Copyright Infringment Lawyer, Internet Defamation, and Internet Privacy

Viacom v. YouTube: SDNY Rules DMCA’s “Actual Knowledge” Requires Specific Knowledge of Infringement

The Southern District of New York has issued a widely anticipated decision in the Viacom v. YouTube case, specifically, summary judgment in favor of YouTube.  For those unfamiliar with this case, Viacom sought $1 billion in damages for YouTube’s contributory and direct copyright infringement.  Viacom alleged that YouTube had actual knowledge of general acts of infringement on its video upload service.  In rebuttal, YouTube contended that it could not be held liable for contributory copyright infringement (or direct copyright infringement) because it removed infringing content from its website when notified of specific offenses by content holders.  Further, YouTube also adopted a policy to ban users from the service after three offenses.

Internet Libel Law Analysis | Anonymous Online Speakers v. US Dist. Court

Defamation on the internet is often perpetrated by an anonymous author. When the 'speaker' is anonymous, the first internet libel law issue that the attorney and client face is trying to identify who to sue.  Typically, the attorney will file a "John Doe" lawsuit for libel and ask toe Court to issue a subpoena to the web host, web site owner or ISP to identify the person who posted the alleged defamatory statement so the defendant can be named.

Following is an analysis of the Ninth Circuit Court’s (Court) handling for the internet law issue of whether to compel the identification of anonymous Internet speakers that was raised in the case of Quixtar v. Signature Management Team. The instant case is Anonymous Online Speakers v. United States Dist. Court for the Dist. of Nevada Reno (In re Anonymous Online Speakers), 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 14166 (9th Cir. Nev. July 12, 2010).

A previous post on internet libel law outlining the background for this Ninth Circuit opinion can be found here: Ninth Circuit Lowers the Standard for Identifying Anonymous Internet Speakers.

Internet Lawyer Alert: Ninth Circuit Lowers the Standard for Identifying Anonymous Internet Speakers

The problem of identifying who wrote that vicious article, blog post or comment is a thorny one for anyone who has experienced defamation of character on the internet first hand.  In deciding whether to grant a petition and/or cross-petition for a writ of mandamus the Ninth Circuit rejected application of the high-bar it had previously set with the Cahill standard for deciding whether to compel the identification of anonymous Internet speakers.  This decision has implications for clients who have been the object of libel by an unknown author, on the internet.

Internet Libel Cases | Cozy Kittens Owners Initiate Online Libel Lawsuit

Internet Defamation got you down?  The owners behind the Cozy Kittens website, depicting absolutely adorable and exotic purebreds and crossbreeds of Persian and Himalayan cats, have been struggling in a fight to remove allegedly defamatory and libelous posts and comments about their cattery business from a consumer review website.

The online defamation case is in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit, Johnson v. Arden, 2010 WL 3023660 (8th Cir. August 4, 2010). Susan and Robert Johnson who own and operate Cozy Kittens Cattery, LLC, brought  this internet libel lawsuit against: the consumer review site www.ComplaintsBoard.com, two alleged publishers Elizabeth Arden and Michelle Reitenger, and two ComplaintsBoard users who comment on a complaint thread post about the Johnsons’ exotic Persian and Himalayan cattery business.

The Johnsons’ complaint alleges against all six defendants: injurious falsehood, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; and trademark infringement against Heineman in particular for his use of the Johnsons’ ‘COZY KITTENS’ trademark in the phrase "Cozy Kittens and Cuddly Cats" on used on his competing website www.BoutiqueKittens.com.

Terms of Service Lawyer | Court Rules No Liability for Internet Service Provider

The District Court for the Northern District of California granted motion to dismiss without leave to amend in Williams v. Life’s Rad and Cafepress.com, 2010 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 46763 (N.D. Cal. 2010) after finding that Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

In this case, CafePress.com provides goods and services over the internet which allows users, also known as shopkeepers, to upload their custom-made designs to be printed on merchandise, also offered by CafePress, such as t-shirts, posters, coffee mugs and other merchandise.  Shopkeepers then sell their custom-made merchandise on the internet through online shops, also provided by CafePress.  The Plaintiff and Defendant Life’s Rad are shopkeepers on the CafePress site.  The Defendant ,Life’s Rad,  notified CafePress of the Plaintiff’s use of the terms “Life is Rad” to sell his merchandise and that such use infringed its trademark rights in the mark LIFE’S RAD.  In accordance with their Terms of Use agreement, after confirming the trademark registration, CafePress removed infringing material from the alleged infringer's online shopping site in compliance with its shopkeeper and terms of service agreements, which authorizes CafePress to prohibit the sale of goods that it believes “infringes the rights of a third party, including, without limitation, copyrights [and] trademarks,”.  Plaintiff, acting pro se, filed suit against Defendants Life’s Rad and Cafepress.com (CaféPress) alleging that Defendants had violated the DMCA, Lanham Act, his constitutional right to due process, and engaged in unfair competition.

The court ultimately concluded that the Plaintiff failed to state a claim and that the complaint could not be cured by amendment.  Read the court's reasoning below:

Stored Communications Act Prohibits Service Providers from Divulging Electronically Stored Information to Third-Parties

In Crispin v. Audigier Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52832 (C.D. Cal. May 26, 2010) the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ruled that third-party civil discovery subpoenas issued to Web mail service providers and providers of social networking services is unenforceable under the Stored Communications Act.

The Crispin decision is worth looking at because the court promulgated an extensive analysis of the applicability of the Stored Communications Act (SCA) to recent technologies including web mail and social networking sites (ex: Facebook). It is important to note that the SCA was drafted before these technologies were in mainstream use and as such this court’s handling of the SCA can be likened to the historical handling by the U.S. legislature and the U.S. judicial system of the interaction between other developing technologies and aging rules and regulations.

District Court Ruling Reinforces Recent Trend in Caselaw Suggesting Internet Users Have No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Concerning Their ISP

Another district court has delivered a ruling that follows a pattern of similar rulings holding that an internet user does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy concerning subscriber information conveyed to a third party (the Internet Service Provider (ISP)).

This most recent case is Worldwide Film Entertainment, LLC v. Does 1-749, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47238 (D.D.C., May 13, 2010). A PDF of the full ruling is can be found here courtesy of Docs.Justia.com.

In this case Plaintiff Worldwide Film Entertainment, LLC., served a subpoena upon an internet user’s ISP in another multi-defendant copyright infringement allegation alleging the internet user is liable for copyright infringement. Allegedly, the user (and the other Defendants in the suit) downloaded Plaintiff’s copyrighted movies without authorization.