Tag: dmca

UMG v Veoh: US appeal court sides with Veoh in appealUMG v Veoh: US appeal court sides with Veoh in appeal



Last week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals released a revised opinion in the Veoh Networks caseUMG Recordings v Shelter Capital Partners No. 09—55902 (9th.Cir. Marc. 14, 2013), superseding the earlier opinion, UMG Recordings v Shelter Capital Partners LLC, 101 U.S.P.Q.2d 1001 (9th.Cir. 2011). The decision reviewed the scope of the DMCA hosting safe harbor finding it applicable on the facts of the case to the Veoh Networks video sharing site.

In the original decision the Ninth Circuit made three important rulings with respect to the scope of the DMCA hosting safe harbor:

  • The safe harbor can cover use by service providers of an automated process for transcoding and making files accessible.

Change and the Copyright Modernization ActChange and the Copyright Modernization Act



Bill C-11, the Copyright Modernization Act, with a few exceptions, is now law with the publication of the Governor General Order in Council. The fourth attempt to amend the Copyright Act since 2005 succeeded where Bills C-60 (2005), C-61 (2008), and C-32 (2010) did not.

A lot has changed since 2005 when Bill C-60 was first introduced. That Bill would have made a limited, but important, set of amendments. Its summary reminds us that it would have amended the “Copyright Act to implement the provisions of the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, to clarify the liability of network service providers, to facilitate technology-enhanced learning and interlibrary loans, and to update certain other provisions of the Act.” 

Developments in Computer, Internet and E-Commerce Law (2011-2012)Developments in Computer, Internet and E-Commerce Law (2011-2012)



Here are the slides used in my presentation to the Toronto Computer Lawyers Group earlier today, The Year in Review: Developments in Computer, Internet and E-Commerce Law (2011-2012). It covers significant developements since my talk last spring, Developments in Computer, Internet and E-Commerce Law (2010-2011).

The slides include a summary of the following cases:

Kraft Real Estate Investments, LLC v Homeway.com, Inc. 2012 WL 220271 (D.S.Car. Jan 24, 2012)

Swift v. Zynga Game Network, Inc., 805 F.Supp.2d

Cyberlockers, social media sites and copyright liabilityCyberlockers, social media sites and copyright liability



2011 was the year US copyright law was put to the test confronting whether cyberlockers and social media sites are liable for infringements contributed to by these sites. Some sites, like myVidster (see here also) Megaupload, Hotfile, and MP3tunes suffered set backs or losses in the US courts. Others, like Visible Technologies the operator of the myxer.com social radio website and most recentlyVeoh Networks were more successful, at least so far.

Despite all of this litigation, key issues are still being litigated and perhaps will only be settled in the US Supreme Court.

Some observations on Bill C-11: The Copyright Modernization ActSome observations on Bill C-11: The Copyright Modernization Act



Last Thursday the Government of Canada introduced into the House of Commons Bill C-11, an Act to Amend the Copyright Act. In a press release describing the Bill, Heritage Minister James Moore and Industry Minister Christian Paradis, stated that the Bill will ensure that Canada’s copyright laws “are modern, flexible, and in line with current international standards” and will “protect and help create jobs, promote innovation, and attract new investment to Canada.”

In the press conference announcing the Bill at the Ottawa office of software producer bitHeads Inc.,

Are the TPM provisions in C-32 more restrictive than those in the DMCA?Are the TPM provisions in C-32 more restrictive than those in the DMCA?



The US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has revised its opinion in the MGE UPS Systems Inc. v. GE Consumer and Industrial Inc. 2010 WL 3769210 (5th.Cir. Sept. 29, 2010)  case  withdrawing entirely the discussion of whether a copyright violation is a prerequisite for a violation of DMCA Section 1201(a). Instead, it affirmed the dismissal of the DMCA claim solely on the lack of proof that any GE/PMI employee actually circumvented the access control TPM and because the DMCA TPM prohibitions do not apply to “using the software after some other party disabled the code requiring a” TPM.

MGE v GE-what did the 5th Circuit decide about the scope of the DMCA TPM provisions and was it right?MGE v GE-what did the 5th Circuit decide about the scope of the DMCA TPM provisions and was it right?



Last week, the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit released a controversial decision interpreting Section 1201(a) of the DMCA in MGE UPS Inc v GE Consumer and Industrial, Inc. 2010 WL 2820006 (5th Cir.2010). Prof. Geist has suggested that the case decided that the “DMCA is limited to guarding access controls only to the extent that circumvention would violate the copyright rights of the copyright owner.” His summary of the case is neither accurate nor complete. Here’s why.