copyright infringement
Latest
Apple adds form to report intellectual property infringement on the App Store
Apple has added a site that allows iOS developers to report intellectual property infringement, The Next Web reports. Those who report infringement will be provided with a reference number, and contact with the maker of the disputed app will be given to the person who reported the infringement. Apple says contact with the App Store's legal team should be made by email from that point forward with the reference number. Other iTunes copyright infringement can be reported through another site. Hopefully, this will make it easier to cut down on the amount of ripped-off apps that appear in the App Store. Companies such as RealMac Software and Breaking Art have had near-cloned versions of their apps appear this year.
Google to pay $0 in damages to Oracle, wait for appeal
After watching Judge Alsup strike down its patent and Java API infringement claims, Oracle seems to be cutting its losses, agreeing to accept $0 in damages from Google. Confused? So was the Judge, who reportedly responded to the proposal by asking, "is there a catch I need to be aware of?" No catch, but Oracle isn't giving up, stating that it's taking its case to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. If successful, the appeal could put the two firms back in Alsup's courtroom, perhaps asking for somewhere between the previously proposed $32.3 million and today's sum total of zilch. We'll let you know when the drama comes around again.
Ubisoft on offense in novelist lawsuit, files to throw out claims
Ubisoft has filed a complaint to prevent novelist John Beiswenger from renewing his claims that the Assassin's Creed universe stole ideas from his novel, Link. Beiswenger first sued Ubisoft in April, but dropped the lawsuit earlier this week because he couldn't handle the expense of litigation.Beiswenger dismissed the Ubisoft case "without prejudice," meaning he can pick up the charges and pursue litigation at any time, and Ubisoft is looking to have the case found "frivolous and without merit," Gamasutra reports.Ubisoft's complaint argues that Beiswenger's claims of copyright infringement are based on "patently non-copyrightable elements." His claims include "assassins" and "spiritual and biblical tones."
Oracle v. Google: Judge finds structure of Java APIs not copyrightable, renders jury infringement verdict moot
Thought the Oracle v. Google litigation fireworks were over? Well, if you weren't aware, during the copyright phase of the trial, the jury found that Google had infringed the structure, sequence and organization of Oracle's Java APIs. However, at the time, Judge Alsup had yet to evaluate the validity of Oracle's API copyright claims upon which that verdict was based. Today, Alsup found that Oracle's argument didn't hold water because it would expand the breadth of copyright holder's rights too far -- in essence, it would allow owners of software code to prevent others from writing different versions to perform the same functions. This ruling renders the jury's earlier infringement verdict moot, and gives Mountain View yet another courtroom victory. Despite this latest defeat, Oracle's sure to run the case up one more rung on the legal ladder, so let the countdown to the appeal begin.
Google adds copyright takedowns to Transparency Reports, 1.2 million a month and growing
Google has been publishing what it's dubbed Transparency Reports for some time now -- detailing things like government requests to remove content from search results or requests for users' information -- and it's now added another big chunk of data to them in the interest of full disclosure. Starting today, you can see the number of removal requests it receives from companies over copyright and piracy concerns. As you can imagine, there's a lot -- over 1.2 million in the past month alone, a number that Google notes is increasing at a substantial rate. Among those asking for takedowns, Microsoft is by far the leader, filing well over half a million requests all by itself in the past month (the film and music industries are also, of course, well represented). You can pour through all the results yourself at the source link below.
Jury issues verdict in Android suit, finds that Google doesn't infringe Oracle patents
It appears that the jury has come to a conclusion in the Oracle v. Google trial, determining that Android does not infringe Oracle patents. Judge William Alsup of the US District Court for Northern California exonerated the search giant following a trial that lasted three weeks, ruling that Google did not infringe on six claims in US Patent RE38,104, along two claims in US Patent 6,061,520. Jurors were dismissed following today's ruling, with the trial's damages phase reportedly set to begin on Tuesday. According to The Verge, the jury did determine that Google was responsible for two counts of minor copyright infringement, relating to the order of Java APIs and several lines of rangeCheck code, which could be matched with a maximum penalty of $150,000 for each count. Regardless, it appears that the lawsuit, which dates back to 2010, when Oracle filed against Google for copyright and patent infringement related to Sun's Java code, could finally be coming to a close.
Aereo gets unfair competition claim dismissed, still faces two claims of copyright infringement
Aereo's mini-antenna arrays started streaming OTA television broadcasts in Gotham a couple months ago in spite of the lawsuit filed by a few of New York's local stations to stop them from doing so. Today, it was able to dismiss its opponents' state law unfair competition claim under the theory of federal preemption. Essentially, Aereo argued (and the judge agreed) that the anti-competition claim was actually an attempt to vindicate the broadcasters' rights to control the performance of their copyrighted materials. Because those rights are granted under federal law, the state law claim was preempted and dismissed from the lawsuit pursuant to the Copyright Act. Despite this courtroom victory, Aereo still has a lot of legal legwork to do, as it still faces two copyright claims that could still shut down the OTA streaming party. Stay tuned.
Ubisoft, Gametrailers sued in Assassin's Creed copyright infringement case
American author John Beiswenger has filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Ubisoft and Gametrailers that claims the Assassin's Creed franchise stole core ideas from Beiswenger's novel, Link. Link was published in 2002 and the first Assassin's Creed game dropped in 2007.Beiswenger claims the Animus in Assassin's Creed is a direct copy of his Link device, which allows users to access ancestral memories and relive specific moments in history, much as the Animus does. Beiswenger says his novel discusses "assassinations" and has "spiritual and biblical tones" also found in Assassin's Creed. And then there's the battle between good and evil that Beiswenger says Assassin's Creed stole right from the pages of Link.Beiswenger is suing Gametrailers for the Assassin's Creed trailers that he says infringe on the same Link copyright. There are 11 counts against Ubisoft and Gametrailers in total, and only most of them made us laugh.Beiswenger is seeking up to $5.25 million in damages and a cessation of further copyright infringement. We're pretty sure that second part is already happening, so perhaps Beiswenger will get something out of all this paperwork after all.
Viacom wins appeal against YouTube, gets another chance to prove copyright infringement
It's been almost two years since YouTube's triumph in its copyright infringement case against Viacom. As is the way of things, Viacom appealed the decision, and now the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has decided to breathe new life into Viacom's case. Apparently, the appeals judge didn't see eye to eye with the District Court's ruling that no reasonable jury could have found that YouTube had actual knowledge or awareness of infringement on its site.You see, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) requires such awareness for service providers like YouTube to be guilty of copyright infringement, and that safe harbor provision was the grounds for YouTube's victory on summary judgment. Furthermore, to succeed on summary judgment, YouTube had to prove that no reasonable jury could find that it knew of any infringing activity. While the lower court felt that YouTube carried that burden, the appeals judge disagreed, and has remanded the case back down for the District Court to determine if YouTube knew about or willfully ignored the infringement. What does this mean? All we can say for sure is that it'll expend more judicial resources and make more money for the attorneys involved. The result could very well end up, once again, in YouTube's favor, but we'll have to wait and see.
Oracle and Google get a trial date, April 16th is the start of Android armageddon
As regular readers of this site are well aware, Google and Oracle have had an ongoing legal spat for nearly two years now. In the time since the lawsuit's filing, the legal claims have been narrowed, damages claims have been adjusted, reduced, and reduced again. All that activity, plus continuous settlement talks caused the trial to be delayed several times. But now it appears that the two sides have officially reached an impasse, and so the tech giants will go to trial on April 16th to determine if Android illicitly pulled code from Java. Will Oracle get paid? Will Google and its green bots be gloating in the end? Pop some popcorn and settle in, folks, we'll start getting some answers in a couple weeks.
'What's it like to have your indie game stolen?'
No journalist, friend or decent human being wants to ask that question, especially not to an 18-year-old first-time developer who recently saw success as a student finalist in IGF 2012. Unfortunately, today we asked Mattia Traverso that very thing about his game One and One Story, after the events unfolded live on his Twitter feed: Traverso alerted the community that One and One Story had been counterfieted with "THEY STOLE MY GAME" and a succession of five tweets that included seven capitalized f-bombs.One and One Story hadn't been cloned or copied, but it was completely stolen -- code, graphics and all. The group that stole it implemented a few unused assets that were hidden in the game file, Traverso told Joystiq, and its version has completely broken animations and stretched graphics."It's kind of hilarious," Traverso said hours after his initial discovery. But when he first got the Google Alert and tracked down the stolen game to the App Store this morning, Traverso didn't find anything about the situation amusing."I panicked. I didn't know what to do, so I screamed on Twitter," he said.His screaming didn't go unnoticed and it drew the attention of other indies, including Canabalt's Adam Saltsman. Saltsman instructed Traverso to fill out a DMCA takedown, and two hours after his discovery Traverso was able to breathe a little easier.
Pirate Bay founders lose final appeal in Sweden, prison looms on the horizon
It looks like Pirate Bay's legal drama has finally come to a close in Sweden, where the Supreme Court today turned down the site's final appeal. At the center of the case are the file sharing site's founders -- Fredrik Neij, Peter Sunde and Carl Lundström -- who have been battling Swedish prosecutors for quite a few years now. After being convicted of facilitating copyright infringement, the trio was initially sentenced to prison. They appealed the ruling in 2010 and, though they failed to overturn it, managed to see their 12-month sentences reduced by between two and eight months. Today, though, their final attempts were shot down, with the Court's dismissal. The fines and prison terms remain the same: ten months for Neij, eight months for Sunde and four for Lundström. There's also a fourth co-founder involved, Gottfrid Svartholm, who has been absent from several hearings. Under today's ruling, his original 12-month sentence will stand, and the four men will have to pay a total of $6.8 million in damages. Because the case has dragged on for at least five years, however, there's a chance that the sentences could be reduced by 12 months (bringing them down to zero), as is common in the Swedish legal system. The decision on this matter, however, remains with the court. TorrentFreak reports that at least one defendant intends to appeal to the European Court of Justice, though the results wouldn't have any effect on Sweden's decision.
In the wake of Megaupload crackdown, fear forces similar sites to shutter sharing services?
The Feds put the smackdown on Megaupload and its whole executive team last week, charging them with criminal charges for copyright infringement and racketeering in addition to conspiracy to commit copyright infringement and money laundering. As a result, it appears that several other cloud locker companies have curbed their sharing ways to avoid similar DOJ entanglements. FileSonic and Fileserve have eliminated file sharing from their service menus, and Uploaded.to is no longer available to those of us in the US. Naturally, none of these companies have said that Megaupload's legal problems are the reason for the changes, but the timing suggests it's more than mere coincidence. Disagree? Feel free to speculate about the possibilities in the comments below, and let us know if any other online storage services have made similar moves while you're at it.
The SOPAbox: Defeating online piracy by destroying the internet
Disclaimer: The Soapbox column is entirely the opinion of this week's writer and does not necessarily reflect the views of Massively as a whole. If you're afraid of opinions other than your own, you might want to skip this column. Unless you've been living under a rock, chances are you've heard of SOPA and PIPA. The Stop Online Piracy Act and PROTECT IP Act are two radical pieces of copyright legislation currently being pushed through the US government. Although the stated intent of the new legislation is to provide companies with additional tools with which to combat piracy, the bill's loose wording has raised some serious alarm bells. Opponents to the proposed law say it would give corporations the ability to shut down any almost any website under the guise of protecting copyright infringement. Gamers will be affected worst of all, as the loose wording of the law makes any website with user-submitted content potentially vulnerable to a shut down order. That could include YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, any blog with a comment section, or even any online game with a chat system. Perhaps the scariest part is that you'll be affected even if you're not in the US, as one of the new law's enforcement mechanisms is to remove a site from the DNS records, a move that assumes the US has jurisdiction over the global Domain Name System. AOL is among many huge companies strongly opposing SOPA, and so naturally Massively opposes it too. In this week's massive two-page Soapbox, I make the case for why you should be worried about SOPA, and I suggest what can be done to tackle piracy in the games industry. Comments can be left on page two.
Federal domain seizure raises new concerns over online censorship
It's been a little more than a year since the US government began seizing domains of music blogs, torrent meta-trackers and sports streaming sites. The copyright infringement investigation, led by US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) authorities, quickly raised eyebrows among many free speech and civil rights advocates, fueling a handful of legal challenges. Few are more compelling, or frightening than a case involving Dajaz1.com. As TechDirt reports, the popular hip-hop blog has been at the epicenter of a sinuous and seemingly dystopian dispute with the feds -- one that underscores the heightening controversy surrounding federal web regulation, and blurs the constitutional divide between free speech and intellectual property protection. Dajaz1 was initially seized under the 2008 Pro IP Act, on the strength of an affidavit that cited several published songs as evidence of copyright infringement. As it turns out, ,any of these songs were actually provided by their copyright holders themselves, but that didn't stop the government from seizing the URL anyway, and plastering a warning all over its homepage. Typically, this kind of action would be the first phase of a two-step process. Once a property is seized, US law dictates that the government has 60 days to notify its owner, who can then choose to file a request for its return. If the suspect chooses to file this request within a 35-day window, the feds must then undertake a so-called forfeiture process within 90 days. Failure to do so would require the government to return the property to its rightful owner. But that's not exactly how things played out in the case of Dajaz1. For more details on the saga, head past the break.
UK court orders ISP to block Newzbin 2 filesharing site within two weeks, Hollywood smiles
Pirates just can't catch a break these days. Way back in July, a British judge ordered telecom company BT to block its subscribers from visiting a site called Newzbin 2, on the grounds that the ISP had "actual knowledge" of customers using the platform access copyright infringing content. An appeal was soon filed, but yesterday, it was shot down by a high court. Under the order, BT will have 14 days to seal off access to Newzbin 2, and will have to do so on its own dime -- something the provider was aiming to avoid. The decision marks the first time that an ISP has been forced to block access to a filesharing site, something the Motion Picture Association heralded as "a win for the creative sector." BT, meanwhile, didn't have much to say about the ruling, stating only that "it is helpful to have the order now and the clarity that it brings." Less certain, however, is the impact this order will have on future copyright lawsuits and web censorship, in general. Find the ruling in its entirety at the coverage link, below.
Psystar loses appeal in battle with Apple, told to ditch Mac clones for-ev-ver
We're sure Psystar, its lawyers and its tens of fans, didn't really expect to win the appeal it filed following the permanent injunction handed down against its commercial hackintoshes, but you can't blame the company for trying. A little over three years after the drama began, with Apple suing to ban Psystar's products, it seems the epic tale has come to an end. The company hasn't really been in business since December of '09 anyway, so today's ruling upholding the injunction won't make much of a difference either way. We're just sad that this may, in fact, be the last time we ever hear from Eugene Action -- let's take a moment to reminisce, shall we?
Yoogames yoinks assets from EVE Online and others, faces retribution
Let's get ready for a lawsuit! Yoogames has been called out on the EVE Online forums for using images from EVE in order to promote its own game, Planet War. But it's not just EVE Online getting ripped off here; keen-eyed forum-goers have spotted pictures of StarCraft 2's Protoss Yo-Mommaship and Star Wars' Trade Federation space station. What will become of this, no one knows... oh, who are we kidding? This is lawsuit city. CCP's own CCP Fallout stopped by the thread to thank the OP for pointing out the infringement and to say that he is "notifying the relevant parties in the company." So grab some popcorn, sit back, and enjoy the show. We'll be sure to bring you the latest in courtroom entertainment as it develops.
Daily Update for Sept. 7, 2011
It's the TUAW Daily Update, your source for Apple news in a convenient audio format. You'll get all the top Apple stories of the day in three to five minutes, which is perfect for a quick review of what's happening in the Apple world. You can listen to today's Apple stories by clicking the inline player (requires Flash) or the non-Flash link below. To subscribe to the podcast for listening through iTunes, click here. No Flash? Click here to listen.
Zediva puts the brakes on its streaming service, soothes your fears with monkeys
Zediva fought the law and the law shut it down. The unique DVD rental service, sued by the MPAA and Hollywood studios for running afoul of licensing and distribution agreements, has temporarily closed shop. A statement on the outfit's website optimistically refers to the court-ordered injunction as an "intermission," pointing to a hopeful future resumption of operations, and guaranteeing customers a solution for unused credits. The company's promised to fight back against Judge Walter's decision, and is in the process of appealing the ruling that could see it facing a permanent service blackout. We hope for the sake of its "DVD-changing monkeys" that all parties involved can work this out. Make sure to head past the break for Zediva's full explanation.
