The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court ruling that Redbox’s sharing of customer service data with Stream Global Services, the company to which it outsources that function, doesn’t violate laws against sharing customer video rental information, in an opinion released Thursday (http://1.usa.gov/ZJTgKc). “Redbox’s actions fall within the statutory exception for disclosures in the ordinary course of business,” said the opinion. Redbox has been sued by two customers who argued that providing the customer service data to a second party violated the Video Privacy Protection Act. “Congress enacted the VPPA in 1988, before the advent of automated kiosks,” and couldn’t have anticipated the need for a separate customer service company to service such kiosks, the opinion said.

Contrary to HDMI Licensing’s court complaint alleging promoters of the InfoComm show gave "safe haven" to exhibitors that violated HDMI trademarks (see 1409150064), it’s HDMI Licensing that’s the real villain because it treated any company on the InfoComm show floor that used the "HDMI" acronym "as a common criminal," InfoComm alleged in a counterclaim. HDMI Licensing reached out to exhibitors "indiscriminately, without devoting even minimal investigation to ascertain whether the exhibitors or other third parties had obtained a proper license from HDMI Licensing to use its alleged trademarks," said the counterclaim, filed in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas (http://1.usa.gov/ZyfZZw). It "threatened these exhibitors and other third parties with expulsion from future InfoComm trade shows unless they either ceased using the alleged trademarks or pay a licensing fee," it said. "These false and/or misleading threats amounted to blatant extortion. HDMI Licensing falsely represented the authority to revoke the exhibitors’ and other third parties’ invitation to the trade shows in the event they refused to comply with its demands." HDMI Licensing "continued this campaign of lies and threats through 2013 and 2014, causing InfoComm’s reputation with respect to intellectual property rights to be substantially injured," it said. "This diminution in reputation is likely to have a snowball effect, causing dwindling attendance for future trade shows because would-be exhibitors and other third parties would rather avoid being bullied by an entity claiming to own a trademark for something as generic as the words ‘thermos’ or ‘videotape.’" HDMI Licensing President Steve Venuti didn’t respond to requests seeking comment.

The Alliance of Artists and Recording Companies (AARC) is unfazed by the denials of Ford and General Motors and their respective suppliers Clarion and Denso that their car infotainment products fall within the scope of the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA), Linda Bocchi, AARC’s executive director, told us Wednesday in an emailed statement. Ford and Clarion filed a joint motion of dismissal, while GM and Denso each filed counterclaims seeking declaratory judgments that their products don’t violate the AHRA and that they’re therefore not obligated to pay royalties under the AHRA. All four companies argued that the CD-copying hard drives marketed with their car infotainment systems are not serial-copying digital audio recording devices as defined under the AHRA 1410140084. But "in their many pages of filings, defendants fail to explain why they should get all the protections and benefits of the Audio Home Recording Act without paying the royalties the statute also requires," said Bocchi. "Their motion to dismiss is unconvincing and we expect it to be denied. And their indefensible, continued refusal to pay what they owe artists, songwriters, and copyright owners under the law is yet more evidence why this litigation is a necessary last resort." AARC sued the automakers and their suppliers in late July in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Oral arguments on whether a nationwide preliminary injunction against Aereo should be issued while the broadcasters’ case against the streaming service is tried on the merits will be in U.S. District Court in Manhattan Wednesday, said court filings in the case. Aereo has “paused operations nationally” on its own, but has argued that the court should not issue such an injunction, and argued that it should receive the same compulsory copyright license issued to cable companies. "Aereo is entitled to a compulsory license under the Copyright Act, and no preliminary injunction should issue on remand," Aereo has said. Aereo’s argument is based on the majority opinion in the ABC v. Aereo U.S. Supreme Court decision in broadcasters' favor in June (ref:1409040014), which said Aereo’s service bore a close resemblance to a cable system and should therefore be bound by the same copyright and retransmission consent rules. The U.S. Copyright Office has said it doesn't believe Aereo is eligible for a compulsory copyright license. Aereo has also taken to the FCC its argument that it's a multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD), meeting with Chairman Tom Wheeler, Commissioner Ajit Pai, and numerous commission staffers, including Media Bureau Chief Bill Lake, General Counsel Jonathan Sallet, and aides to Commissioners Mignon Clyburn, Jessica Rosenworcel and Mike O’Rielly. The meetings concerned reports that the commission is re-opening a proceeding on whether over-the-top video providers should be considered MVPDs, said an ex parte filing Friday (http://bit.ly/1z89QEa). “We believe that clarifying the MVPD definition to narrowly include linear online video services like Aereo’s would have clear benefits to consumers, creators and distributors alike,” said Aereo CEO Chet Kanojia in a post on the Aereo website. Meaningful competition for regular MVPDs from over-the-top providers “can only materialize and develop into a sustainable business in a stable and certain regulatory environment,” said the ex parte. “Timely” FCC issuance of an NPRM on redefining online services as MVPDs action “is crucial” to Aereo’s ability to bring a competing OTT service to market, the ex parte said.

Apple and Bose "have a long-standing business relationship and, after discussions with Apple, Bose intends to dismiss and terminate" the legal actions in which it alleged Beats Electronics violated five Bose patents on noise-canceling headphones. So said Apple and Bose in a settlement agreement (http://1.usa.gov/ZY4Ger) signed Sept. 26 and posted Friday at the International Trade Commission, where the companies moved jointly to have the ITC’s Tariff Act Section 337 investigation into the allegations terminated. The heavily redacted settlement agreement, which was signed by Noreen Krall, Apple vice president-chief litigation counsel, and Mark Sullivan, Bose vice president-general counsel and secretary, was the first time in the nearly three-month-old case that Apple’s name appeared in the case under ITC docket 337-TA-927. Bose filed identical complaints against Beats on July 25 at the ITC 1407290010 and in U.S. District Court in Wilmington, Delaware, a week before Apple completed the deal to acquire Beats for $3 billion with a "Welcome to the family" page on its website (http://bit.ly/1uV9Hjh). Bose and Beats moved jointly to have the Delaware action stayed pending the outcome of the ITC probe and on Friday moved to have that case dismissed as well. It’s unclear why two weeks passed between the Sept. 26 signing of the settlement agreement and the filing of the joint motion Friday to have the ITC investigation terminated. In the interim, Bose and Beats moved jointly Oct. 1 to request a two-week deadline extension to Oct. 20 for the filing a discovery statement and proposed procedural schedule in the ITC probe (http://1.usa.gov/ZY4xHX). Administrative Law Judge David Shaw granted the motion the next day. As of midday Tuesday, Shaw hadn’t signed off on or granted the motion to terminate the investigation. Apple and Bose representatives didn’t immediately comment.