 255, 255); background-image: url(http://www.abanet.org/images/modules/h2bg_dkblue.gif); background-color: rgb(1, 1, 121); background-position: 0px 50%;"><a name="Faculty" id="Faculty" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(0, 0, 153); -moz-background-clip: inherit; -moz-background-origin: inherit; -moz-background-inline-policy: inherit;"></a>Program Faculty</h2><div class="module-content" style="margin: 0px; padding: 3px 5px; overflow: hidden;"><p style="margin: 2px 0px; padding: 5px 0px;"><strong style="font-weight: bold;">Robert Clarida (Moderator)<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></strong>is the partner in charge of the copyright practice at the New York firm of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., which was named “Copyright Firm of the Year” for both 2008 and 2009 by<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><em style="font-style: italic;">Managing Intellectual Property</em><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>magazine. He has conducted jury trials, argued federal appeals, and served as lead litigation counsel in a number of reported federal copyright cases. He also counsels clients on non-litigious copyright matters, and has been the principal drafter of<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><em style="font-style: italic;">amicus curiae</em><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>briefs on copyright matters in the U.S. Supreme Court and a number of Circuits, on behalf of organizations including the AIPLA, the Motion Picture Association of America, the New York City Bar Association, and the Recording Industry Association of America. Mr. Clarida speaks and writes frequently on copyright issues, is the author of the treatise<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><em style="font-style: italic;">Copyright Law Deskbook</em><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>(BNA 2009), and the principal author of the annual review of copyright decisions published each year by the Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA.</p><p style="margin: 2px 0px; padding: 5px 0px;"><strong style="font-weight: bold;">Jacqueline C. Charlesworth</strong><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>is of counsel in the litigation department in the New York office of Morrison & Foerster LLP. Ms. Charlesworth's practice focuses on copyright law in the digital environment. She represents media, entertainment, and other clients in litigation, legislative, regulatory, and transactional matters. In addition to handling infringement matters, she has negotiated industry-wide licensing agreements to facilitate the development of online music services. She advises on copyright-related legislation and appears in proceedings before the<br />U.S. Copyright Office.</p><p style="margin: 2px 0px; padding: 5px 0px;"><strong style="font-weight: bold;">Ben Sheffner<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></strong>is a copyright/First Amendment/media/entertainment attorney and former journalist. Currently senior counsel, Legal Affairs in the NBC Universal Television Group, Mr. Sheffner has also worked as senior counsel, Content Protection Litigation at Twentieth Century Fox, as litigation counsel in the NBC Universal Television Group, and as an associate in the Century City office of O'Melveny & Myers LLP. From July-November 2008, Mr. Sheffner served as special counsel on Senator John McCain's presidential campaign where, among other responsibilities, he handled the campaign's copyright, trademark, and other intellectual property issues. Mr. Sheffner blogs at<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/" target="_blank" title="http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(0, 102, 153); -moz-background-clip: inherit; -moz-background-origin: inherit; -moz-background-inline-policy: inherit;">http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/</a>, which was recently named as one of the top 100 legal blogs by the American Bar Association, and writes a regular column on legal issues in the music industry for the Billboard.</p><p style="margin: 2px 0px; padding: 5px 0px;"><strong style="font-weight: bold;">Andrew Sparkler</strong><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>is the associate director, Legal Corporate at the American Society of Composers Authors and Publishers ("ASCAP") where he focuses on legislative and international issues, as well as providing legal support to ASCAP's internal departments and The ASCAP Foundation. He is a co-chair of the New York Chapter of the Copyright Society of the U.S.A. In 2009, he was named the New York State Bar Association's "Outstanding Young Lawyer." Mr. Sparkler received his law degree from the Fordham University School of Law and his undergraduate degree from Brown University. </p></div></div><div class="module-abablue" style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 114, 198); margin: 10px 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative;"><h2 class="module-header-abablue" style="margin: 0px; padding: 2px 5px; font-size: 13px; font-weight: bold; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; color: rgb(255, 255, 255); background-image: url(http://www.abanet.org/images/modules/h2bg_abablue.gif); background-color: rgb(0, 114, 198); background-position: 0px 50%;"><a name="MCLE" id="MCLE" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(255, 255, 255); -moz-background-clip: inherit; -moz-background-origin: inherit; -moz-background-inline-policy: inherit;">CLE Credit</a></h2><div class="module-content" style="margin: 0px; padding: 3px 5px; overflow: hidden;"><p style="margin: 2px 0px; padding: 5px 0px;"><b style="font-weight: bold;">1.0</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>hours of CLE credit in<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://www.abanet.org/cle/mcle/format.html#60/50" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(0, 102, 153); -moz-background-clip: inherit; -moz-background-origin: inherit; -moz-background-inline-policy: inherit;">60-minute states</a>/1.2 hours of CLE credit in<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://www.abanet.org/cle/mcle/format.html#60/50" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(0, 102, 153); -moz-background-clip: inherit; -moz-background-origin: inherit; -moz-background-inline-policy: inherit;">50-minute states</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>have been requested in states accrediting ABA teleconferences and live audio webcasts.*</p><p style="margin: 2px 0px; padding: 5px 0px;"><b style="font-weight: bold;">NY-licensed attorneys</b>: This non-transitional CLE program has been approved for experienced NY-licensed attorneys in accordance with the requirements of the New York State CLE Board for<b style="font-weight: bold;">1.0</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>total NY CLE credits.</p><p style="margin: 2px 0px; padding: 5px 0px;">The following states accept ABA teleconferences for CLE credit:<br />AL, AK, AR, AZ, CA, CO, FL, GA, IA, ID, IL, KY, LA, ME, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NH, NM, NV, NY, OK, OR, RI, SC, TN, TX, UT, VA, VI, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY.</p><p style="margin: 2px 0px; padding: 5px 0px;">*States currently not accrediting ABA teleconferences: DE, IN, PA, KS, OH</p><p style="margin: 2px 0px; padding: 5px 0px;"><a href="http://www.abanet.org/cle/mclemap.html" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(0, 102, 153); -moz-background-clip: inherit; -moz-background-origin: inherit; -moz-background-inline-policy: inherit;">Click here to view a map of MCLE states</a></p></div></div></span></span>Ben Sheffnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-36038669563029735692010-11-03T17:24:00.000-07:002010-11-03T17:54:23.353-07:00Third Thomas-Rasset verdict: $1.5 millionThe third time was not the charm for Jammie Thomas-Rasset.<br /><br />The jury in the third copyright trial of the Brainerd, Minnesota woman has just returned a verdict of $1.5 million in statutory damages, or $62,500 for each of the 24 songs that she downloaded and "shared" over the KaZaA peer-to-peer network.<br /><br />The award is significantly higher than the $222,000 award in her first trial (which was <a href="http://beckermanlegal.com/Lawyer_Copyright_Internet_Law/virgin_thomas_080924Decision.pdf">thrown out</a> when the judge determined the jury instructions to be flawed), and a bit lower than the $1.92 million award in the second, which was <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/25590909/Order-on-Jammie-Thomas-Rasset-s-motion-for-new-trial">reduced by the judge</a> to $54,000 under the common-law doctrine of remittitur. After the second trial, Thomas-Rasset -- who denied downloading any music over peer-to-peer networks -- rejected a settlement offer of $25,000 from the record label plaintiffs, who said they would donate the amount to a music-related charity.<br /><br />The RIAA said in a statement after the verdict:<br /><blockquote>We are again thankful to the jury for its service in this matter and that they recognized the severity of the defendant's misconduct. Now with three jury decisions behind us along with a clear affirmation of Ms. Thomas-Rasset’s willful liability, it is our hope that she finally accepts responsibility for her actions.</blockquote>This is far from the end of the road in this case. Thomas-Rasset is expected to challenge the size of the award again, and the judge has already determined that $54,000 is the maximum acceptable size for an award given the evidence in the case.<br /><br />I'll update as more information becomes available.<br /><a title="View Jammie Thomas-Rasset Verdict on Scribd" href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/40927654/Jammie-Thomas-Rasset-Verdict" style="margin: 12px auto 6px; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; display: block; text-decoration: underline;">Jammie Thomas-Rasset Verdict</a> <object id="doc_408459702576619" name="doc_408459702576619" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf" style="outline-color: -moz-use-text-color; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;" width="100%" height="600"> <param name="movie" value="http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf"> <param name="wmode" value="opaque"> <param name="bgcolor" value="#ffffff"> <param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"> <param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"> <param name="FlashVars" value="document_id=40927654&access_key=key-kqfxivnxk9c86yuijx5&page=1&viewMode=list"> <embed id="doc_408459702576619" name="doc_408459702576619" src="http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=40927654&access_key=key-kqfxivnxk9c86yuijx5&page=1&viewMode=list" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" wmode="opaque" bgcolor="#ffffff" width="100%" height="600"></embed> </object>Ben Sheffnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.com22tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-17933605635041782072010-10-29T16:52:00.000-07:002010-10-29T17:11:07.827-07:00Labels file First Circuit brief in Joel Tenenbaum case; ex-SG Paul Clement joins teamThe record label plaintiffs filed their <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/40367170/Record-Labels-appellate-brief-in-Sony-v-Tenenbaum">appellate brief</a> in the First Circuit this week, seeking to reinstate the <a href="http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2009/07/oy-tenenbaum-riaa-wins-675000-or-22500.html">$675,000 copyright infringement award</a> against Joel Tenenbaum that the <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/34125455/Order-on-motion-for-new-trial-remittitur-in-Joel-Tenenbaum-case">district court held was unconstitutionally excessive</a> and reduced to $67,500.<br /><br />Readers of this blog are likely already familiar with <a href="http://www.pennumbra.com/debates/index.php?date=24117">the arguments</a> over whether awards of copyright statutory damages are subject to review under the Supreme Court's punitive damages cases, including <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-896.ZO.html"><span style="font-style: italic;">BMW v. Gore</span></a>. I thought this brief did a particularly effective job at explaining why <span style="font-style: italic;">Gore </span>and its progeny are inapplicable to statutory damages awards, where Congress has clearly established the permissible damages range, and thus the jury is not left without the "guideposts" that the court set forth in <span style="font-style: italic;">Gore</span><span>, where no statute cabined the jury's discretion</span>. And the brief highlights the flaws in the district court's own damages analysis, including its failure to take into account the evidence that Tenenbaum distributed (uploaded) songs to countless others in addition to downloading them. Of note, the labels' appellate team now includes former US Solicitor General <a href="http://www.kslaw.com/bio/Paul_Clement">Paul Clement</a>, now a partner at King & Spalding.<br /><br />Tenenbaum's defense team has also indicated that it will appeal, arguing that even the reduced award is unconstitutionally excessive.<br /><a title="View Record Labels' appellate brief in Sony v. Tenenbaum on Scribd" href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/40367170/Record-Labels-appellate-brief-in-Sony-v-Tenenbaum" style="margin: 12px auto 6px; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; display: block; text-decoration: underline;">Record Labels' appellate brief in Sony v. Tenenbaum</a> <object id="doc_721714564735555" name="doc_721714564735555" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf" style="outline-color: -moz-use-text-color; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;" width="100%" height="600"> <param name="movie" value="http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf"> <param name="wmode" value="opaque"> <param name="bgcolor" value="#ffffff"> <param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"> <param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"> <param name="FlashVars" value="document_id=40367170&access_key=key-1f3zyzly9xvv8eoq3mzc&page=1&viewMode=list"> <embed id="doc_721714564735555" name="doc_721714564735555" src="http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=40367170&access_key=key-1f3zyzly9xvv8eoq3mzc&page=1&viewMode=list" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" wmode="opaque" bgcolor="#ffffff" width="100%" height="600"></embed> </object>Ben Sheffnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-4411140495993426942010-10-29T15:40:00.000-07:002010-11-07T15:31:00.495-08:00Nesson seeks to join Thomas-Rasset trial frayThe third trial of Jammie Thomas-Rasset may have just gotten a lot more interesting:<br /><a title="View Nesson motion for pro hac vice on Scribd" href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/40447029/Nesson-motion-for-pro-hac-vice" style="margin: 12px auto 6px; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; display: block; text-decoration: underline;">Nesson motion for pro hac vice</a> <object id="doc_157499153060679" name="doc_157499153060679" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf" style="outline-color: -moz-use-text-color; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;" width="100%" height="600"> <param name="movie" value="http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf"> <param name="wmode" value="opaque"> <param name="bgcolor" value="#ffffff"> <param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"> <param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"> <param name="FlashVars" value="document_id=40447029&access_key=key-e06qzh3rqqohu13434q&page=1&viewMode=list"> <embed id="doc_157499153060679" name="doc_157499153060679" src="http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=40447029&access_key=key-e06qzh3rqqohu13434q&page=1&viewMode=list" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" wmode="opaque" bgcolor="#ffffff" width="100%" height="600"></embed> </object><br /><br />Trial is set to begin Tuesday, Nov. 2, and will concern only damages.<div><br /></div><div>(Headline changed. Nesson sought to represent Harvard's Berkman Center, not to formally join Thomas-Rasset's defense.)</div>Ben Sheffnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-21363862223216139992010-10-27T06:24:00.000-07:002010-10-27T06:29:26.914-07:00St. John's Law School synmposium explores music downloading casesThose readers in the New York area may be interested in attending a <a href="http://www.stjohns.edu/academics/graduate/law/news/events/ev_law_101029.event@digest.stjohns.edu/academics/graduate/law/ev_law_101029.xml?context_date=10/29/2010">symposium</a> this Friday, Oct. 29 at St. John's University School of Law in Queens about the record labels' litigation against individual peer-to-peer infringers. The panel looks a bit heavy on the "anti" side, but it should be an interesting event nonetheless:<br /><br /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 20px;"><div id="Title-shadow" class="shadow-container" style="width: 640px; height: 60px;"><div style="width: 640px; height: 50px;"><div class="title" id="Title" style="width: 620px; padding: 5px 0px 5px 10px; background-color: rgb(248, 151, 28); color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-size: 18px; line-height: 20px; float: left;"><h1 id="ctl00_Title1_plcTitle_TitleContent" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-size: 18px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 20px;">Reaching Acc[h]ord: Resolving Disputes Over Music Downloading</h1></div></div></div><div id="body-content" style="padding-top: 10px; margin-left: 10px; margin-right: 20px; min-height: 590px; padding-bottom: 20px;"><div class="event"><div class="event-date" style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">October 29, 2010 9:00 AM - 2:00 PM</div><div class="event-location" style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">Law School | Belson Moot Court Room | 2nd Floor</div><div class="event-body" style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;"><p style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">The<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://www.stjohns.edu/academics/graduate/law/academics/centers/careycenter/careycenter.stj" style="text-decoration: none; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">Hugh L. Carey Center for Dispute Resolution</a>, together with the Law School's<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a title="Dispute Resolution Society" href="http://digest.stjohns.edu/academics/graduate/law/journals/drs" style="text-decoration: none; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">Dispute Resolution Society</a>and<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a title="Entertainment, Arts and Sports Law Society" href="http://digest.stjohns.edu/academics/graduate/law/journals/overview/easl/easl.stj" style="text-decoration: none; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">Entertainment, Arts and Sports Law Society</a>, presents:</p><p style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;"><strong style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;"><span class="Subhead" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">Reaching Acc[h]ord: Resolving Disputes Over Music Downloading<br /></span></strong></p><ul style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;"><li style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102); font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;"><strong style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">Charles S. Nesson</strong><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>| Harvard Law School professor and counsel to Joel Tenenbaum</li><li style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102); font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;"><strong style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">Joel Tennenbaum</strong><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>| Boston University student initially found liable for over $600,000 in damages for unauthorized music downloading</li><li style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102); font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;"><strong style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">Ray Beckerman</strong><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>| Respected entertainment attorney and blogger on the topic of music downloading</li><li style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102); font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;"><strong style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">Jake Walden</strong><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>| Independent recording artist. </li><li style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102); font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;"><strong style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">Cathy Constantino</strong><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>| Conflict Management System Design Expert</li></ul><p style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px; margin-left: 120px;"><strong style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;"><img src="http://www.stjohns.edu/media/1/f4a7492bdf25451c8e2c9112d16f8771.jpg" alt="" style="display: block; border-style: none; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;" /><br /><a class="click-enlarge" style="text-decoration: none; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;"><img src="http://www.stjohns.edu/themes/StJohns.Themes.Digest/images/Enlarge.png" alt="Click to view larger image" style="display: block; border-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border-width: 0px; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;" />Click to view larger image</a></strong></p><p style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;"><strong style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">Date<br /></strong>Friday, October 29, 2010<br /><br /><strong style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">Time<br /></strong>9 a.m. - 2 p.m.<br /><br /><strong style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">Location<br /></strong>School of Law | Belson Moot Court Room | Second Floor<br /><br /><strong style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">Fee<br /></strong>$25 entry fee <br />Free admission for law students with valid Law School ID<br /><br /><strong style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">Registration</strong><br />Please register at<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:specialevents@stjohns.edu" style="text-decoration: none; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">specialevents@stjohns.edu</a> by Wednesday, October 27, 2010</p><p style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;"><strong style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">More Information<br /></strong>Maureen Mulligan<br />Associate Director of Special Events<br />(718) 990-1950<br /><a href="mailto:mulligam@stjohns.edu" style="text-decoration: none; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">mulligam@stjohns.edu</a><br /></p></div></div></div></span></span>Ben Sheffnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-31752914512826734382010-10-22T09:00:00.001-07:002010-10-22T09:38:12.808-07:00Third Jammie Thomas-Rasset trial: Game onThe third trial of Jammie Thomas-Rasset for downloading and "sharing" songs over the Internet without permission from copyright holders will proceed as scheduled Nov. 2. Today Judge Michael Davis <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/39901742/Order-denying-motion-for-reconsideration">denied</a> the defendant's <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/39403490/Defendant-s-Motion-for-Reconsideration">motion for reconsideration</a> of the court's earlier order <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/25590909/Order-on-Jammie-Thomas-Rasset-s-motion-for-new-trial">reducing the verdict</a> in the second trial on common-law remittitur grounds. Thomas-Rasset had sought to have the court void or reduce the $1.92 million jury award in the second trial on constitutional grounds, which would have permitted an immediate appeal to the Eighth Circuit. But in his brief order today, he concluded that his remittitur order "contain[]ed no manifest errors of law or fact." The third trial will focus only on damages; Thomas-Rasset's liability for willfully infringing 24 songs has already been established.<br /><a title="View Order denying motion for reconsideration on Scribd" href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/39901742/Order-denying-motion-for-reconsideration" style="margin: 12px auto 6px; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; display: block; text-decoration: underline;">Order denying motion for reconsideration</a> <object id="doc_715474793310517" name="doc_715474793310517" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf" style="outline-color: -moz-use-text-color; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;" width="100%" height="600"> <param name="movie" value="http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf"> <param name="wmode" value="opaque"> <param name="bgcolor" value="#ffffff"> <param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"> <param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"> <param name="FlashVars" value="document_id=39901742&access_key=key-lnlwv6cqn25dfo330wb&page=1&viewMode=list"> <embed id="doc_715474793310517" name="doc_715474793310517" src="http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=39901742&access_key=key-lnlwv6cqn25dfo330wb&page=1&viewMode=list" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" wmode="opaque" bgcolor="#ffffff" width="100%" height="600"></embed> </object>Ben Sheffnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-28470393157117488662010-10-20T10:21:00.000-07:002010-10-20T10:32:03.581-07:00Labels, government oppose Thomas-Rasset's attempt to avoid third trialThe record label plaintiffs case have <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/39754797/Plaintiffs-Opposition-to-Motion-for-Reconsideration">filed their brief</a> opposing Jammie Thomas-Rasset 's <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/39403490/Defendant-s-Motion-for-Reconsideration">last-minute attempt to avoid a third trial</a> in the peer-to-peer copyright case. The labels argue that such a late motion for reconsideration -- the trial, which will involve damages only, is scheduled to start Nov. 2 -- is procedurally improper, and that there is no compelling reason to disturb the court's <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/25590909/Order-on-Jammie-Thomas-Rasset-s-motion-for-new-trial">previous ruling</a> reducing the previous jury's $1.92 million award on common-law remittitur (<span style="font-style: italic;">i.e.</span>, non-constitutional) grounds.<br /><br />The Justice Department, which has intervened in the case in defense of the constitutionality of the statutory damages provision of the Copyright Act, also <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/39754800/DOJ-Opposition-to-Motion-for-Reconsideration">filed a brief opposing reconsideration</a>, citing the long-standing doctrine that courts should avoid ruling on constitutional issues where possible.<br /><br />With trial set to begin in less than two weeks, I expect a fairly quick ruling from Judge Michael Davis of the District of Minnesota. I'm told that at a hearing last week Judge Davis expressed serious interest in such a motion for reconsideration, but it's far from certain that he will grant it.Ben Sheffnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-6441515232393104792010-10-15T16:22:00.000-07:002010-10-15T16:53:30.813-07:00Labels oppose cert. in 'innocent infringer' caseThe major record labels have filed their <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/39440193/Plaintiffs-Opposition-to-petition-for-certiorari-in-Maverick-Recordings-v-Whitney-Harper">opposition</a> to the <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/32060955/Harper-Petition-for-certiorari">defendant's <span style="font-style: italic;">cert.</span> petition</a> in <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2326217699099161708&q=harper+maverick+fifth+circuit+&hl=en&as_sdt=2003&as_ylo=2008"><span style="font-style: italic;">Maverick Recordings v. Harper</span></a>, arguing that the admitted peer-to-peer user is absolutely barred from asserting an "innocent infringer" defense under <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/504.html">17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2)</a> because they had properly affixed copyright notices to CDs containing the songs she infringed. <span style="font-style: italic;">See </span><a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/402.html">17 U.S.C. § 402(d)</a> ("If a notice of copyright in the form and position specified by this section appears on the published phonorecord or phonorecords to which a defendant in a copyright infringement suit had access, then no weight shall be given to such a defendant’s interposition of a defense based on innocent infringement in mitigation of actual or statutory damages, except as provided in the last sentence of section 504.").<br /><br />Here's the intro to the labels' brief:<br /><blockquote>This case involves a straightforward application of 17 U.S.C. § 402(d). Petitioner has never disputed that Respondents placed proper copyright notices on the published sound recordings at issue and that Petitioner had access to these published works. Therefore, as the Fifth Circuit correctly determined, section 402(d) bars Petitioner from asserting a so-called “innocent infringement” defense as a matter of law.<br /><br />Petitioner’s primary argument for <span style="font-style: italic;">certiorari </span>rests on the false premise that the circuit courts are divided on the legal standard for applying section 402(d). There is, however, no circuit split. The Second Circuit authority upon which Petitioner relies never even considered the application of section 402(d). In addition to the absence of any circuit split, this case provides an ill-suited vehicle for considering the legal standard for applying section 402(d). Petitioner’s argument that a lack of copyright notice on the specific digital recordings she infringed should defeat application of section 402(d) does not square with the plain language of the statute, ignores Petitioner’s admission that she had access to Respondents’ published works carrying the proper copyright notices, and was never raised in the lower courts. For all of these reasons, the Court should deny the Petition.</blockquote>The Fifth Circuit here and the Seventh Circuit in <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13750328162489237159&q=BMG+Music+v.+Gonzalez,+430+F.3d+888&hl=en&as_sdt=2003"><span style="font-style: italic;">BMG Music v. Gonzalez</span></a>, 430 F.3d 888 (7th Cir. 2005) came to the the same conclusion on this very point in very similar cases. And the label's brief explains why <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3530837994990738707&q=D.C.+Comics,+Inc.+v.+Mini+Gift+Shop,+912+F.2d+29+&hl=en&as_sdt=2003"><span style="font-style: italic;">D.C. Comics, Inc. v. Mini Gift Shop</span></a>, 912 F.2d 29 (2d Cir. 1990) -- which did not involve sound recordings, the Internet, or indeed 17 U.S.C. Sec. 402(d) -- is not in conflict with <span style="font-style: italic;">Harper </span>and <span style="font-style: italic;">Gonzalez</span>, the defendant's arguments to the contrary notwithstanding.<br /><br />See my previous posts on this case <a href="http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2010/05/peer-to-peer-defendant-seeks-supreme.html">here</a> and <a href="http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2010/09/supreme-court-requests-response-on.html">here</a>.<br /><a title="View Plaintiffs' Opposition to petition for certiorari in Maverick Recordings v. Whitney Harper on Scribd" href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/39440193/Plaintiffs-Opposition-to-petition-for-certiorari-in-Maverick-Recordings-v-Whitney-Harper" style="margin: 12px auto 6px; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; display: block; text-decoration: underline;">Plaintiffs' Opposition to petition for certiorari in Maverick Recordings v. Whitney Harper</a> <object id="doc_314784814358220" name="doc_314784814358220" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf" style="outline-color: -moz-use-text-color; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;" width="100%" height="600"> <param name="movie" value="http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf"> <param name="wmode" value="opaque"> <param name="bgcolor" value="#ffffff"> <param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"> <param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"> <param name="FlashVars" value="document_id=39440193&access_key=key-1bld7xuppfli7nlbilwh&page=1&viewMode=list"> <embed id="doc_314784814358220" name="doc_314784814358220" src="http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=39440193&access_key=key-1bld7xuppfli7nlbilwh&page=1&viewMode=list" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" wmode="opaque" bgcolor="#ffffff" width="100%" height="600"></embed> </object>Ben Sheffnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-87918478235961531692010-10-15T08:42:00.000-07:002010-10-15T09:24:09.720-07:00Judge in Thomas-Rasset case may scuttle third trialThe judge in the <a href="http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/search/label/Jammie%20Thomas"><span style="font-style: italic;">Jammie Thomas-Rasset</span> case</a> is considering canceling the third trial in this long-running litigation brought by the major record labels against an individual peer-to-peer user.<br /><br />The parties are preparing for a new trial starting Nov. 2, to focus only on damages, following <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/25590909/Order-on-Jammie-Thomas-Rasset-s-motion-for-new-trial">the court's remittitur</a> of the $1.92 million verdict handed down by a Minneapolis jury in 2009. But Judge Michael Davis indicated at a pre-trial hearing on Tuesday that he will give serious consideration to a defense request to modify his order so that it would instead rest on constitutional grounds. That would bring a degree of finality to the case, at least in the district court, and allow for an immediate appeal by one or both sides. I'm told that at the hearing, Judge Davis actually alluded several times to the movie <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundhog_Day_%28film%29"><span style="font-style: italic;">Groundhog Day</span></a>, referencing <a href="http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2010/01/judge-davis-remittitur-order-groundhog.html">the scenario</a> where he would repeatedly remit jury awards, only to have that remittitur refused by the plaintiffs, necessitating yet another trial, and <span style="font-style: italic;">ad infinitum</span>.<br /><br />Today the defense <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/39403490/Defendant-s-Motion-for-Reconsideration">filed its brief</a> seeking such reconsideration. It cites to <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/34125455/Order-on-motion-for-new-trial-remittitur-in-Joel-Tenenbaum-case">the order</a> issued by Judge Nancy Gertner in the <a href="http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/search/label/tenenbaum"><span style="font-style: italic;">Joel Tenenbaum </span>case</a>, which reduced the jury's award from $675,000 to $67,500 on constitutional grounds. In his original order, Judge Davis declined to reach the constitutional issues, citing <a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://openjurist.org/406/f3d/940/united-states-v-allen">United States v. Allen</a>, 406 F.3d 940, 946 (8th Cir. 2005) (“When we are confronted with several possible grounds for deciding a case, any of which would lead to the same result, we choose the narrowest ground in order to avoid unnecessary adjudication of constitutional issues.).” In her <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/34125455/Order-on-motion-for-new-trial-remittitur-in-Joel-Tenenbaum-case">order</a> in the <span style="font-style: italic;">Tenenbaum</span> case, Judge Gertner concluded that avoiding the constitutional issues was impossible essentially because of the <span style="font-style: italic;">Groundhog Day </span>problem.<br /><br />I'm told that the labels' plan to oppose Thomas-Rasset's motion for reconsideration; their response is due Wednesday, Oct. 20.<br /><br /><a title="View Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration on Scribd" href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/39403490/Defendant-s-Motion-for-Reconsideration" style="margin: 12px auto 6px; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; display: block; text-decoration: underline;">Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration</a> <object id="doc_662559545125814" name="doc_662559545125814" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf" style="outline-color: -moz-use-text-color; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;" width="100%" height="600"> <param name="movie" value="http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf"> <param name="wmode" value="opaque"> <param name="bgcolor" value="#ffffff"> <param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"> <param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"> <param name="FlashVars" value="document_id=39403490&access_key=key-1evfm25rn6p759qlm935&page=1&viewMode=list"> <embed id="doc_662559545125814" name="doc_662559545125814" src="http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=39403490&access_key=key-1evfm25rn6p759qlm935&page=1&viewMode=list" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" wmode="opaque" bgcolor="#ffffff" width="100%" height="600"></embed> </object>Ben Sheffnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-88892736368810170632010-10-13T09:16:00.000-07:002010-10-13T09:55:25.790-07:00Grayson campaign ad apes 'Sopranos' opening; Henley v. DeVore redux?The campaign of Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) has released a clever new ad -- one that closely mimics the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERYpbpqxf4o">opening of <span style="font-style: italic;">The Sopranos</span></a>, only with Orlando rather than Northern New Jersey as the setting:<br /><br /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" salign="l" flashvars="&titleAvailable=true&playerAvailable=true&searchAvailable=false&shareFlag=N&singleURL=http://orlandosentinel.vidcms.trb.com/alfresco/service/edge/content/2cfcc477-f938-4c9b-aab4-d71e9b458e3d&propName=orlandosentinel.com&hostURL=http://www.orlandosentinel.com&swfPath=http://orlandosentinel.vid.trb.com/player/&omAccount=tribglobal&omnitureServer=orlandosentinel.com" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" menu="true" name="PaperVideoTest" bgcolor="#ffffff" devicefont="false" wmode="transparent" scale="showall" loop="true" play="true" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" quality="high" src="http://orlandosentinel.vid.trb.com/player/PaperVideoTest.swf" width="300" align="middle" height="450"></embed><br /><br />I don't think there's much of a copyright issue with the visuals in the Grayson spot; as far as I can tell, there's no copying of actual HBO footage, and I doubt HBO has a copyright in the idea of a montage of urban scenes from a driver's perspective. The much tougher issue for the Grayson campaign is the music, which appears to be a re-recording of the <span style="font-style: italic;">Sopranos </span>theme (a song called "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke_Up_This_Morning">Woke Up This Morning</a>" by British band <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_3">Alabama 3</a> (aka A3)), with new lyrics that mock Grayson's opponent <a href="http://www.electwebster.com/">Daniel Webster</a> (R). As to the music, the facts appear to be very similar to those in the <a href="http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/search/label/DeVore"><span style="font-style: italic;">Henley v. DeVore</span></a> case, where the defendant also took a well known song and re-recorded it, substituting new lyrics attacking his political opponents. The court in the <span style="font-style: italic;">DeVore</span> case <a href="http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2010/06/its-official-don-henley-wins-summary.html">soundly rejected the defendants' fair use argument</a>, largely on the grounds that the campaign's use was satirical (using the work to poke fun at something else) rather than parodic (poking fun at the work itself). <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZO.html"><span style="font-style: italic;">See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc</span></a>., 510 US 569 (1994) (explaining parody/satire distinction).<br /><br />Here's some <a href="http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_politics/2010/10/alan-grayson-portrays-dan-webster-as-tony-soprano.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+news/politics/politicalpulse+%28Central+Florida+Political+Pulse%29">background from the <span style="font-style: italic;">Orlando Sentinel</span></a>.Ben Sheffnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-12531679947237504272010-10-07T18:41:00.000-07:002010-10-12T17:16:16.937-07:00Copyright battle in Ohio Gov. race over use of clip to expose 'steelworker' as actor<span style="font-size:100%;">Here's a very interesting copyright battle going on in the Ohio governor's race. <a href="http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/10/copyright-abuse-ohio-governor-election">As described by EFF's Kurt Opsahl</a>:<br /></span><blockquote style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;font-size:14px;"><p>A couple of days ago,<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kasich" style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Congressman John Kasich</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>put out a<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAlqhcF08KA" style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">commercial</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>that featured a man dressed as a steelworker discussing<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Strickland" style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Governor Ted Strickland</a>’s record. It turns out that the steelworker depicted in the commercial wasn't an actual steelworker, but paid actor Chip Redden.</p><p>In response, the<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://www.ohiodems.org/blog/paid_actor_in_congressman_kasichs_attack_ad_distorts_steelworkers_views/" style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Ohio Democratic Party</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>promptly published a YouTube video capitalizing on this, illustrating its point with short clips from Redden's acting career. One of the clips came from a film by<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://www.arginatestudios.com/" style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Arginate Studios, LLC</a>, which then used the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) to send a take down demand to YouTube. YouTube<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R48YAEcKZeU" style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">removed</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>the video. Under the DMCA, the political video would be unavailable on YouTube for at least 10 days (a significant portion of the time remaining before the election), though the<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://vimeo.com/15634804" style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">video</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>remains available on Vimeo.</p></span></span></span></blockquote><span style="font-size:100%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;font-family:georgia;font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;font-size:14px;"><p></p><p><span style="font-size:100%;">Given the facts as I know them, I'm with EFF on this one. The Ohio Democratic Party's use of clip was strictly non-commercial: to make a political point about Kasich's ad. And the clips they used were very short -- just long enough to demonstrate that the "steelworker" really wasn't. Arginate's action will have the unfortunate effect of keeping the video off YouTube at the height of the campaign. YouTube can re-post the video at any time; yes, it would lose the <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000512----000-.html">DMCA safe harbor</a> as to this video, but it doesn't need any safe harbor given that </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;font-family:georgia;font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;font-size:14px;"><span style="font-size:100%;">the Ohio Democratic Party's inclusion of the clip is almost certainly a non-infringing fair use. <a href="http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2009/05/youtube-restores-national-organization.html">YouTube has taken such a step before</a>; it should do so again.</span></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:100%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;font-family:georgia;font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;font-size:14px;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Update</span>: as of the morning of October 8, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R48YAEcKZeU">the video has been restored to YouTube</a>. I'll tryto find out whether Arginate withdrew its notice, or whether YouTube re-posted it on its own.<br /></span></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:100%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;font-family:georgia;font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;font-size:14px;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><b>Further update</b>: Google Senior Copyright Counsel Fred von Lohmann confirmed to me that YouTube did re-post the video on its own.</span></span></span></span></p></span></span></span>Ben Sheffnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-44970247747086247122010-10-06T08:34:00.001-07:002010-10-06T08:44:24.142-07:00CDT releases report on campaign uses of copyrighted materialThe <a href="http://www.cdt.org">Center for Democracy and Technology</a> has released a <a href="http://www.cdt.org/files/pdfs/copyright_takedowns.pdf">new report</a> documenting political campaigns' uses of third-party materials, and the copyright battles that sometimes ensue. Readers of this blog will be familiar with many of the incidents described in the report, but the author, CDT Policy Analyst <a href="http://www.cdt.org/personnel/andrew-mcdiarmid">Andrew McDiarmid</a>, also unearths a few I was not aware of. While I might quibble a bit with the emphasis the report places on the <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/512.html">notice-and-takedown provisions of the DMCA</a>, I agree with its overall conclusion that too often content owners, particularly news organizations, have sought to enforce their copyrights out of concern for their reputational interests -- a form of damage that is really not cognizable in copyright law. Definitely read the <a href="http://www.cdt.org/files/pdfs/copyright_takedowns.pdf">whole thing</a>.Ben Sheffnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-49426555705139349762010-10-05T19:47:00.000-07:002010-10-05T19:55:15.188-07:00NFL demands Feingold campaign remove clips from ad; Senator quickly compliesThe National Football league <a href="http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/104351104.html">today demanded</a> that the campaign of Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) remove clips of actual NFL footage from a campaign ad. The Feingold campaign <a href="http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/104386684.html">quickly complied</a>.<br /><br />Here's the original ad:<br /><object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZkMX6M-I1G4&rel=0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZkMX6M-I1G4&rel=0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object><br /><br />And the edited version:<br /><br /><object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VuVVQS3tmVs&rel=0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VuVVQS3tmVs&rel=0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>Ben Sheffnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-53626530426276687602010-09-21T14:15:00.000-07:002010-09-21T14:24:19.847-07:00Supreme Court requests response on 'innocent infringer' cert. petition<span class="Apple-style-span" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Good news for Whitney Harper and other opponents of the record labels' suits against individual peer-to-peer users: the </span></span><a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-94.htm"><span class="Apple-style-span" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Supreme Court has asked the record label plaintiffs to file a response</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> to Harper's </span></span><a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/32060955/Harper-Petition-for-certiorari"><span class="Apple-style-span" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><i>cert.</i> petition</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> that sought review of the </span></span><a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11686169248281035340&q=harper+maverick+fifth+circuit+innocent+infringer&hl=en&as_sdt=2003"><span class="Apple-style-span" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Fifth Circuit's decision</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> that </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 20px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">precluded her from asserting the "innocent infringer" defense under </span></span><a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000504----000-.html" style="color: rgb(85, 136, 170); text-decoration: none; "><span class="Apple-style-span" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2)</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">. While the Court's request is far from a guarantee that it will take the case, it only takes such action in a small percentage of cases, and it is an indication that the justices are at least intrigued by the issues presented and are seriously considering granting <i>cert</i>. As the <a href="http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2010/09/supreme-court-shows-interest-in-music-download-case.html"><i>Blog of Legal Times</i></a>, which first reported the decision, stated:</span></span></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 20px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); line-height: 24px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"></span></span><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">The Court's unusual action is a sign of the Court's interest in the case. </span></span><a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/scm/PubArticleSCM.jsp?id=1202431493125" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 102); "><span class="Apple-style-span" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">A recent study</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> indicated that the Court's request for a response significantly increases the chances the Court will ultimately grant review -- which could turn into a major contest for the music industry.</span></span></blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"></span></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 24px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">My </span></span><a href="http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2010/05/peer-to-peer-defendant-seeks-supreme.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">previous coverage is here</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">.</span></span></span></div>Ben Sheffnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-84470615489380539262010-09-20T08:44:00.001-07:002010-09-20T08:53:38.704-07:00New paper examines distribution and 'making available'Professor <a href="http://www.law.berkeley.edu/php-programs/faculty/facultyProfile.php?facID=185">Peter Menell</a> of Berkeley Law has <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1679514">published a new paper</a> examining copyright's right of distribution, and the related debate about whether it encompasses a "making available" right. The debate is important in litigation against peer-to-peer users and facilitators; a conclusion that "making available" is not a violation of the distribution right <a href="http://beckermanlegal.com/Lawyer_Copyright_Internet_Law/virgin_thomas_080924Decision.pdf">torpedoed the verdict</a> in the first Jammie Thomas-Rasset trial. Prof. Menell definitively concludes that the evidence, including the legislative history of the 1976 Copyright Act, "shows unequivocally that Congress intended to encompass broadly the 1909 Act rights to 'publish' and 'vend' within the right to distribute, and rejects the position that Congress required proof of 'actual distribution' to prove violation of the distribution right."<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Trebuchet, Tahoma, 'Myriad Roman', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; "><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Here's the <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1679514">entire abstract</a>:</span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><div id="abstractTitle" style="padding-left: 70px; padding-right: 70px; padding-top: 10px; text-align: center; font-weight: 700; "><span class="Apple-style-span" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">In Search of Copyright’s Lost Ark: Interpreting the Right to Distribute in the Internet Age</span></span></div><center><span class="Apple-style-span" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span><a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=99590" class="textlink" target="_blank" title="View other papers by this author" style="color: rgb(0, 51, 153); text-decoration: underline; cursor: pointer; font-weight: bold; "><span class="Apple-style-span" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Peter S. Menell </span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br />University of California, Berkeley - School of Law<br /><br /><br />September 19, 2010<br /><br /></span></span></center><span class="Apple-style-span" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span><strong><span class="Apple-style-span" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Abstract: </span></span></strong><span class="Apple-style-span" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> <br />Prior to the emergence of peer-to-peer technology, the Copyright Act’s distribution right was largely dormant. Most enforcement actions were premised upon violations of the reproduction right. The relatively few cases invoking the distribution right involved arcane scenarios. During the past several years, direct enforcement of the Copyright Act against file sharers has brought the scope of the distribution right to center stage. Whereas the 1909 Act expressly protected the rights to “publish” and “vend,” the 1976 Act speaks of a right to “distribute.” Interpreting “distribute” narrowly, some courts have held that copyright owners must prove that a sound recording placed in a peer-to-peer share folder was actually downloaded to establish violation of the distribution right. Other courts hold that merely making a sound recording available violates the distribution right. The ramifications for copyright enforcement in the Internet age are substantial. Under the narrow interpretation, the relative anonymity of peer-to-peer transmissions in combination with privacy concerns make enforcement costly and difficult. A broad interpretation exposes millions of peer-to-peer users to potentially crushing statutory damages. </span></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br />Drawing upon the historical development of copyright law and the legislative history of the Copyright Act of 1976, this article explains why Congress selected the term “distribute” in its last omnibus revision of copyright law, shows unequivocally that Congress intended to encompass broadly the 1909 Act rights to “publish” and “vend” within the right to distribute, and rejects the position that Congress required proof of “actual distribution” to prove violation of the distribution right. This critical legislative history has been notably absent from treatise accounts and briefing on the liability standard in the file sharing cases, leaving courts without a compass to navigate this statutory terrain. This article traces the origins of the key legislative terms to elucidate the scope of the distribution right in the Internet age.</span></span></span></span></div>Ben Sheffnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-21781085535857981482010-09-16T08:27:00.000-07:002010-09-16T09:11:39.785-07:00Fox news and correspondent sue Senate candidate over use of news footage in adFox News and its correspondent Chris Wallace have sued the campaign of Senate Candidate Robin Carnahan (D-MO) over her campaign's use of Fox footage in a TV ad attacking her opponent, Roy Blunt (R). <a href="http://thresq.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/09/fox-news-sues-democratic-senate-candidate-.html">As first reported by <span style="font-style: italic;">THR, Esq.</span></a>, the <a href="http://reporter.blogs.com/files/mowd-10903407673.pdf">complaint</a>, filed in the Western District of Missouri on Wednesday, alleges copyright infringement and two forms of violation of Wallace's right of publicity under Missouri law.<br /><br />The campaign ad has been removed from Carnahan's web site and YouTube, so unfortunately I can't independently evaluate it. (<span style="font-weight: bold;">Update</span>: <a href="http://www.stltoday.com/video_147d6b1c-bf55-11df-a1c5-0017a4a78c22.html">here it is</a>, at least for now.) But the complaint alleges that it was a "smear ad" that falsely implies that Fox and Wallace endorsed Carnahan's campaign. The complaint says that the 32-second ad uses "an essentially verbatim copy of a 30-second clip of both video footage and voice-over commentary appropriated from" an interview Wallace conducted with Blunt in 2006. The complaint also seems to say that the Fox footage included in the Carnahan ad included only Wallace's questions -- but not Blunt's answers:<br /><blockquote>The defendant’s conduct in stealing only certain footage from the [Fox] Interview is also false and misleading: Wallace’s tough questions were included, but Blunt’s answers and explanations were not.</blockquote><br />The <span style="font-style: italic;">Kansas City Star</span> <a href="http://www.kansascity.com/2010/09/13/2220490/in-latest-ad-robin-carnahan-enlists.html">described the ad</a> as follows:<br /><div><div style="border: medium none ; overflow: hidden; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"><p></p><blockquote><p>“You have to show you’re the party of reform,” Wallace says to Blunt in the clip, as it’s replayed on the Carnahan ad. “But some question whether you are the man to do that.” </p><p> The screen than flashes examples from Blunt’s political and congressional career, including his insertion of legislation in a Homeland Security bill that would have helped tobacco maker Philip Morris.</p></blockquote><p></p><span></span></div></div>Without having seen the ad myself, I'm not going to offer an opinion on the ultimate merits of the suit. But I do have a bit of skepticism about the copyright claim, for at least two reasons. First, the complaint repeatedly emphasizes the alleged reputational damage to Fox for use of the footage. Even assuming that the ad does falsely imply that Fox and/or Wallace are endorsing Democrat Carnahan (a dubious proposition, it seems to me), reputational damage is just not a cognizable copyright interest. And second, the complaint asserts that the campaign's use of the Fox footage "allows Defendant to profit commercially without paying the traditional price." But that statement appears to contradict the thrust of the complaint, which is that Fox would <span style="font-style: italic;">never</span> license such footage to a campaign, because it would damage its reputation. In other words, there is no "price" here, "traditional" or otherwise. Moreover, courts have rejected the argument that campaign uses of third-party material are "commercial" simply because they are used to solicit contributions.<i style=""> See </i><a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1644515519332407137&q=American+Family+Life+Insurance+Co.+v.+Hagan,+266+F.+Supp.+2d+682,+697+%28N.D.+Ohio+2002&hl=en&as_sdt=2002"><span style="font-style: italic;">American Family Life Insurance Co. v. Hagan</span></a>, 266 F. Supp. 2d 682, 697 (N.D. Ohio 2002) (use of trademark in a political campaign ad was “properly classified not as a commercial transaction at all, but completely noncommercial, political speech”); <a href="http://lawgeek.typepad.com/lawgeek/LegalDocs/nader_decision.pdf"><span style="font-style: italic;">MasterCard International Inc. v. Nader 2000 Primary Committee, Inc</span>.</a>, 2004 WL 434404 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2004) (even if a candidate’s ad resulted in increased contributions, the ad would still not be “commercial;” “If so . . . all political campaign speech would also be ‘commercial speech’ since all political candidates collect contributions”).<br /><br />As for the right of publicity claims, I am not familiar enough with the specifics of Missouri law to say anything too definite. I would just point out that courts are very protective of First Amendment interests in the political context, <span style="font-style: italic;">see</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">e.g.,</span> <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5562516870365159103&q=political+speech+zenith+first+amendment&hl=en&as_sdt=2003"><span style="font-style: italic;">Meyer v. Grant</span></a>, 486 US 414 (1988) (First Amendment interests are "at its zenith" in the political realm), and there are strong arguments for limiting right of publicity claims to truly commercial uses of an individual's name and likeness.<br /><br />(Updated with additional detail about the ad.)Ben Sheffnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.com2