The Motion Picture Association requested and the U.S. District Court for Central California in Los Angeles honored the request for subpoenas requiring two companies to disclose the identities and account histories of users operating websites that allegedly “exploited” Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment members’ “exclusive rights in their copyrighted motion pictures without their authorization.” Subpoenas were requested and issued to Cloudflare (docket 2:23-mc-00054) for infringing Godzilla vs. Kong and Encanto via furiaflix.net; infringing (docket 2:23-mc-00058) Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, Strange World, Sonic the Hedgehog 2, Cruella, The Batman and Encanto via various websites; infringing (2:23-mc-00056) Birds of Prey and Fast & Furious 9 on photocall.tv, and Minions and The Big Bang Theory on multicanais.vc and megacanais.com; infringing (docket 2:23-mc-00057) Sonic the Hedgehog 2 and Aquaman via tvzon.tv; and infringing (docket 2:23-mc-00053) Happy Death Day 2U and Elvis via two channel backend links. It also requested and the court issued a subpoena (docket 2:23-mc-00059) to Tonic Domains for infringing Encanto and Tenet via fmoviesfree.com. The subpoenas order the infringing companies, under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, to disclose the names, physical addresses, IP addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, payment information, account updates and account histories of the users operating the websites.
Grande Communications should be required to pay plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees of $5.2 million, plus $7.4 million in prejudgment interest and about $200,000 in expert costs on the jury’s verdict that Grande’s copyright infringement was “willful,” said the record labels’ reply in support of their motion for fees and interest (docket 1:17-cv-00365), filed Thursday in U.S. District Court for Western Texas in Austin. Grande filed an opposition motion March 12 for Universal Music Group’s and other labels’ request for an additional $13 million recovery, after they were awarded a “windfall $46.8 million” in statutory damages. There was evidence at trial that plaintiffs’ actual damages were “far less” than the $47 million that was awarded, Grande said in the motion, saying UMG didn’t offer any evidence of the value of its 1,400 copyrighted songs, such as revenue figures from sales or statistics about the volume or frequency with which songs were sold or streamed. In their reply, music labels said Grande “tries to avoid the impact of the jury’s finding” by arguing the court “softened” the jury instruction on willfulness such that the verdict “does not reflect Grande’s intent to infringe.” Grande’s argument is “legally baseless” and “simply wrong as a matter of fact,” said the reply. The jury said Grande “knew its subscribers were engaging in copyright infringement and continued providing them the services necessary to infringe anyway,” it said. Those findings “powerfully support the finding of willfulness and an award” of plaintiffs’ legal fees, it said. The reply cited Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, in which the Supreme Court instructed courts to consider “the totality of circumstances in a case,” including a party’s “litigating position," when considering a fee application. “That inquiry necessarily includes a party’s defenses and conduct at all stages of litigation,” the reply said, saying otherwise, a defendant could assert meritless defenses pre-trial in an effort to “impose needless costs and slow down litigation, yet face no consequences for its unreasonable actions if it took relatively less unreasonable positions at trial.” That’s “exactly what Grande did” by alleging a Digital Millennium Copyright Act safe harbor defense “despite knowing it had no policy to terminate the accounts of repeat infringing subscribers for seven years.”
U.S. District Court Judge William Conley for Western Wisconsin granted Google’s motion to dismiss a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) lawsuit brought by BlueType and its Gelbooru/Gelcom anime creator website, said a Friday opinion and order (docket 3:21-cv-00320) in U.S. District Court for Western Wisconsin in Madison. Plaintiffs claimed Google’s wrongful “interference with business contracts” affected Gelbooru revenue. Google received multiple DMCA takedown notices from defendants “Does 1 and 2” claiming certain contact on Gelbooru infringed their copyright, and Google forwarded the notices to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs allege Google failed to comply with Rule 512 strictures by redacting contact information from the original notices, failing to restore the disputed content within 10 to 14 business days of receiving plaintiffs’ counter notices, and failing to forward their counter notices to senders. Plaintiffs have until April 28 to file an amended complaint meeting certain requirements, including exhibits to the amended complaint with takedown notices they allege are false, said the order, or the court will dismiss the case. “Even if Google did not follow the procedure entitling it to a safe harbor defense in this case, the effect is disqualifying it from that defense,” not creating liability under Section 512 of the DMCA for violating plaintiffs’ rights, the order said.
U.S. District Judge James Browning for New Mexico in Albuquerque scheduled a March 20 in-person hearing on the motion of defendant property owner Academy Medical Office to dismiss the cell tower lease complaint of T-Mobile and Crown Castle and the plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss Academy’s breach of contract counterclaim (see 2301130001). T-Mobile asserts it was within its rights to sublet rooftop tower space to Crown Castle and in turn to Dish Network, but Academy maintains it was unlawful for T-Mobile to do so without the property owner’s written consent. Browning presumes the parties will appear in person for the hearing unless they notify him in writing by March 16 of their desire to appear remotely, said his text-only notice Wednesday (docket 1:22-cv-00910).
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s Section 1201 ban on circumvention tools is “strong medicine” that risks “interfering with First Amendment-protected speech and with lawful commerce in innovative technologies,” said the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s amicus brief Thursday (docket 22-2760) in support of Yout in its 2nd U.S. Circuit Appeals Court fight against the Recording Industry Association of America. The district court’s erroneous finding that Yout’s software platform was a circumvention tool under the DMCA should be reversed, said EFF. Yout’s platform is an example of one technology “that is threatened by the overbroad application of Section 1201,” it said. Yout and programs of its ilk “fulfill the same function that videocassette recorders once did,” it said. They enable ordinary people “to make and retain copies of videos that have already been released to the world at large by their creators,” it said. The RIAA and its member companies “are engaged in a campaign to make streamripping tools a contraband technology, unavailable even to lawful users.” They sought to block, censor and demonetize providers of these tools “because a subset of their users infringe copyright,” said EFF. The RIAA claims streamrippers “necessarily circumvent access controls on video-sharing sites like YouTube in violation of Section 1201, a position adopted by the district court in this case,” it said: “That position is wrong.” The district court adopted an “extremely broad construction” that effectively applies “the strictures of Section 1201 to any copy of a work in digital form, not just the subset that rightsholders have chosen to protect with technological means,” it said. The 2nd Circuit “should take a different approach,” it said. Text, legislative history and precedent “suggest clear limits on the definition of ‘technological measures,’” it said: “YouTube’s user-uploaded video service and its web-based player fall outside those limits.”
Plaintiff Dish Network reached a settlement with defendant William Everly, resolving all the claims in Dish’s Federal Communications Act and Digital Millennium Copyright Act complaint, said a stipulated notice of settlement Wednesday (docket 3:22-cv-01748) in U.S. District Court for Northern Ohio in Toledo. The parties asked the court to stay “all responsive deadlines” and give Dish 30 days to file a dismissal of the action, said the notice. Dish alleged Everly operates “illicit streaming services” under the brand PrimeStreams that capture Dish content by circumventing Dish’s security measures and then retransmits that content to customers who buy access to those services from Everly (see 2210030033).
U.S. District Judge Stefan Underhill for Connecticut signed an order Friday (docket 3:20-cv-01602) denying without prejudice the Recording Industry Association of America motion for attorneys’ fees, with leave to refile the motion after disposition of Yout’s appeal before the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals of his order dismissing the case in RIAA’s favor. Underhill denied as moot Yout’s motion to stay his attorneys’ fees ruling, pending appeal. The Copyright Act “provides for recovery of fees and costs incurred by the prevailing party, including fees and costs incurred on appeal,” said his order. “The party prevailing on appeal will likely seek fees at that time,” he said. “Therefore, the interests of judicial efficiency, avoidance of piecemeal adjudication, and conservation of judicial resources favor denying the fee motion without prejudice at this time.” RIAA said it spent more than $250,000 in lawyers’ fees defending what it called Yout’s “meritless” lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that its software doesn't violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (see 2211230003).
Yout is in such dire financial straits that it urgently needs the stay it requested, pending appeal, in Recording Industry Association of America’s motion for attorney fees, said the YouTube-ripping software company’s reply Thursday (docket 3:20-cv-01602) in U.S. District Court for Connecticut. RIAA, which opposes the stay, said it spent more than $250,000 in lawyers’ fees defending what it called Yout’s “meritless” lawsuit for a declaratory judgment that its software doesn't violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (see 2211230003). Yout is appealing to the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals the district court’s granting of RIAA’s motion to dismiss. It’s asking for a stay “so as not to have to face collections proceedings while simultaneously funding and supporting an appeal,” it said. Yout owes “a significant amount in attorneys’ fees” to Mudd Law, the firm that lost the district court case, it said. Yout paid Boston Law Group an initial $15,000 retainer to handle its 2nd Circuit appeal, with additional monthly payments of $7,000 as needed against which Boston Law Group will bill hourly, said a declaration by Yout founder Johnathan Nader. “At this time, I am funding this litigation almost entirely from my personal funds,” he said. “Yout is not generating any revenue beyond meeting its expenses and I have been depositing funds from my personal accounts in order to cover those expenses when needed,” he said.
Defendant William Everly seeks a 14-day extension to Jan. 4 to answer Dish Network’s Sept. 30 complaint accusing him of Federal Communications Act and Digital Millennium Copyright Act violations, said his unopposed motion Wednesday (docket 3:22-cv-01748) in U.S. District Court for Northern Ohio in Toledo. The parties have been engaged in settlement discussions since the filing of the complaint, and the extension will give them more time “to explore a final resolution” without the need for further litigation, said the motion. The Dish complaint alleges Everly, of Toledo, “is involved in operating illicit streaming services” that capture the Dish internet communications of TV programming by circumventing Dish security measures and then retransmitting that programming without authorization to customers who bought access to those services from Everly.
The Recording Industry Association of America doesn't support Yout’s request for a stay, pending appeal, in the association’s motion for attorneys’ fees to recover the money it spent defending Yout’s “objectively unreasonable lawsuit,” said RIAA’s reply brief Dec. 22 (docket 3:20-cv-01602) in U.S. District Court for Connecticut. RIAA won the dismissal of Yout’s complaint for a declaratory judgment that its YouTube-ripping software, which allows users to make copies of streaming video and audio files, doesn't violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (see 2211230003). Yout waived any opposition to RIAA’s motion for attorneys’ fees by failing to file its response to the motion by the Dec. 1 deadline, said the RIAA. There is “no reasonable basis” for staying RIAA’s motion, it said. “The case law clearly provides that judicial economy favors deciding fee motions while they are fresh in the Court’s mind and to provide an opportunity for further efficiency by consolidating with the merits issues into a single appeal,” said the association. “Yout has failed to justify deviation from this routine practice.”