Perhaps in a rebirth of “trickle-down” economics, some news sites are reporting that the technological talent tucked away in the valleys of Northern California is now migrating southward toward “Silicon Beach.”
It remains yet to be seen how much further Google will expand in Venice in 2012. Back in 2003, Google acquired Applied Semantics, based out of Santa Monica, and only had about 12 employees working in the office. However, the decision to expand into Venice was based on Google’s desire to “reproduce the unified feel of its main campus” in Mountain View.
Veoh, a provider of online streaming videos, has, at least for now, been absolved of claims of copyright infringement made by Universal Music Group. On December 20, 2011, the California Court of Appeals ruled in Veoh’s favor, dismissing Universal’s allegations that Veoh was responsible for copyright violations, namely, by allowing Veoh users to access videos copyrighted by Universal. The Court decided that Veoh was protected by the “safe harbor” provisions of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.
There were two chief issues in dispute in the lawsuit: 1) whether the infringing videos were being uploaded onto Veoh’s servers without Veoh’s actual knowledge; and 2) whether Veoh’s practice of reformatting the videos uploaded by users and storing the various formats on its servers caused a violation of U.S. federal copyright laws and the DMCA.
In analyzing the Court’s decision, a couple of facts seemed to decide Veoh’s fate. First, the Court noted that Veoh was not participating or supervising each and every user’s uploading of videos (nor was it viewing those files); rather Veoh was using an automated process that automatically initiated when each user attempted to upload videos. Veoh’s automatic process would convert the video uploaded by the user into a more readable format (Flash 7) and made publicly accessible for streaming and downloading to the general public.
Second, the Court also determined that the “safe harbor” provisions of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act protected Veoh, because Veoh did not actually know that infringing videos resided on its servers. Veoh had received a demand letter at one point in time that infringing videos resided on its servers, but that letter was sent by the RIAA, not Universal. In fact, Universal never sent a demand letter, as set out by the DMCA’s notice protocol, notifying Veoh and putting Veoh on notice of Universal’s belief that infringing content was residing on Veoh’s servers. The Court also determined that there was no proof that infringing content continued residing on Veoh’s servers, once Veoh became aware of them.
It is important to note that the lawsuit brought by Universal was dismissed by the trial court in its beginning stages, and that dismissal was affirmed by the California Court of Appeals in the decision handed down a couple of days ago. So, it is very possible that Universal could undertake further investigation and bring claims against Veoh yet again in another lawsuit.
In the meantime, there are a few lessons that can be drawn from the Veoh decision for companies providing streaming videos or other filesharing:
• Take Demand Letters Seriously. Although Veoh did not receive a demand letter from Universal, businesses should be wary of receiving any demand letters asking to cease and desist from certain conduct because infringement is allegedly occurring. These kinds of notices are usually a prelude to legal action or other form of escalation, and a lawyer should be consulted if any such demand letter is received. Your lawyer will be able to help your company respond to the demand letter, and determine whether it is legally effective. In Veoh’s case, at one point in time before the lawsuit was brought, an email was sent by the CEO of Disney to Michael Eisner, who was a Veoh investor, notifying Eisner that content belonging to Disney was found on Veoh. However, the Court ruled that Disney’s email was ineffective at providing sufficient notice to Veoh of Universal’s belief that copyright infringement had occurred and had not been rectified.
• Is There Actual Knowledge of Infringing Material? If your company offers users or consumers an opportunity to upload content, video, or any other type of media to servers hosted by your company, be cautious about whether the uploading processes require manual approval by the company, or whether they occur and post to your company’s servers automatically. If your company representatives are actually screening uploaded content before it is made available publicly, they may want to be extra diligent in ensuring that no infringing works are being made available publicly.
• Act Quickly. Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, safe harbor exists, in some cases, for service providers who are notified of infringement, as long as they “act expeditiously to remove or disable access to” the offending content. In Veoh, there was evidence that once he was notified about Disney’s copyrighted content being located on Veoh’s servers, Michael Eisner, a Veoh investor, notified the founder of Veoh to take down Cinderella III and various episodes of Lost “right away,” and the Court commented that Universal had no proof that this had not actually occurred. Acting quickly when notified of infringement can be construed as evidence of good faith by service providers.
• Consult Legal Counsel. The best and most appropriate way to respond to allegations of copyright infringement is going to be different based on the circumstances of each case and the facts. Companies should be wary about handling accusations independently and without the advice of legal counsel, as the penalties could be stiff and legal fees, should a suit arise, could be unpredictable.
The Veoh decision will not be the end of video-sharing copyright lawsuits. There are several other similar cases that are currently pending, in California, for example, the lawsuit brought against IsoHunt, a bit-torrent filesharing site, by Columbia Pictures. Further, the Stop Online Piracy Act, presently in Congress, could undercut the DMCA’s safe harbor provisions in the future.
Well, it appears there is finally an explanation about why PCs, TVs, cell phones, and other consumer goods with LCD glass were so expensive for so many years. The long-running class action lawsuit against Samsung, Hitachi, Sharp, and other LCD panel manufacturers alleging price-fixing and antitrust violations in LCD glass is one step nearer to its conclusion. The LCD makers have settled with “indirect” purchasers of LCD goods, namely, individuals buying PCs and TVs, for $539 million. Several states, including New York, Florida, Missouri, and others, also took part in bringing anti-trust and price-fixing claims against these manufacturers.
Preliminary approval of the settlement is being requested by attorneys for both sides, and is set for a hearing on January 20, 2012. The Judge, Honorable Susan Illston, could opt not to approve the settlement on a preliminary basis, if the settlement appears insufficient in protecting the interests of class members. Once the settlement is approved on a preliminary basis, notice should be provided to all indirect purchasers. Individuals who disapprove of the settlement will have an option to “object” at the Fairness Hearing, and be heard.
Samsung, for one, does not appear to be fazed. The company recently announced the half-phone/half-tablet Galaxy Note, which is slated to arrive in the United States next year.
With the Tattoo Lawsuit settled, Warner Brothers has a new suit on its hands involving “The Hangover: Part II.” Famous French luxury goods producer Louis Vuitton Malletier has sued Warner Bros. In New York, alleging that scenes in the Hangover in which Zach Galifinakis’ character is seen carrying expensive Louis Vuitton luggage are in misleading because Galifinakis is not actually carrying authentic Louis Vuitton luggage.
Warner Brothers is also being sued by an actor, Michael Alan Rubin, who alleges that the movie is based on his true life story, and that the makers of “Hangover II” “stole his life” and left him out of the financial profits generated by the successful movie.
The Louis Vuitton lawsuit is pending in the Southern District of New York District Court (Cause Number 1:11-cv-09436-ALC). As of the date of this post, Warner Brothers has not yet been served, so there is no telling whether Warner Bros. will seek to dismiss the lawsuit.