Record Label Sues Google and Microsoft for Linking to Infringing Music–Blues Destiny v. Google
…assault by suing RapidShare (theoretically eligible for 512(c) for hosting the infringing files) and the search engines, who are putatively covered by 512(d) for linking to infringing files (although this…
Another Copyright Owner Doesn’t Like 512(c)…and Thinks an Anti-Copying Filter is Copyright Infringing–Scott v. Scribd
…wildly misdirected. The 512(c) Assault With respect to 512(c) assault, the plaintiff doesn’t bring much new to the party. If 17 USC 512(c) preempts all flavors of copyright infringement (both…
Making Sense of the $32M Contributory Trademark Infringement Judgment Against a Web Host–Louis Vuitton v. Akanoc
…more expansive trademark take-down requests than I would in the copyright realm where 512(c)(3) spells out the specific requirements for a proper notice. In that respect, then, I think the…
Veoh Gets Yet Another Terrific 512 Defense Win–UMG v. Veoh
…are identical, and (2) in ccBill, the Ninth Circuit held that the 512(c) words “direct financial benefit”–immediately adjacent to “right and ability to control” in 512(c)–should be interpreted the same…
Biosafe-One v. Hawks Dismissed
…512(c)(3) notices to defendant’s host to get the defendant’s website offline. In the previous ruling, the court enjoined the plaintiff from issuing more 512(c)(3) notices during the litigation pendency–an extraordinary…
June 2009 Quick Links, Part 1
…contributory infringement, vicarious infringement and inducement of infringement. This case was colored by defendants’ evidence spoliation and the lack of a viable 512 defense; in situations like this, courts smack…
Takedown Notice Sent to Parent Doesn’t Affect Subsidiary’s 512(c) Defense–Perfect 10 v. Amazon
…to 512(c)(3) takedown notices, concluding that: 1) The 512(c)(3) notices sent to the parent Amazon did not confer knowledge to the subsidiary A9. 2) The November 2008 notice sent to…
Michael Savage Takedown Letter Might Violate 512(f)–Brave New Media v. Weiner
…responsibility between the principal and rogue agent. Savage’s second argument is that the takedown letter was not a 512(c)(3) notice and therefore did not satisfy 512(f)’s statutory requirements. For an…
Q1 2009 Quick Links, Part 2
…Corp. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 2009 WL 928077 (S.D.N.Y. March 12, 2009). 17 USC 512(f) does not cover trademark takedown notices. * Suarez Corp. v. Earthwise, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS…
Q1 2009 Quick Links, Part 1 (Copyright Edition)
…No 512(f) claim for any takedown notices that the service provider ignores. From a policy standpoint, this is completely screwed up–takedown notices ignored by the service provider pose the greatest…