Much has been written about Amy Winehouse not being able to attend the Grammy's this year due to the US Embassy in London denying her visa application. OTCS, frankly, does not get what the fuss is about; it appears that Ms. Winehouse may be performing for the awards ceremony via satellite, obviating the need for a visa given that the main audience of her performance is television-viewers anyway.
But, for readers interested in the visa application process for UK citizens, here is a link to the US Embassy in London's visa services page.
February 8, 2008
Is the Shelf-Life of the DOE-Cases About to Expire?
Another cookie-cutter complaint, application and memorandum of law identical to dozens of DOE cases filed in the past month was filed this week in the District of D.C. (...yawn...).
[Capitol Records, Inc. et al. v. Does 1-9; filed 2/06/08 in D.D.C.; case no. 1:08-cv-00210-RMU]
However, with the RIAA receiving pressure from DOES, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation being granted leave to file an amicus brief in other cases, how much future does these form pleadings & motions have?
Similarly damaging to the RIAA's DOE cases is that they appear to be using an unlicensed private investigator, MediaSentry, to investigate unauthorized file-sharing and determine P2P user's ISPs. The legality of MediaSentry's actions, and the admissibility of any evidence obtained by them, is questionable, as recently recognized by the Hon. Judge Castel in the SDNY. (See e.g., N.Y. Gen. Business Law secs. 70, 71, and 83.)
[Capitol Records, Inc. et al. v. Does 1-9; filed 2/06/08 in D.D.C.; case no. 1:08-cv-00210-RMU]
However, with the RIAA receiving pressure from DOES, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation being granted leave to file an amicus brief in other cases, how much future does these form pleadings & motions have?
Similarly damaging to the RIAA's DOE cases is that they appear to be using an unlicensed private investigator, MediaSentry, to investigate unauthorized file-sharing and determine P2P user's ISPs. The legality of MediaSentry's actions, and the admissibility of any evidence obtained by them, is questionable, as recently recognized by the Hon. Judge Castel in the SDNY. (See e.g., N.Y. Gen. Business Law secs. 70, 71, and 83.)
February 7, 2008
Pro Se Success Rate?
A case filed late last month by a pro se plaintiff in the Southern District of New York for copyright (and patent) infringement against media giant Viacom Int'l and affiliated company VH1 raised OTCS's eyebrows a bit: how successful are pro se plaintiffs in copyright infringement cases?
Professor Patry has noted in his blog the perils (and annoyances) of proceeding pro se, but does anyone have hard numbers? This is potentially an interesting topic for a law review note or article to explore.
[Jincea Butler v. Viacom Int'l.; VH1; Lee Rolantz; Jack Benson; Louis Horvitz; Tim Cohen; filed 1/23/2008; case no. CV-0557]
Professor Patry has noted in his blog the perils (and annoyances) of proceeding pro se, but does anyone have hard numbers? This is potentially an interesting topic for a law review note or article to explore.
[Jincea Butler v. Viacom Int'l.; VH1; Lee Rolantz; Jack Benson; Louis Horvitz; Tim Cohen; filed 1/23/2008; case no. CV-0557]
February 6, 2008
BMI Public Performance Suit
Not to be outdone by the competition (i.e., ASCAP), BMI and various publishing companies has filed suit in the Western District of New York against a Rochester nightclub for copyright infringement arising out of the defendants' allegedly unauthorized public performance of musical compositions. Does this look familiar?
[Broadcast Music Inc. v. Pittsford Cafe and Bistro, Ltd.; case 6:08-cv-06047-MAT; filed 1/31/2008]
[Broadcast Music Inc. v. Pittsford Cafe and Bistro, Ltd.; case 6:08-cv-06047-MAT; filed 1/31/2008]
West Coast Gangsta Rap - Worth $25 mil.?
Warner Music Group has offered to purchase Death Row Records catalogue for a reported $25 million. The catalogue includes albums like Dr. Dre’s The Chronic and Snoop Dogg’s Doggy Style.
White Stripes Sampling Suit
The White Stripes are being sued in Candada by a form Quebec-radio DJ for alleged unauthorized sampling of (10 seconds of) her radio program. In addition to $70,000 in damages, the plaintiff is seeking the removal of all copies of the alleged infringing album, "De Stijl", from store-shelves.
If this was a case brought under the US Copyright Act, such remedy would be sought under 17 U.S.C. 503: "At any time while an action under this title is pending, the court may order the impounding, on such terms as it may deem reasonable, of all copies or phonorecords claimed to have been made...in violation of the copyright owner's exclusive rights..." Would a US court deem it REASONABLE to impound all copies of the White Stripes album, given the album is 37+ minutes in length, and the alleged unauthorized sampling is a mere 10 seconds (of a nearly 2 minute song)?
If this was a case brought under the US Copyright Act, such remedy would be sought under 17 U.S.C. 503: "At any time while an action under this title is pending, the court may order the impounding, on such terms as it may deem reasonable, of all copies or phonorecords claimed to have been made...in violation of the copyright owner's exclusive rights..." Would a US court deem it REASONABLE to impound all copies of the White Stripes album, given the album is 37+ minutes in length, and the alleged unauthorized sampling is a mere 10 seconds (of a nearly 2 minute song)?
Electronic Frontier Weighs in on Ex Parte Discovery of Does
The Electronic Frontier Foundation filed an amicus brief in the Arista v. Does 1-21 case against Boston University Students, attacking the RIAA's ex parte discovery application, both on evidentiary and legal grounds. Read it here.
***UPDATE: the RIAA's opposition to the EFF's motion for leave to file an amicus is available here.
***UPDATE: the RIAA's opposition to the EFF's motion for leave to file an amicus is available here.
February 5, 2008
Karaoke Kids
In UMG Recordings, Inc. v. ES Electrosales Leadsinger Co., Inc., 2:08-cv-00553-JFW-VBK (C.D. Cal. filed Jan. 28, 2008), the Universal related plaintiffs alleged copyright infringement and music piracy against karaoke companies for failure to obtain licenses for both sound recordings and underlying compositions. What most interests OTCS is the alleged cross-over of distribution methods by the defendants. The defendants are not the laser-disc carrying DJ OTCS had at its bar mitzvah. Rather, defendants distribute their product on cartridges, memory/USB cards, and via on-line downloads. Curiously, other major labels are not named plaintiffs, though defendants' large scale model ostensibly infringe the labels indiscriminently.
Defendants are in the ostensible business of creating, manufacturing,
distributing, and selling karaoke products, which allow customers to sing along to
popular music. Karaoke, which is a Japanese term meaning "empty orchestra," is a
significant and valuable licensing market for musical compositions in the United
States.
Defendants manufacture, distribute and sell two different types of
"all-in-one microphone player" karaoke machines. The first type encompasses the
"LS 2000" and "LS 3000" series "Portable Video Karaoke Systems" (the "First
Generation System"). The second type is the "LS-MVK-2" "Portable Video
Karaoke System" (the "Second Generation System"). All systems include a
microphone player with audio and video outlets which plug into the user's
television. The First Generation System utilizes and includes removable media
cartridges know as "MUSIKARTRIDGES." The Second Generation System
utilizes and includes removable media cartridges known as SD Cards.
30. Defendants' First Generation System operated as follows. Defendants
selected popular musical compositions for which they believed a karaoke market
exists and created or arranged for the creation of sound recordings embodying such
compositions by imitating the sound and performance of the recording that
popularized the composition. Defendants then encoded on MUSIKARTRIDGES
both the audio rendition of the sound recording they created (in versions with
arid/or without vocals), and a contemporaneous video display of the lyrics to the
musical composition. These MUSIKARTRIDGES were intended for use in
Defendant's First Generation System microphone players, which allowed users to
display the song's lyrics on a video screen in "real time" as the songs are playing,
so-that users could follow and.,sirg the lyrics along with the recording.
Defendants' MUSIKARTRIDGES remain available for sale to consumers. These
MUSIKARTRIDGES contain many unauthorized copies of Plaintiffs' Copyrighted
Compositions, and cause the unauthorized display of the lyrics of Plaintiffs'
Copyrighted Compositions.
Defendants' Second Generation System further expands the scope of
their infringing conduct. While continuing to operate under the guise of being in
the karaoke business, Defendants now engage in flagrant, base music piracy.
Instead of MUSIKARTRIDGES, Defendants now market SD Cards at prominent
retail outlets, which Defendants pre-load with MP3 and MP4 files of the
Copyrighted Recordings (including UMG's videos embodying such Copyrighted
Recordings) and Copyrighted Compositions, all without Plaintiffs' permission and
without compensation to Plaintiffs. True and correct copies of photographs of the
Second Generation System and accompanying SD Cards are attached to this
Complaint as Exhibit 1. These SD Cards are not limited to use with Defendants'
Second Generation System, but also are compatible with almost any computer or
digital media player, and may be utilized as independent media storage devices for
download and play wholly independent of any of Defendants' karaoke devices, or
any karaoke device. A USB adapter is included with purchase of Defendants'
Second Generation System, which enables the user to connect the SD Cards with
and thereby upload the MP-3 and MP-4 on the SD Cards to any computer.
Defendants also maintain and operate the websites
www.leadsing e r.com and www.es2entertainment.com, where Defendants sell
additional MP3 and MP4 files of the Copyrighted Recordings and Copyrighted
Compositions, for digital download and performance not only to Defendants' SD
Card, but also to a user's computer hard drive. This website also offers
Defendants' proprietary "Power CD+G to Video Karaoke Converter" software for
free download, which enables users to download the lyrics of Copyrighted
Compositions from infringing third party websites. Defendants advertise the music
files available on their website as "Play anywhere, DRM-free Music Downloads,"
and, after download, these unrestricted files may be utilized by the purchaser
without limitation, including for further, viral distribution, with or without
Defendants' karaoke devices. True and correct copies of portions of Defendants'
website. are attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 2.
Defendants' products are offered for sale across the United States at
prominent retailers...
Defendants are in the ostensible business of creating, manufacturing,
distributing, and selling karaoke products, which allow customers to sing along to
popular music. Karaoke, which is a Japanese term meaning "empty orchestra," is a
significant and valuable licensing market for musical compositions in the United
States.
Defendants manufacture, distribute and sell two different types of
"all-in-one microphone player" karaoke machines. The first type encompasses the
"LS 2000" and "LS 3000" series "Portable Video Karaoke Systems" (the "First
Generation System"). The second type is the "LS-MVK-2" "Portable Video
Karaoke System" (the "Second Generation System"). All systems include a
microphone player with audio and video outlets which plug into the user's
television. The First Generation System utilizes and includes removable media
cartridges know as "MUSIKARTRIDGES." The Second Generation System
utilizes and includes removable media cartridges known as SD Cards.
30. Defendants' First Generation System operated as follows. Defendants
selected popular musical compositions for which they believed a karaoke market
exists and created or arranged for the creation of sound recordings embodying such
compositions by imitating the sound and performance of the recording that
popularized the composition. Defendants then encoded on MUSIKARTRIDGES
both the audio rendition of the sound recording they created (in versions with
arid/or without vocals), and a contemporaneous video display of the lyrics to the
musical composition. These MUSIKARTRIDGES were intended for use in
Defendant's First Generation System microphone players, which allowed users to
display the song's lyrics on a video screen in "real time" as the songs are playing,
so-that users could follow and.,sirg the lyrics along with the recording.
Defendants' MUSIKARTRIDGES remain available for sale to consumers. These
MUSIKARTRIDGES contain many unauthorized copies of Plaintiffs' Copyrighted
Compositions, and cause the unauthorized display of the lyrics of Plaintiffs'
Copyrighted Compositions.
Defendants' Second Generation System further expands the scope of
their infringing conduct. While continuing to operate under the guise of being in
the karaoke business, Defendants now engage in flagrant, base music piracy.
Instead of MUSIKARTRIDGES, Defendants now market SD Cards at prominent
retail outlets, which Defendants pre-load with MP3 and MP4 files of the
Copyrighted Recordings (including UMG's videos embodying such Copyrighted
Recordings) and Copyrighted Compositions, all without Plaintiffs' permission and
without compensation to Plaintiffs. True and correct copies of photographs of the
Second Generation System and accompanying SD Cards are attached to this
Complaint as Exhibit 1. These SD Cards are not limited to use with Defendants'
Second Generation System, but also are compatible with almost any computer or
digital media player, and may be utilized as independent media storage devices for
download and play wholly independent of any of Defendants' karaoke devices, or
any karaoke device. A USB adapter is included with purchase of Defendants'
Second Generation System, which enables the user to connect the SD Cards with
and thereby upload the MP-3 and MP-4 on the SD Cards to any computer.
Defendants also maintain and operate the websites
www.leadsing e r.com and www.es2entertainment.com, where Defendants sell
additional MP3 and MP4 files of the Copyrighted Recordings and Copyrighted
Compositions, for digital download and performance not only to Defendants' SD
Card, but also to a user's computer hard drive. This website also offers
Defendants' proprietary "Power CD+G to Video Karaoke Converter" software for
free download, which enables users to download the lyrics of Copyrighted
Compositions from infringing third party websites. Defendants advertise the music
files available on their website as "Play anywhere, DRM-free Music Downloads,"
and, after download, these unrestricted files may be utilized by the purchaser
without limitation, including for further, viral distribution, with or without
Defendants' karaoke devices. True and correct copies of portions of Defendants'
website. are attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 2.
Defendants' products are offered for sale across the United States at
prominent retailers...
February 4, 2008
Student Response to Ex Parte Discovery Request
The oft-venomous blog "Recording Industry vs. The People" links to this especially interesting memorandum of law in support of a John Doe (college student) defendant's motion to quash the ex parte subpoena issued by the RIAA to Boston University for the disclosure of student's names associated with IP addresses.
(See cases cited therein.)
(See cases cited therein.)
Super Bowl - Superbad
Pitchfork reports that an Arcade Fire song, "No Cars Go", was used in a Super Bowl ad last night without the band's permission. Sounds like a synch license issue. But, if the band didn't grant authorization, perhaps their label did?
DOES Anyone Care?
More. Copyright. Infringement. Actions. Various. Federal Courts.
IP Addresses. John Does. Major Labels.
Some (but not all): Ex parte. Discovery. College ISPs.
Who is Carlos Linares, upon whose application the ex parte applications for expedited discovery are based?
[Atlantic Recording Corporation et al v. Does 1-2; filed 1/31/08 in Calif. Southern District; case no. 3:2008cv00190.
Arista Records LLC et al v. Does 1 - 4; filed 1/31/08 in Georgia Northern District; case no. 1:2008cv00358.
BMG Music et al v. Does 1-19; filed 1/31/08 in Kentucky Western District; case no. 3:2008cv00070.
LaFace Records L L C et al v. Does; filed 1/31/ 08 in Louis. Western District; case no. 3:2008cv00137.
Arista Records LLC et al v. Does 1 - 3; filed 2/1/08 in Missouri Eastern District; case no. 4:2008cv00160.
BMG Music et al v. Does 1-6; filed 1/31/08 in Mississippi Northern District; case no. 1:2008cv000231.
CAPITOL RECORDS, INC. et al v. DOE # 1 et al; filed 2/1/08 in North Carolina Middle District; case no. 1:2008cv0008.
ZOMBA RECORDING LLC et al v. DOES 1-26; filed 2/1/08 in New Jersey, case no. 3:2008cv00566.
Zoomba Recording LLC et al v. Does 1-8; filed 1/31/08 in Ohio Southern District; case no. 3:2008cv00030.]
IP Addresses. John Does. Major Labels.
Some (but not all): Ex parte. Discovery. College ISPs.
Who is Carlos Linares, upon whose application the ex parte applications for expedited discovery are based?
[Atlantic Recording Corporation et al v. Does 1-2; filed 1/31/08 in Calif. Southern District; case no. 3:2008cv00190.
Arista Records LLC et al v. Does 1 - 4; filed 1/31/08 in Georgia Northern District; case no. 1:2008cv00358.
BMG Music et al v. Does 1-19; filed 1/31/08 in Kentucky Western District; case no. 3:2008cv00070.
LaFace Records L L C et al v. Does; filed 1/31/ 08 in Louis. Western District; case no. 3:2008cv00137.
Arista Records LLC et al v. Does 1 - 3; filed 2/1/08 in Missouri Eastern District; case no. 4:2008cv00160.
BMG Music et al v. Does 1-6; filed 1/31/08 in Mississippi Northern District; case no. 1:2008cv000231.
CAPITOL RECORDS, INC. et al v. DOE # 1 et al; filed 2/1/08 in North Carolina Middle District; case no. 1:2008cv0008.
ZOMBA RECORDING LLC et al v. DOES 1-26; filed 2/1/08 in New Jersey, case no. 3:2008cv00566.
Zoomba Recording LLC et al v. Does 1-8; filed 1/31/08 in Ohio Southern District; case no. 3:2008cv00030.]
Yahoo! Abandons Subscription Model
Yahoo is phasing out its subscription based model of online music distribution.
Same story, different day.
Same story, different day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
