Looks like OTCS picked a good week to get in this business! Hey, if Entertainment Weekly gives it the thumbs up, the timing couldn't be better.
Thanks to all the readers out there - you're small in number and we hope to grow. Advice, suggestions, and of course BREAKING TIPS are all welcome.
October 20, 2007
October 19, 2007
I'm Talking to the Man in the Mirror...
A bad day for 30 John Does, alleged to have “continuously used…an online media distribution system to download and/or distribute to the public certain of the Copyrighted Recordings.”
Plaintiff’s have attached a list of ISP addresses to help identify defendants, but still, could this be any more vague?
Loud Records LLC; Arista Records LLC; Atlantic Recording Corp.; BMG Music; Capitol Records Inc.; Elektra Entertainment Group Inc.; Fonovisa Inc.; Interscope Records; Laface Records LLC; Maverick Recording Co.; Motown Record Co. LP; Priority Records LLC; Sony BMG Music Entertainment; UMG Recordings Inc.; Virgin Records America Inc.; Warner Bros. Records Inc.; Zomba Recording LLC v. Does 1-30 [10/17/2007 07 CV-9291 ]
Not entirely clear why same attorney and same parties filed a VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL complaint against a single John Doe in Capitol Records Inc.; Arista Records LLC; Warner Bros. Records Inc. v. John Doe [10/17/2007 07 CV-9292]?
Plaintiff’s have attached a list of ISP addresses to help identify defendants, but still, could this be any more vague?
Loud Records LLC; Arista Records LLC; Atlantic Recording Corp.; BMG Music; Capitol Records Inc.; Elektra Entertainment Group Inc.; Fonovisa Inc.; Interscope Records; Laface Records LLC; Maverick Recording Co.; Motown Record Co. LP; Priority Records LLC; Sony BMG Music Entertainment; UMG Recordings Inc.; Virgin Records America Inc.; Warner Bros. Records Inc.; Zomba Recording LLC v. Does 1-30 [10/17/2007 07 CV-9291 ]
Not entirely clear why same attorney and same parties filed a VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL complaint against a single John Doe in Capitol Records Inc.; Arista Records LLC; Warner Bros. Records Inc. v. John Doe [10/17/2007 07 CV-9292]?
October 18, 2007
Europeans prefer a la carte.
CMJ: Europeans prefer a la carte downloads (e.g., iTunes). Japanese and Americans dig subscription (e.g., Napster). Discuss...
Show of hands here among lawyers at CMJ? A la carte wins by a landslide.
Show of hands here among lawyers at CMJ? A la carte wins by a landslide.
Labels:
a la carte,
Downloads,
Europe,
Japan,
Subscription
Want recording royalties over seas?
CMJ: Want SOUND RECORDING royalties over seas? Have a band member with a dual passport. (A. Erk CPA) (see previous post)
Labels:
International,
Royalties,
Sound Recording
Royalty auditor. Your best friend?
CMJ: Royalty auditor. Your best friend or worst enemy... Show me the money! But digital is still opaque...
Chin Puts DVR on Notice
CMJ: SDNY Judge Honorable Denny Chin puts DVR on notice.
Labels:
Chin,
DVR,
Southern District of New York
Safe Harbor No More?
CMJ: Perfect 10 on remand. A challenge to DMCA safe harbor by requiring affirmative steps to protect against infringement? I think big-media (e.g., Viacom v. YouTube) will say "It's about time!"
But, smarter minds offer brighter opinions (the following is a polling of great copyright minds):
(1) The more accepted view is that 512 safe harbor provisions trump the common law doctrines of secondary liability. Thus, assuming that Google has complied with all the Section 512 preconditions (ie notice and takedown, repeat offender policy, etc.) there really ought not to be liability for the Google Image search.
(2) The Court is focusing on Google AdSense. It is not at all clear that Adsense "activity" is protected under the "search engine" prong of 512(d). So you are back to "traditional" contributory/vicarious liability analysis for the AdSense program.
...of course, Google is in the land of the 9th Circuit, home to Silicon Valley.
But, smarter minds offer brighter opinions (the following is a polling of great copyright minds):
(1) The more accepted view is that 512 safe harbor provisions trump the common law doctrines of secondary liability. Thus, assuming that Google has complied with all the Section 512 preconditions (ie notice and takedown, repeat offender policy, etc.) there really ought not to be liability for the Google Image search.
(2) The Court is focusing on Google AdSense. It is not at all clear that Adsense "activity" is protected under the "search engine" prong of 512(d). So you are back to "traditional" contributory/vicarious liability analysis for the AdSense program.
...of course, Google is in the land of the 9th Circuit, home to Silicon Valley.
Labels:
9th Circuit,
AdSense,
Copyright,
DMCA,
Google,
Infringement,
Perfect 10,
Safe-Harbor,
Silicon Valley,
Viacom,
YouTube
Joking about jamie thomas. Single
Joking about jamie thomas. Single mother $240000 infringement. Actually pretty funny.
J. Salvo - Recent Copyright Round-Up
CMJ: J. Salvo, of Weil Gotshal, does copyright round up of recent cases. Does he want to write for OTCS?
Labels:
Copyright,
Jo Salvo,
OTCS,
Weil Gotshal
Focus on 360 contract.
CMJ: Focus on 360 contract. A smart land grab? Or still just trying to break artists?
October 17, 2007
My Milkshake Tastes Much Better Than Yours...
Heading to CMJ tomorrow - can my mobile blogging compete with the NYTimes 8 postings in one day? You be the judge.
October 16, 2007
Hello. Is there anybody out there? Just Nod if you can...
Anyone out there (and I know there are some people out there...thank you Google Analytics) know what this case is about other than copyright infringement?
Robbins Entertainment LLC; Sony BMG Music Entertainment; Rocks LLC v. Koch Entertainment Distribution; Sheridan Square Entertainment Inc.; Musicrama Inc.
10/15/2007 (NY) 07 CV-9236
---
This just in. Complaint filed 10/15, entered 10/17...and on the 17th? Still no copies of the complaint online. What gives ECF? What gives?
Robbins Entertainment LLC; Sony BMG Music Entertainment; Rocks LLC v. Koch Entertainment Distribution; Sheridan Square Entertainment Inc.; Musicrama Inc.
10/15/2007 (NY) 07 CV-9236
---
This just in. Complaint filed 10/15, entered 10/17...and on the 17th? Still no copies of the complaint online. What gives ECF? What gives?
Labels:
Copyright,
ECF,
Infringement,
Koch Entertainment,
Sony BMG
October 15, 2007
Usenet sued
A united recording industry sues www.usenet.com for copyright infringment of original musical recordings.
[Arista Records LLC; Atlantic Recording Corp.; BMG Music; Capitol Records Inc.; Caroline Records Inc.; Elektra Entertainment Group Inc.; Interscope Records; Laface Records LLC; Maverick Recording Co.; Sony BMG Music Entertainment; UMG Recordings Inc.; Virgin Records America Inc.; Warner Bros. Records Inc.; Zomba Recording LLC v. Usenet.com Inc. Filed 10/11/2007; 07 CV-8822]
[Arista Records LLC; Atlantic Recording Corp.; BMG Music; Capitol Records Inc.; Caroline Records Inc.; Elektra Entertainment Group Inc.; Interscope Records; Laface Records LLC; Maverick Recording Co.; Sony BMG Music Entertainment; UMG Recordings Inc.; Virgin Records America Inc.; Warner Bros. Records Inc.; Zomba Recording LLC v. Usenet.com Inc. Filed 10/11/2007; 07 CV-8822]
October 14, 2007
GoWanus Young Man!
DJ Small Change introduces OTCS to Serato "Scratchlive" at The Yard on the Gowanus Canal in Brooklyn, NY...OTCS, while intrigued, questions whether this qualifies for a public performance for the collection societies?
Labels:
Brooklyn,
DJ Small Change,
Gowanus Canal,
Public Performance,
Serato
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)