Jan.-Feb. 2012 Quick Links, Part 1 (Copyright Edition)

By Eric Goldman


* The inside story of Veoh’s destruction:

The company that we had built, that was once valued at over $130 Million was gone. Along with it went the livelihoods of over 120 people and their families, $70 million of money entrusted to us by investors, and a big part of me. I had sacrificed so much to live the life of an entrepreneur. My marriage couldn’t stand the strain of this lifestyle and ended in 2009, and while all of this was going on, my father was dying. Instead of spending time with him at his bedside, I was sitting in depositions with lawyers, and stressing over the lawsuit.

Prior blog posts on Veoh, including the post on UMG v. Shelter Capital, where I wrote: “This case’s real result is that Veoh is legal, but Veoh is dead—killed by rightsowner lawfare that bled it dry.”

* Oracle rejected the $272M remittitur in Oracle v. SAP. GOBOGH! Prior blog post.

* The district court refused a preliminary injunction in Capitol v. ReDigi involving the resale of “used” digital tracks.

* Obodai v. YouTube LLC, 2011 WL 6880734 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2011). Pro se copyright lawsuit against YouTube tossed because the copyrights weren’t properly registered before suit. Obodai has appealed to the Second Circuit.

* Personal Keepsake Inc. v. Personalizationmall.com. an interesting ruling on 17 USC 1202 (copyright management information). Rebecca’s blog post.

* Hollywood Reporter: More details on Warner’s takedown systems and the 1M takedown notices it sent to Hotfile.

* Hollywood Reporter: Universal Music May Have Inadvertently Exposed a Flaw in the YouTube Takedown Process.

* Maximized Living v Google, the funky 17 USC 512(h) case, has been appealed. Prior blog post.

* Arena v Doe complaint: Harassed women claim Google isn’t honoring DMCA takedown notices.

* Lawyers sue Lexis/Westlaw for copyright infringement for republishing their legal filings and briefs. See this WSJ May 2006 blog post on the topic.

* Scientific publications are gearing up for a copyright litigation frenzy against patent applicants who cite the articles in their patent applications and may be keeping copies of the articles in their files. The Patent Office’s position that such copies are fair use.

* Slate on the (copyrightable?) judgments made when making a map.

* Sean Flaim, Copyright Conspiracy: How the New Copyright Alert System May Violate The Sherman Act. Prior blog post.

* Mick Haig case results in more sanctions and attorneys’ fees.

* Stephen Fairey pleads guilty to criminal contempt for covering up that he relied on the AP photo when creating the Obama Hope poster.

* Fraserside IP L.L.C. v. Hammy Media, Ltd., 2012 WL 124378 (N.D. Iowa Jan. 17, 2012). No jurisdiction in Iowa over xHamster, a Cyprus-based porn website: “xHamster has no offices in Iowa, no employees in Iowa, no telephone number in Iowa, and no agent for service of process in Iowa. xHamster does not advertise in Iowa. No xHamster officer or director has ever visited Iowa. xHamster does not maintain any of its servers within Iowa. All of xHamster’s servers are located outside of the United States.”

* Perfect 10, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 2012 WL 685778 (Mem) (U.S. March 5, 2012). Supreme Court declined Perfect 10’s cert petition seeking an injunction against Google. Prior blog post.

* C-360/10, Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers (SABAM) v Netlog NV:

The owner of an online social network cannot be obliged to install a general filtering system, covering all its users, in order to prevent the unlawful use of musical and audio-visual work…Such an injunction would result in a serious infringement of Netlog’s freedom to conduct its business since it would require Netlog to install a complicated, costly, permanent computer system at its own expense.


* Righthaven.com sold at auction for $3,300.

* Characteristically hypocritical whining from Righthaven about unfair litigation tactics.

* Nevada State Bar has opened an inquiry into three Righthaven attorneys.

* Righthaven v. Kelleher (D. Nev. Jan. 13, 2012): “Buried in a footnote of Plaintiff’s response to the Court’s order to show cause is Plaintiff’s admission that sixteen (16) months after filing the Complaint (#1) in this action and after conducting little to no discovery, it has still not located the written assignment covering the work at issue in the Complaint.”

* Righthaven v. Eiser (D.S.C. Jan. 13, 2012). Another court, this time in South Carolina and involving a MediaNews asset, rules that Righthaven lacked standing due to a failed copyright ownership assignment and awards attorneys’ fees. In Righthaven, LLC v. Eiser, 2012 WL 527569 (D.S.C. Feb. 16, 2012), the judge approved the magistrate report.

* Righthaven v. Computer Services One (D. Nev. March 1, 2012). Yet another judge in Nevada says Righthaven lacks standing.

* Righthaven’s purported copyrights are going to auction. I’m trying to decide which one to bid on!