copyrights
Latest
Google explains how it fights piracy in search results
The anti-piracy road hasn't played out easy for Google, to the point where past claims have stated that the company's efforts simply aren't working. But Google says it's doing everything it can to combat piracy across its services, of which Search is likely the most important one -- at least to copyright holders. With this in mind, the technology giant has released an updated version of its document "How Google Fights Piracy," in which it dives into detail about what steps it's taking to crack down on pirated content. Google says this includes new ad formats in search results, such as what's pictured above; improved downranking of known delinquent sites; and removing more autocomplete predictions based on DMCA takedown notices. Part of it is also pointing people to trusted sources when searching for music or movies, including services like the Play store or Spotify -- Google plans to do this only in the US for now, but the idea is to make it a global feature at some point in the future.
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.
Zediva's DVD rental service ordered to close shop, Hollywood pops celebratory bubbly
Zediva's loophole-exploiting DVD rental service has just been dealt a lethal blow by Judge John F. Walter. The recent court-ordered preliminary injunction effectively halts the company's ability to rent its library to users across the internet's great streaming divide. Citing irreparable damages to both the nascent video on demand market and Hollywood's bottom line, the federal judge found Zediva's business in violation of studios' exclusive right to public performance of copyrighted works. The bizarro Netflix alternative had been operating without the normal licensing restrictions required by the industry and despite its claims of imminent ruination, will have to close shop. For its part, the unique startup has vowed to appeal the ruling, but if that doesn't work, at least its creators can watch No Strings Attached ad nauseum.
Judge denies Apple's request to speed up its suit against Samsung
Apple's lawyers in its lawsuit against Samsung are an impatient bunch. First, they asked the court for an accelerated discovery process so they could get their hands on Sammy's forthcoming products ASAP. Then they filed a motion to trim the time until trial and asked for an order shortening the time to file the briefs for that motion. Yesterday, the court told Apple to slow its roll by denying its request to compress the briefing schedule. In doing so, the judge cited Apple's knowledge of Samsung's alleged infringement for more than a year and the fact it engaged in license negotiations with the Korean company during that time -- which the court thinks undermines Jobs and Co.'s argument that they'll suffer substantial harm without a hurried hearing schedule. It's a minor ruling in the grand scheme of things, but it indicates that Apple's cries to condense the time until trial may fall upon deaf judicial ears. Looks like the folks in Cupertino may have to look to the ITC if they want the rocket docket treatment.
Android source code, Java, and copyright infringement: what's going on?
So it's been a fun day of armchair code forensics and legal analysis on the web after Florian Mueller published a piece this morning alleging Google directly copied somewhere between 37 and 44 Java source files in Android. That's of course a major accusation, seeing as Oracle is currently suing Google for patent and copyright infringement related to Java, and it prompted some extremely harsh technical rebuttals, like this one from ZDNet and this one from Ars Technica. The objections in short: the files in question are test files, aren't important, probably don't ship with Android, and everyone is making a hullabaloo over nothing. We'll just say this straight out: from a technical perspective, these objections are completely valid. The files in question do appear to be test files, some of them were removed, and there's simply no way of knowing if any of them ended up in a shipping Android handset. But -- and this is a big but -- that's just the technical story. From a legal perspective, it seems very likely that these files create increased copyright liability for Google, because the state of our current copyright law doesn't make exceptions for how source code trees work, or whether or not a script pasted in a different license, or whether these files made it into handsets. The single most relevant legal question is whether or not copying and distributing these files was authorized by Oracle, and the answer clearly appears to be "nope" -- even if Oracle licensed the code under the GPL. Why? Because somewhere along the line, Google took Oracle's code, replaced the GPL language with the incompatible Apache Open Source License, and distributed the code under that license publicly. That's all it takes -- if Google violated the GPL by changing the license, it also infringed Oracle's underlying copyright. It doesn't matter if a Google employee, a script, a robot, or Eric Schmidt's cat made the change -- once you've created or distributed an unauthorized copy, you're liable for infringement.* Why does this matter? Because we're hearing that Oracle is dead-set on winning this case and eventually extracting a per-handset royalty on every Android handset shipped. In that context, "those files aren't important!" isn't a winning or persuasive argument -- and the more these little infringements add up, the worse things look for Google. Whether or not these files are a "smoking gun" isn't the issue -- it's whether Android infringes Oracle's patents and copyrights, since the consequences either way will be monumental and far-reaching. Ultimately, though, the only person who can resolve all of this for certain is a judge -- and it's going to take a lot more time and research to get there. -- *They're not directly comparable, but think about the Psystar case for a second. Even though Psystar desperately wanted to argue that Apple's OS X license agreement was invalid, the judge never got there -- he simply ruled Psystar wasn't authorized to copy and distribute OS X, and swung the hammer. It really is that simple sometimes.
The Lawbringer: The trouble with fan fiction
Pop law abounds in The Lawbringer, your weekly dose of WoW, the law, video games and the MMO genre. Running parallel to the games we love and enjoy is a world full of rules, regulations, pitfalls and traps. How about you hang out with us as we discuss some of the more esoteric aspects of the games we love to play? Finally, I return home after a bit of bliss. Fun is over -- it's time to get serious by talking about fan fiction. Sort of. You see, fan fiction is one of those areas that people love to hate, hate to love and everything in between. What is it about fan fiction that gets people so upset and so defensive? Is it the personal nature of the craft, the accusatory piggy-backing on other people's characters, or just that so much of it is mind-numbingly terrible? Who knows? Today, we're going to explore a few of the concepts of fan fiction in a very no-nonsense, barely legal way, to give you aspiring authors something to consider while writing your own fan fiction or even original content. With my post-vacation bliss now completely out of my system, thanks to reading so much terrible fan fiction in preparation, I am happy to share with all of you a story that I've been writing for the last minute and a half. Don't be cruel, now. It's pretty much going to become the greatest story ever told. Enjoy.
The Lawbringer: The history of Blizzard and MDY (Glider)
It's a Glider! Sorry, that's as good as the jokes are going to get. Greetings from The Lawbringer, WoW.com's weekly look at the intersection between law and the World of Warcraft. I'm a newly minted law school grad acting as your tour guide between bar prep sessions. In the last two weeks, we looked at the difference between purchases and licenses. This is of vital importance as a major bit of cyberlaw plays out in the Ninth Circuit, namely the next stages of MDY v. Blizzard, Vernor v. Autodesk, and UMG v. Augusto. Today seems like an excellent time to review the case of MDY v. Blizzard, as we've covered the other two a bit. My source for this history will be the excellent collection of files at Justicia.com, which includes all documents filed in the district court of Arizona in this case. Let's get started!
Second Life content creator reports infringement, gets suspended [updated]
With the lawsuit pending against Linden Lab, you'd think now would be a pretty poor time for them to mess up on handling IP rights infringement. You'd think that, wouldn't you? Second Life user and content-creator, RobbyRacoon Olmstead, recently discovered one of his items had apparently been duplicated in infringement of his creator-rights. He obtained one of the copies, verified the matter to his satisfaction, and reported the matter to Linden Lab who suspended Olmstead's account the following day. Seriously, how much worse could the Lab have mucked that one up?
Breanni of WarcraftPets.com closes store, posts apology to Blizzard
The amazing Breanni of WarcraftPets.com, once loved so much by Blizzard that he got immortalized in the game, has apparently gotten another of Blizzard's C&Ds. First, we saw iPhone apps pulled off of the App Store with what seemed like legal action, and then we heard that webcomic Shakes and Fidget was contacted by Blizzard legal, and now Breanni has pulled down his merchandise store, as well as posted a "formal apology" to Blizzard. Breanni doesn't say exactly what happened, but he says that he "became aware" that what he was selling was violating Blizzard's trademark policy, and calls the store a "lapse in judgment," and says that he hopes to "continue to recieve Blizzard's blessing." It's almost like hearing one side of the conversation -- we don't know what Blizzard said to him (if anything), but he definitely sounds spooked.This is a slightly different issue from the other C&Ds we've seen -- Breanni was making money from selling what we presume were actual images of Blizzard's copyrights and trademarks, so a store like that is pretty plainly in violation of copyright law (Mania's Pets calendar, for example, uses fan art rather than actual screenshots). But what's interesting here is, if they did contact him, why Blizzard has decided to do this now, and why they've only moved against Breanni. There are certainly lots of other places to find Blizzard art printed on products for sale. We're not suggesting that Blizzard should just let it all go, obviously, but why now?We've had requests for comment out to Blizzard ever since the first few iPhone apps were pulled off of the App Store about all of this recent C&D action, and we've added this one to the stack. If we hear anything back from them, we'll let you know.[Thanks, John E!]
