Legal Beagle
“Innocent Infringer” Not A Valid Defense
A federal appeals court has ordered a university student to pay the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) $27,750 ($750 per track) for file-sharing 37 songs when she was a high school cheerleader.
The February 25, 2010 decision by the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals reverses a decision made by a Texas federal judge who had ordered defendant Whitney Harper to pay $7,400, or $200 per song. The lower court had granted her an “innocent infringer’s” exemption to the Copyright Act’s minimum of $750 per track because Harper claimed she didn’t know she was violating copyrights and thought file-sharing was akin to internet radio streaming.
The New Orleans-based appeals court, however, ruled that Harper was not eligible for such a defense even though she was between 14 and 16 years old when the infringing activity occurred on the notorious file-sharing site, Limewire. The reason, the court concluded, is that the Copyright Act precludes such a defense if the legitimate CDs of the music in question provide copyright notices. The court stated that “Harper cannot rely on her purported legal naivety” as an innocent infringer defense, and ruled unanimously. Plaintiffs in the case (Maverick Recording, et al. v. Harper) included Arista Records LLC, Maverick Recording Company, Sony/BMG, Univeral Music Group and Warner Bros. Records, Inc.
Harper, now 22 and a Texas Tech senior, said in a 2008 interview that she didn’t know what she did was wrong when she file-shared EMINEM, THE POLICE, MARIAH CAREY and others as a teen. “I knew I was listening to music. I didn’t have an understanding of file-sharing,” she said.
Most of the thousands of RIAA file-sharing cases have settled out of court for several thousand dollars. The RIAA is winding down its 6-year litigation campaign targeting individual file-sharers and instead is working with ISPs (Internet Service Providers) to adopt rules that could cut off or hinder Internet access to repeat copyright infringers.
Wired.com, February 26, 2010 (David Kravets)
Read The Decision: Click Here
********** SIDEBAR **********
Big Names Tangle Over Patent Infringement
As access to digital media continues to grow, big name technology companies are trying to stay on top by taking each other to court for infringement. Legal battles over patent infringement are unfolding, pitting former allies against each other, and forming new partnerships between companies previously in competition.
Apple, creator of the iPhone and iPad, is at the center of most of these patent infringement battles. The company continues to use its strong patent portfolio to fight iPhone competitors in court.
On March 2, 2010, Apple filed a lawsuit against HTC for infringing on 20 Apple patents related to the iPhone’s user interface, underlying architecture and hardware. The lawsuit was filed with the US International Trade Commission (ITC) and in US District Court in Delaware. “We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it. We’ve decided to do something about it,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO. Though the lawsuit was filed against HTC, many patent lawyers and analysts believe Apple’s target is Google and the Android operating system, which the company provides to cellphone manufacturers. Apple and Google, once close allies, are now fighting for control of the market for smartphones, seen as the most important media and computing platform of the next decade. The battle has become heated since 2009, when HTC, Motorola and other phone makers began selling Android-based phones that offered an alternative to the iPhone.
On April 30, 2010, Apple was sued for infringing on a patent held by California-based NetAirus Technologies. Filed in the Central District of California Western Division, NetAirus claims that Apple’s iPhone infringes its 380 patent. The patent, issued on September 5, 2006 and held by NetAirus, describes a “Wireless Handset Communication System.” Unlike some patent lawsuits that claim part of a company’s product infringes on its patent, NetAirus seems to claim the entire iPhone concept is infringing on its patent. NetAirus claims that the iPhone, iPhone 3G and iPhone 3GS all infringe on this patent and has asked the court to stop Apple from making the iPhone and is seeking cash damages.
On May 7, 2010, Nokia slapped Apple with a patent infringement suit in the Federal District Court in the Western District of Wisconsin, naming five patents in the suit. According to Nokia, the patents in question relate to technologies for enhanced speech and data transmission, using positioning data in applications and innovations in antenna configurations that improve performance and save space, allowing smaller and more compact devices. Nokia claims, “These patented innovations are important to Nokia’s success as they allow improved product performance and design.” The products named in the suit include Apple’s iPhone and iPad devices.
As the digital marketplace evolves, so too do the devices created to bring users the expansive content. Patent infringement suits are the newest weapon for warring companies in an effort to corner the huge digital media market that is growing daily.
Tech Crunch, Mar 2, 2010, Erick Schonfeld
The Loop, May 4, 2010 (Jim Dalrymple)
OS News, May 7, 2010 (Thom Holwerda)
Quick BITS AND BYTES
7,000 ‘Folex’ Watches Steamrolled in Philly
A steamroller crushed 7,000 ‘Folex’ (fake Rolex) watches in Philadelphia under the orders of federal authorities seeking to deter would-be counterfeiters.
On April 26, 2010, customs officials staged the destruction to highlight law enforcement’s role in protecting intellectual property rights. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials said the watches were seized from Binh Cam Tran, who pleaded guilty in 2009 to charges including trafficking in counterfeit goods. Tran is serving six years in federal prison and has been ordered to pay more than $2.2 million to the Rolex Company.
Authorities say Tran fabricated hundreds of thousands of fake Rolex watches in his home near Philadelphia. Officials seized about 24,000 counterfeit watches and enough parts to create 1 million more.
Odd News, April 28, 2010 (Associated Press)
James Cameron: Innovation Trumps Digital Piracy
Oscar-winning director JAMES CAMERON has said the key to combating digital piracy in the movie industry is to use technology to create an experience that is unmatched anywhere other than the theater. “Avatar,” Cameron’s blockbuster 3D-film, has made more money than any other movie in history, topping $2.6 billion at the box office worldwide. The movie was filmed in high-definition 3D video, which requires a high bandwidth. The film is also more than three hours long, which should make it harder to distribute via the Internet.
Cameron has aimed to innovate, giving movie-goers a reason to still see films in the theater. Attempting to create a “reinvigorated cinema experience,” he discovered that people will pay to experience the same content in different ways. Not only are they willing to pay $10 or more to see Avatar on the big screen in 3D, but they also will pay to own the DVD and to take it with them on their phone or portable device.
Cameron said the fact that people were still going to the theater to see Avatar nearly four months after it was released supports his conclusion. Typically, DVDs are released after the film has left movie theaters. However, the DVD was released in April 2010, with the movie still playing in cinemas due to its popularity. The movie has also been made available on iTunes.