HHR New Media, Entertainment and Technology Group

Cablevision can move forward with its plans to move its digital video recording service into the cloud, thanks to the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the broadcast industry’s appeal of a decision granting summary judgment in favor of Cablevision.

While consumer DVRs have been used for years, Cablevision sought to launch a service for the remote storage of shows recorded by consumers.  Cablevision’s argument in favor of such service was that, as long as consumers were still in control of the recording, playback and deletion process, the location of the hard drive on which the content was stored didn’t matter.  Broadcasters disagreed, however, claiming that by archiving and retransmitting the content, Cablevision was engaging in copyright infringement. Continue Reading »

Click here to subscribe to digitalhhr.

• The Performance Rights Act, which was approved by the House Judiciary Committee on May 13th, would levy fees on broadcasters for airing artists’ recordings. An indication of the heat generated by the debate over the PRA emerged this week when the musicFIRST Coalition, however, filed a complaint asking the FCC to investigate whether radio stations have been boycotting artists that support the PRA. The coalition’s filing accuses broadcasters of airing deceptive spots by portraying the proposed royalty as a “tax” and not airing musicFIRST’s own paid ad endorsements. While musicFIRST did not identify any specific station or broadcaster withholding airplay, the coalition alleged that several stations have refused to play an artist’s music based on his or her remarks or affiliation with endorsing the legislation. Spokesman Marty Machowsky said it would only identify specifics if the FCC initiates the proceeding and agrees to keep the information confidential. Continue Reading »

If you are designing or developing a video game that depicts this planet or any other fictional world, then you need a pair of trained legal eyes to review the people, places, products and things that will be featured in the game. Go it alone, and you are traveling down a windy road that intersects with copyright, trademark, privacy law and the First Amendment, where the case law is complex, the rulings are inconsistent, and the outcome may ultimately depend on the jurisdiction. Make one mistake and you will find yourself staring down a lawsuit before your game title moves a thousand copies. Whether the lawsuit is filed by the owner of a popular destination who thinks you stole the “look and feel” of his establishment (see E.S.S. Entertainment 2000, Inc. v. Rock Star Videos, Inc., 2008 WL 4791705 (9th Cir. 2008)) or the lead singer of a retro-funk dance group who claims a character in your game wears the same clothing and resembles her (see Kirby v. Sega of America, Inc., 144 Cal.App.4th 47 (2006)), video game profits have caught the world’s attention, and, as in all things, success leads to lawsuits. Continue Reading »

Click here to receive regular updates and articles.

• The New York Times, owners of Boston.com, and GateHouse Media agreed on the eve of trial to settle their copyright lawsuit.  As part of the settlement, the complete details of which aren’t available, the headlines and first sentences from GateHouse articles will be removed from listings on Boston.com, although Boston.com will continue to link to GateHouse.  While the settlement appears to be a victory for GateHouse, some are questioning whether GateHouse’s objections to the content in the links made business sense as Boston.com was sending traffic to GateHouse.  The new restrictions may cause Boston.com to think twice about doing that in the future.  Other smaller media and content sites may want to consider these ramifications in raising similar issues.  Read here for more on the dispute.
• Controversy is already brewing at the President’s virtual home regarding privacy issues.  In what some called a “YouTube exemption” to the privacy policy at WhiteHouse.gov, YouTube was apparently permitted to plant tracking cookies on the computers of visitors to the White House site.  When objections were raised, the policy was quickly amended to limit the placement of cookies only on machines that actually click on the video.  The debate seems to point to the tricky nature of balancing the optimal privacy policy with the transparency of the actual terms of that policy.   More on the issue is here.
• In what may be the first of its kind corporate policy, Ireland’s largest ISP, Eircom, has agreed to implement a “three strikes and you’re shut down” policy for P2P file sharers.  The policy is the result of a settlement in a lawsuit against Eircom that was broght by the Irish branches of EMI, Warner, Universal and Sony.  While the concept of a graduated response has been debated before (it was actually specifically rejected by the European Parliament last year), Eircom now appears to be set to be the first ISP in the world to voluntarily cut off P2P users without court orders.    For more on this issue, read here.
• North Carolina joins a list of states now considering charging sales tax on digital downloads to help raise revenue for the state – a move that could deter customers who are already facing tough times.  More details here.
• In a move that is being widely criticized, Cox Communications, the third-largest cable company, has announced plans to test a system to manage Internet congestion by rating traffic based on its urgency and importance.   Coincidentally, Google released a new set of tools to enable users to find out if their ISPs are hindering traffic.  Read here for more.

One copyright case that owners and licensors of digital content should be following closely in the coming months is the one brought against Universal Music Group by Stephanie Lenz, a Pennsylvania mom who posted a video on YouTube of her young son on a tricycle with Prince’s “Let’s Go Crazy” playing in the background. Universal submitted a DMCA takedown notice claiming that the video infringed its copyright in the Prince song. YouTube immediately removed Lenz’s video.  Lenz was able to get it restored seven weeks after filing a DMCA counter-notification asserting that her video constituted fair use of the song. Lenz then sued Universal for interfering with her legal right to post the video online. Continue Reading »