Unauthorized Streaming of Television Broadcasts Not Infringing

Aereo, Inc., charges a monthly fee for subscribers to watch broadcast television programs over the Internet.  Aereo’s service is currently available only in New York City.  Aereo picks up the broadcast signals using thousands of small antennas, each about the size of a dime.  Aereo assigns an antenna to an individual user, so that only one user uses a particular antenna at a time.  Users can record a program and/or watch the program, which is delayed just a few seconds compared to the broadcast.  A user’s individual directory is created on a hard drive at Aereo’s facility using the signal received through the antenna assigned to that user.  Each user views her individual copy of a program.  Copies created at the request of one user cannot be shared with other users.

The owners of copyrights for programs broadcast on network television sued Aereo for copyright infringement, alleging infringement of their right of public performance.  The copyright owners sought a preliminary injunction against Aereo.  The district court denied the motion, ruling that the Second Circuit’s opinion in Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. CSC Holdings, Inc., (Cablevision) precluded a ruling in favor of the copyright owners.  The copyright owners appealed the denial of the preliminary injunction to the Second Circuit.  The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision and agreed that Cablevision’s ruling controls in this case.  “Aereo’s transmissions are not public performances.”  (Opinion pdf page 33).  Infringement of the copyright owners’ other exclusive rights, such as reproduction and distribution, was not before the court because the copyright owners based their motion for a preliminary injunction on only the public performance right.

Continue Reading

Framing Infringing Videos is Not Copyright Infringement, Rules Seventh Circuit

Flava Works, Inc. (Flava) produces and distributes videos of black men performing erotic homosexual acts.  People must pay to view Flava’s videos online.  Users are allowed to download Flava’s videos, but not to upload them.   myVidster is an online social bookmarking service that allows people to bookmark online materials so that other people with similar tastes can find those materials easily.  myVidster does not host videos on its website.  People who access a video through a bookmark on myVidster’s website see the video through a frame that myVidster puts around it.  The video remains on the server it was uploaded to.  Flava sued myVidster for copyright infringement.  The discussion focused on whether myVidster is a contributory infringer when someone uses its website to bookmark a video and then someone else clicks on the bookmark and watches the video.

The district court judge granted Flava’s motion for a preliminary injunction based on his analysis of Flava’s likelihood of successfully establishing copyright infringement at trial.  myVidster appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.  In an opinion written by Judge Richard A. Posner, the Seventh Circuit vacated the grant of preliminary injunction.  The Seventh Circuit ruled that the district court judge erred by considering Flava’s likelihood of success on the merits as the only factor.  The Seventh Circuit further ruled that, on the basis of the record before it, myVidster did not copy or distribute copyrighted works, that it was not a contributory infringer and that there was no basis for the preliminary injunction to be granted.

Continue Reading

DMX Cases Force ASCAP and BMI to Adjust Rates to Account for DMX's Direct Licenses with Composers and Publishers

DMX, Inc. (DMX) provides background/foreground music to thousands of locations, such as retail stores, hotels, shopping centers, restaurants and other places open to the public.  This is not music transmitted over the radio, television or other public broadcast, but is a music service provided by DMX either by satellite or an on-location proprietary device.  DMX is a prominent provider for these services.  The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) and Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI) are performing rights organizations.  Most domestic copyrighted music in the U.S. is licensed through either ASCAP or BMI.  Both ASCAP and BMI are subject to consent decrees to prevent them from unlawfully monopolizing performing rights licensing.

In 2006, DMX introduced a direct licensing program to contract directly with individual composers and their publishers, bypassing ASCAP and BMI.  DMX sought to “break through the powerful status quo and pioneer a new licensing paradigm.”  (Opinion pdf page 13).  DMX requested licenses from both ASCAP and BMI that “carved-out,” or excluded, the direct license fees paid by DMX.  In separate cases with different judges, the district court sided with DMX and adopted DMX’s fee proposal.  Both ASCAP and BMI appealed.  Their cases were combined at the appellate level and the Second Circuit affirmed the district court opinions adopting DMX’s fee proposal.

Continue Reading

ASCAP Challenge to Royalties for Mobi Offerings Rejected by Second Circuit

The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) and MobiTV (Mobi) reached an impasse in their dispute about the royalty fees for a license for Mobi to publicly perform works controlled by ASCAP.  At the district court level, ASCAP claimed Mobi owed it $41 million in fees for the years 2003 to 2011.  Mobi calculated that it owed ASCAP $301,257.99 for fees due from November 2003 to July 2009.  The district court ruled that Mobi owed ASCAP $405,000 for fees from November 2003 through March 2010. 

The district court calculated its award using the amounts Mobi pays to cable television networks for content and the revenue Mobi receives from wireless carriers as the revenue base, i.e. the figure from which the royalties are calculated.  ASCAP appealed the case to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, claiming that the district court should have calculated the royalty rate based on the retail revenues wireless carriers receive from sales to their customers.  The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision.

Continue Reading

Significant Damages and Attorney's Fees Award in Music Performance Copyright Infringement Case Upheld by Ninth Circuit

Seven music company members (Music Companies) of the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP) sued East Coast Foods, Inc. and its sole officer and director, Herbert Hudson, for copyright infringement arising out of musical performances of eight works at the Long Beach, California, Roscoe’s House of Chicken and Waffles restaurant.  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s grant of summary judgment and award of $36,000 in damages in favor of the Music Companies and the district court’s award of $162,728.22 in attorney’s fees to the Music Companies.

East Coast owns the Roscoe’s restaurant chain.  The Long Beach Roscoe’s restaurant opened in 2001.  The Sea Bird Jazz Lounge is attached to the restaurant.  ASCAP is a nonprofit music licensing organization that collects royalties for its members.  ASCAP contacted East Coast shortly after the Long Beach Roscoe’s opened to offer East Coast a license to perform music in the restaurant and lounge.  East Coast did not obtain a license and between 2001 and 2007, ignored ASCAP’s recurring requests to pay licensing fees. 

Continue Reading

Zediva Owners Promptly Sued for Copyright Infringement

Several major motion picture studios sued Zediva’s parent companies and CEO Venkatesh Srinivasan just weeks after the launch of Zediva’s website from beta.  The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) posted the complaint on its website.  Most of the major U.S. motion picture studios, Warner Brothers Entertainment, Inc., Disney Enterprises, Inc., Paramount Pictures Corporation, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, and Universal City Studios Productions, LLLP, are named plaintiffs.  Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc., identified as one of the six major U.S studios on the MPAA website, is not a plaintiff, while Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., not identified as a major studio, is.

To quickly refresh your memories, Zediva is the online movie rental service that streams movies over the Internet from a DVD and DVD player located in its data center to your PC, Mac or Google TV device with Adobe Flash.  My March 23, 2011, Zediva post describes the service in greater detail.

The complaint states one cause of action, copyright infringement under 17 USC §§106(4) and 501. Plaintiffs allege that “Defendants’ business is based on infringing Plaintiffs’ rights.  Defendants transmit performances of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works to members of the public without Plaintiffs’ authorization.”  The Plaintiffs allege that they invest billions of dollars to create copyrighted motion pictures and that the Defendants are exploiting Plaintiffs' investments without authorization, keeping all of the money they charge Zediva users for performing Plaintiffs’ works.

According to the Plaintiffs,

Defendants’ comparison of the Zediva service to a rental store is disingenuous, and Defendants are attempting to rely on technical gimmicks in an effort to avoid complying with U.S. Copyright Law....Unlike Zediva, rental stores do not transmit performances of movies to the public ‘over the Internet using streaming technologies.’  A rental store or any other establishment would also need a license to do so.

Plaintiffs accuse Defendants of flagrantly violating Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights and vehemently object to being cut out of the equation.

The complaint also mentions Srinivasan’s patent application for the technology the Zediva services are based on.  That patent application is for Remote Rental of Digital Content Peripheral Storage Entities.  Could this patent application be for a technology that is a game changer, like the Sony Betamax video tape recorder in Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios?  Not even the U.S. Supreme Court can agree on what Sony means in a larger context (e.g. MGM v. Grokster), but the end result was that Sony was not held liable for contributory copyright infringement even though the Betamax could be used to build a library of infringing videos.  I’m curious to hear the Zediva defendants’ arguments and whether they will point to the patent application to support their arguments of non-infringement.

A significant difference between Sony and the Zediva case is that Sony could be held liable only as a contributory infringer.  Sony’s actions did not infringe – it provided the means for end users to make infringing copies.  Zediva is allegedly a direct infringer – infringing the copyright holders’ rights of public performance.  Even if Zediva developed a potentially game changing technology, that may not make a difference if it is a direct infringer.

There could be more to Zediva’s business model than meets the eye.  The Zediva litigation promises to be both interesting and entertaining.

Zediva DVD Streaming Service Infringing or Not?

Zediva recently captured the attention of copyright commentators with its new streaming movie service.  Zediva Streams New Releases Through Copyright Loophole, by Ryan Singel, captures the essence of what the service is about.  As soon as a movie is released on DVD, Zediva buys it, then rents it and a DVD player to you.  The DVD and DVD player remain in Zediva’s data center and the movie is streamed to you over the Internet so that you can see it on PC, Mac or Google TV devices with Adobe Flash.  You can’t download or copy the DVD – that’s a violation of Zediva’s Terms of Use.  The service is designed to allow movie watchers to see DVD releases sooner than they could on Nexflix, which has agreed not to rent out movies in the first month they are available on DVD.  According to Singel, Zediva doesn’t have any licensing agreements with the studios and does not intend to seek any.

Zediva’s FAQs draw analogies between its service and brick and mortar DVD rental stores. Perhaps Zediva’s founders and attorneys think Zediva’s service is noninfringing for the same reason a brick and mortar store’s service is noninfringing.  The first sale doctrine (17 USC §109)  allows the owner of a particular copy of a copyrighted work to sell or dispose of that particular copy without regard to the copyright owner.  That is why lending libraries and DVD rental stores are noninfringing uses of works.  Section 109 specifically excludes sound recordings and computer programs from the first sale doctrine and that is why you can’t rent a music CD or a computer program.  A software license can seem like a rental, but it is not.  You get a license because the copyright holder or someone authorized by the copyright holder grants you one.  With a rental, a third party rents something to you without the authorization of the copyright holder.

James Grimmelmann argues against Zediva’s success in That Zediva Thing? It’s So Not Going to Work. Grimmelmann makes the point that the first sale doctrine is a defense only to distribution and display rights and is irrelevant to a performance right claim.  The Copyright Act gives the copyright owner the right to perform the copyrighted work publicly.   

To perform or display a work “publicly” means —

(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or

(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.

17 USC §101 

Grimmelmann compares two cases, Columbia Pictures Industries v. Redd Horne  and Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. CSC Holdings, Inc. In Redd Horne, a video store rented video tapes together with private viewing rooms where its customers could view the videos.  The court held that was a public performance that could be prohibited by movie studio copyright owners.  In Cartoon Network, Cablevision offered a “cloud” DVR service in which a customer could record a TV show to a remote DVR system and have it played back to her TV set later on.  The court in Cartoon Network held that this was not a public performance.

Grimmelmann explains that the distinguishing factor in the two cases is that in Cartoon Network, each customer viewed a distinct copy, whereas in Redd Horne, the video store owner kept showing the same copy over and over again to different people.  So long as the customer views her own distinct copy, it is not a public performance.  There is certainly support for this interpretation in the Copyright Act, in which members of the public can “receive it [the performance] in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.”  Grimmelmann also thinks it’s significant that Zediva keeps physical control of its DVDs at all times, just as the video store in Redd Horne kept physical control of the videos at all times.  The customers in Cartoon Network controlled their viewing times.  Netflix and video store customers physically control the DVDs they rent.

Can Zediva get around these distinct copy and viewing in different places at different times predicaments?  A unique feature of the Zediva service is that once a customer starts watching a movie, that particular DVD of the movie is not available for other customers to use.  Zediva buys its DVDs and does not copy them.  A Zediva customer has up to two weeks to finish watching her movie.  She can even watch the movie again during those two weeks.  If she wants to stop in the middle and continue the next day at the same place in the movie, she can.  Are these differences enough to take Zediva from the Redd Horne result to the Cartoon Network result?

Even if Zediva clears the above hurdles, lack of control over the end users could turn a streamed DVD into an unauthorized public performance of that DVD.  How will Zediva police its users so that they do not publicly perform the streamed movies by playing them on screens in places open to the public, such as bars or other retail establishments?  Zediva’s Terms & Conditions of Use indicate that “public performance of any kind” is not allowed, but does not define “public performance.”  That language seems inadequate for anyone trying to prevent unauthorized public performances.

Finally, could this be the same kind of streaming as the illegal streaming that was targeted by the Obama Administration’s white paper and was the subject of last week’s post?  No, it could not.  Criminal streaming under the Copyright Act requires that the infringement occur after the motion picture has been released and before “copies for sale to the general public in the United States in a format intended to permit viewing outside a motion picture exhibition facility” are made available.  17 USC §506(a)(3)(B). Zediva streams DVDs it purchases after the movie has been released on DVD.