HHR New Media, Entertainment and Technology Group

As we recently reported here, a  new Internet-connected software application, called “ivi tv”, was just released 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. Unlike other online content distributors, however, the start-up recently confirmed that it has elected not to negotiate 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 (see Section 111).

As we suspected, the response from the entertainment community has been swift, and the company has since received a barrage of cease and desist letters from television networks, movie studios, sports leagues, broadcasters, syndicators and others in the entertainment industry alleging that the operation of the service as currently conducted amounts to copyright infringement. In response, the company has now filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in Seattle district court alleging that by complying with the Act’s compulsory licensing scheme in Section 111 “it has not infringed any of the copyrights owned by the any of the Defendants.”

We will obviously keep an eye on future developments as this complaint now moves its way through the court system and the entertainment industry’s forthcoming response.

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 »

News reports in recent weeks have revealed how disputes over the ownership of certain critical IP may derail eBay’s $1.9 billion deal to sell a stake in the well-known internet communications company Skype.  In the latest development companies owned by the founders of Skype filed additional lawsuits last week against eBay and its future investors. At the heart of the dispute is the peer-to-peer technology called “global index” (“GI”) that is critical to Skype’s success.  Somewhat surprisingly, the GI technology, which was developed by Skype’s founders, Janus Friis and Niklas Zennstrom, is not owned by eBay or Skype.  Rather it is owned by Joltid Ltd., a company controlled by Friis and Zennstrom.  Continue Reading »

Since Facebook launched its Facebook Usernames initiative in mid-June, over 6 million unique individuals have registered usernames for their personal profiles, and over 15,000 usernames have been registered for Facebook Pages as well, which are commonly used by businesses and other organizations.  In many ways, the program looks like a proprietary domain name registration system.  However, when we read that Facebook is claiming ownership over every username, an assertion attributed to a company spokesman, we realized that Facebook is not acting like a domain name registrar.  We also wondered about the legal basis of such a claim.

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 »