HHR New Media, Entertainment and Technology Group

A new Internet-connected software application, called “ivi tv”  http://www.ivi.tv/, was released this week that allows pc, mac and linux end users to stream live feeds from over-the-air television stations to their computers anywhere in the world, including feeds from ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, PBS, Telemundo, Univision and others. The small Seattle-based start-up behind the service, Ivi, Inc., currently charges user $4.99 a month for access, with the option to add DVR functionality for an extra 99 cents, and plans to expand the service to mobile devices and other platforms in the coming months.

Unlike other online content distributors, the start-up has allegedly sidestepped negotiating with the copyright holders for the license of its programming, and has instead elected to wager its future on a seemingly liberal interpretation of certain provisions of the Copyright Act (the “Act”), which permit qualifying “cable systems” to rebroadcast over-the-air television signals upon the payment of certain statutorily mandated revenues. Specifically, the Act’s compulsory licensing scheme (see Section 111) allows cable systems to carry distant broadcast signals while compensating copyright owners for the public performance of their works, without the transaction costs associated with marketplace negotiations for the carriage of copyrighted programs, and instead requires that the cable system remit a fixed portion of their revenues for the retransmission of such programming to the copyright holders. Based on statements from ivi, Inc.’s management, the company has already taken steps to comply with the requirements under Act, and is apparently taking the position that its service does, in fact, qualify as a “cable system”. Continue Reading »

Over the last year, we’ve been following the recent trends in Europe regarding “three strikes” legislation, where end-users may be subject to sanction by their ISPs for repeated acts of copyright infringement.  Following passage of the first such law in France last fall, the United Kingdom followed suit in early 2010 with passage of the Digital Economy Act.  While it is too early to say with certainty whether the laws will achieve their stated goal of deterring and ultimately reducing infringement, the debate surrounding these laws and early experience under their enforcement schemes provides insight into whether or not “deputizing” ISPs to police piracy will become more prevalent or whether yet another approach will need to be devised to protect content owners. Continue Reading »

In a previous post, we discussed “The Secure Federal File Sharing Act” (H.R. 4098), a bill introduced in the House that was aimed to improve security in federal computing by barring federal employees and contractors from downloading, installing, or using peer-to-peer (P2P) software absent prior official approval.  The House ultimately passed this bill on March 24, 2010.  On June 14, 2010, Senators Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and Robert F. Bennett (R-UT) introduced a companion bill under the same name in the Senate (S. 3484).  This bill has been referred to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.  Continue Reading »

Since our last post on net neutrality, the debate has focused on the administrative questions as to who will set the guidelines for internet regulations and how those regulations will be implemented.  Since the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled that the FCC did not have the authority to regulate Comcast’s network management practices under Title I of the Communications Act, as predicted, the Commission has sought alternative ways to reclassify broadband services in order to extend regulatory authority over ISPs under the Act.   Last week, by a 3-2 vote, the FCC moved one step closer to reclassifying broadband to reestablish authority over ISPs.  In its meeting, the FCC released a Notice of Inquiry to seek comment on the proposed changes for broadband regulation.  Continue Reading »

Over the last year, social networking sites, most notably those with a developer platform such as Facebook, have become hotbeds for virtual goods purchases, social gaming, sweepstakes and advertising-based promotions.  Many of these are based on custom-designed and developed third party applications and widgets, which are veritable revenue drivers for the platform operators.  Several months ago Apple modified the terms for its iPhone application development agreement (via an amendment to the iPhone SDK terms)  to specifically permit app-based contests and sweepstakes.  Specifically, Apple added the following language: “Your Application may include promotional sweepstakes or contest functionality provided that You are the sole sponsor of the promotion and that You and Your Application comply with any applicable laws.” However, questions have arisen regarding the legality of running these games and promotions via such applications and platforms.  At their core, these questions focus on the legal distinctions between lotteries, contests and sweepstakes, distinctions that could mean the difference between a highly successful promotion and a high-profile legal headache. Continue Reading »