Source: http://www.dmlp.org/content-type/audio
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 14:29:46+00:00

Document:
ACE Broadcasting Network, LLC; Lotzi Digital, Inc.
In 1996, James Logan applied for a patent for an "an audio program and message distribution system in which a host system organizes and transmits program segments to client subscriber locations." This patent-now held through Logan's company, Personal Audio-was issued in 2001, though the device described was never created. Logan applied for another patent, frequently referred to as the "podcast patent," in 2009. As issued in February 2012, this patent (No. 8,112,504) described a similar audio program and message distribution system, modified and described in more detail to better reflect contemporary podcasting.
In the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on January 7, 2013, Personal Audio filed a complaint against ACE Broadcasting Network for infringement of its 2012 patent, No. 8,112,504. In the complaint, Personal Audio alleged that ACE Broadcasting infringed on the '504 patent by providing several podcasts, including "The Adam Carolla Show" podcast. Personal Audio argues that in these podcasts, ACE Broadcasting "uses servers, data storage and other Internet hardware and software in a manner that directly and literally infringes" the claim describing the apparatus for disseminating podcast episodes online. In the alternative, Personal Audio argued that even if ACE Broadcasting's podcasts were not literally infringing, patent infringment should still be found under the doctrine of equivalents.
Personal Audio amended its complaint on May 10, 2013 to "name the correct entities with respect to patent infringement." Personal Audio's substantive arguments remained the same, while the named defendants were amended to include those parties Personal Audio believed responsible for "The Adam Corolla Show": Lotzi Digital, Inc. and a partnership including ACE Broadcasting.
On July 10, 2013, Lotzi Digital filed its answer, asserting no infringement, literal or otherwise. Among its defenses, Lotzi Digital argued that the '504 patent is invalid under Patent Act sections 101 (subject matter), 102 (novelty), 103 (obviousness), and/or 112 (disclosure and enablement). Under these same theories, Lotzi Digital counterclaimed for a declaration that the '504 patent is invalid.
In response to this suit, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has started a campaign to "save podcasting" and has partnered with Harvard's Cyberlaw Clinic to investigate the '504 patent, including research of prior art that may invalidate the patent.
This American Life: When Patents Attack... Part Two!
On January 5, 2012, a grand jury convened in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia issued an indictment against Megaupload Limited, its affiliate Vestor Limited, and principals Kim Dotcom (a resident of New Zealand and Hong Kong, and a citizen of Finland and Germany), Finn Batato (a citizen of Germany), Julius Bencko (a citizen of Slovakia), Sven Echternach (a citizen of Germany), Mathias Ortmann (a citizen of Germany and a resident of Hong Kong), Adrus Nomm (a citizen of Estonia), and Bram van der Kolk (a citizen of the Netherlands and New Zealand).
The indictment alleges that the organization and its principals were engaged in a systematic conspiracy to commit and profit from copyright infringement, through operation of the megaupload.com domain name and its affiliates, including megavideo.com. According to the indictment, before its seizure, Megaupload operated as a "cyberlocker" or file hosting service website, where users were able to upload content to Megaupload servers and receive a unique URL which identified where the file could be downloaded later. Megaupload did not charge users for the basic service, and offered a premium subscription that featured faster bandwidth and fewer limitations on accessing the content stored. The website also featured an "Uploader Rewards" program, which gave monetary compensation for users that uploaded especially popular files to the system. Specific allegations are made stating that the defendants directly copied material without permission, helped others commit copyright infringement, received a direct financial benefit from infringement, and induced others to commit copyright infringement.
The indictment lists five criminal counts, all related to the underlying allegation of criminal copyright infringement. In addition to criminal copyright infringement (17 U.S.C. §506 and 18 U.S.C. § 2319), the indictment alleges conspiracy to commit racketeering (18 U.S.C. § 1962) by being engaged in an enterprise to commit criminal copyright infringement, conspiracy to commit money laundering (18 U.S.C. § 1956) by transferring money that constituted the proceeds of criminal copyright infringement, and aiding and abetting criminal copyright infringement (18 U.S.C. § 2). The indictment alleges that Megaupload did not designate a copyright agent, as is required under the "safe harbor" of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 512), and that Megaupload would deliberately avoid taking down an allegedly infringing file based on a infringement notice, opting instead to only delete the link to the file on which the complaint was based.
According to the New Zealand Herald, Dotcom, Batato, van der Kolk, and Ortmann were arrested on January 19, 2012. On January 27, 2012, the Department of Justice filed a letter informing the defendants and the court that the DOJ had conducted a search of Megaupload service providers Carpathia Hosting, Inc. and Cogent Communications, Inc. in Virginia and the District of Columbia. The DOJ had copied the files from servers licensed to Megaupload, and informed the court that the hosting companies may begin deleting the contents of those servers beginning on February 2nd. On February 1, 2012, the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a letter to the parties and the court on behalf of an undisclosed client, asking the court to preserve the material stored by Megaupload at the direction of the website's users, noting that many individuals had relied on the service for innocent, noninfringing storage of content. According to a Twitter post made by Megaupload Limited's attorney, the hosting services have agreed to temporarily preserve the servers until an agreement can be reached on how to preserve the material stored at the direction of innocent users.
The extradition process is currently underway for defendants arrested in New Zealand. According to BBC News, Mr. Dotcom was denied bail based on flight risk concerns.
Glenn Greenwald, Two Lessons from the Megaupload Seizure, Salon.com, Jan. 21, 2012.
David Kravets, Megaupload Server Purge Delayed, Wired Threat Level, Jan 31, 2012.
Greg Melus, MegaUpload: Application of U.S. Justice to the Internet, American University Intellectual Property Brief, Jan. 31, 2012.
Sean Gallagher, Megaupload Case Gets Weirder with Gun Charges, Flight Risks, and an Inflatable Tank, Ars Technica, Jan. 28, 2012.
Electronic Frontier Foundation, Megaupload Users Deserve Their Data Back, Feb. 2, 2012.
1/25 AFS began skeleto, filled out 2/6.
Tell Us, Judge Posner, Who Watches the Watchmen?
Read more about Tell Us, Judge Posner, Who Watches the Watchmen?
The draconian penalties for illegal downloaders under the U.S. Copyright Act were intended not just for commercial pirates, but for consumer-level infringers, the First Circuit ruled last week.

References: §506
 § 2319
 § 1962
 § 1956
 § 2
 § 512