Source: http://www.techlawjournal.com/alert/2005/06/28.asp
Timestamp: 2016-12-04 06:05:02
Document Index: 255237660

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 501', '§ 216', '§ 216', '§ 628', '§ 1681', '§ 1681']

June 28, 2005, 9:00 AM ET, Alert No. 1,163.
17 U.S.C. § 501. They alleged contributory and vicarious infringement. In addition, professional songwriters and music publishers filed a class action complaint against the same defendants alleging contributory and vicarious infringement. The two actions were consolidated. No individual infringers are parties in these actions.
The Supreme Court wrote that "MGM's evidence gives reason to think that the vast majority of users' downloads are acts of infringement, and because well over 100 million copies of the software in question are known to have been downloaded, and billions of files are shared across the FastTrack and Gnutella networks each month, the probable scope of copyright infringement is staggering."
The Supreme Court also addressed its early opinion in Sony at length. It held in Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984), that the "sale of video cassette recorders (``VCR´´s) did not subject Sony to contributory copyright liability, even though Sony knew as a general matter that the machines could be used, and were being used, to infringe the plaintiffs' copyrighted works. Because video tape recorders were capable of both infringing and ``substantial noninfringing uses,´´ generic or ``constructive´´ knowledge of infringing activity was insufficient to warrant liability based on the mere retail of Sony’s products."
Sony's limitation to mean that whenever a product is capable of substantial lawful use, the producer can never be held contributorily liable for third parties. infringing use of it; it read the rule as being this broad, even when an actual purpose to cause infringing use is shown by evidence independent of design and distribution of the product, unless the distributors had .specific knowledge of infringement at a time at which they contributed to the infringement, and failed to act upon that information´´... Because the Circuit found the StreamCast and Grokster software capable of substantial lawful use, it concluded on the basis of its reading of Sony that neither company could be held liable, since there was no showing that their software, being without any central server, afforded them knowledge of specific unlawful uses."
6/27. Numerous persons reacted to the Supreme Court's
opinion [55 pages in PDF] in MGM v. Grokster, reversing the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir) regarding copyright infringement and the distributors of peer to peer (P2P) systems.
The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Office of the Solicitor General previously filed a
brief urging the Supreme Court to reverse the 9th Circuit.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the Chairman of the SJC's Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, offered slight praise for the Supreme Court. He wrote in a
release that "Authors, artists and producers can breathe a little easier today knowing their works are a little safer."
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the ranking Democrat on the SJC, stated in a
release that "This decision means that companies can no longer, with a wink and a nod, absolve themselves from any responsibility for what their products do. Just as consumers bear a responsibility for using these products to illegally download files, the companies that fashion and promote these tools must share in that obligation."
Dan Glickman, P/CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), stated in a
release [MS Word] that "Today’s unanimous ruling is an historic victory for intellectual property in the digital age, and is good news for consumers, artists, innovation and lawful Internet businesses. The Supreme Court sent a strong and clear message that businesses based on theft should not and will not be allowed to flourish. This decision will be of utmost importance as we continue developing innovative and legitimate ways to marry content and technology so consumers can access entertainment on a variety of devices."
In contrast, Gary Shapiro, P/CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA), stated in a
release that "The immediate impact of today's ruling is twofold: massive uncertainty and the likelihood of massive legal bills. The Court has done little to provide a clear path for legitimate innovators and manufacturers to avoid lawsuits related to copyright infringement over legitimate products and services." Shapiro continued that "With this ruling the Supreme Court has handed a powerful new tool to litigious content creators to stop innovation. Innovators must now consider new murky legal rules and potentially overwhelming legal costs before bringing their product to market - or even moving forward with an innovative idea. It is essentially a 'full employment act' for plaintiff's attorneys and a guarantee for further lawsuits."
More Reaction. Jim DeLong of the Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF) stated in a release that "This looks like a giant win for everyone. For the tech industry -- the Court made clear that Sony is still good law, and that simply marketing a product with the knowledge that some people will use it to infringe is not a basis for liability. For the content providers -- the Court said that intentional inducement of infringement is illegal, and that in proving the existence of the intent the copyright holders can point to the infringement-dependent business models of Grokster and its kin, and to their failure to take any affirmative steps (such as filtering) to prevent infringement. And for consumers -- the unanimity shows that the Court meant what it said about the crucial importance of intellectual property rights when it decided Eldred two years ago, which is crucial to the cornucopia of creativity that the Internet makes possible." Gigi Sohn, President of Public Knowledge, stated in a
release that "Today's Court decision in the Grokster case underscores a principle Public Knowledge has long promoted -- punish infringers, not technology. The Court has sent the case back to the trial court so that the trial process can determine whether the defendant companies intentionally encouraged infringement. What this means is, to the extent that providers of P2P technology do not intentionally encourage infringement, they are exempt from secondary liability under our copyright law. The Court also acknowledged, importantly, that there are lawful uses for peer-to-peer technology, including distribution of electronic files `by universities, government agencies, corporations, and libraries, among others.´"
Department of Justice's (DOJ) Office of the Solicitor General wrote in a
brief that the issue is "Whether an agreement between the owners of a lawful joint venture with respect to the pricing of the joint venture's products may be treated as a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, when the joint venture's owners do not compete in the market for those products."
Thomas then shifted to a discussion of procedure. He noted the procedural history of the case, and that the 9th Circuit decision not to accord the DR Chevron deference. He concluded that the 9th Circuit "erred" in according stare decisis to the Portland case, and in not applying Chevron deference.
FCC Reaction. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Kevin Martin stated in a
release [PDF] that "I am pleased that the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed the FCC’s ruling. This decision provides much-needed regulatory clarity and a framework for broadband that can be applied to all providers. We can now move forward quickly to finalize regulations that will spur the deployment of broadband services for all Americans."
FCC Commission Kathleen Abernathy stated in a
release [PDF] that "I am gratified that the Supreme Court has deferred to the Commission’s finding that cable modem services are “information services.” As I stated when the ruling upheld today was adopted, this classification accords the Commission the flexibility it needs to craft a minimal regulatory environment that promotes investment and innovation in a competitive marketplace. Now that the Court has resolved lingering uncertainty regarding the regulatory treatment of cable-based Internet access services, I am hopeful that the Commission will act quickly to establish a similarly forward-looking approach for competitive wireline xDSL services."
FCC Commission Michael Copps stated in a
release [PDF] that "We really have our work cut out for us now. In the wake of this decision, the FCC confronts the challenge of protecting consumers, maintaining universal service and ensuring public safety in uncertain legal terrain. Today’s decision makes the climb much steeper. But this country just has to find ways to promote innovation, enhance competition, protect the openness of the Internet, and return the United States to a position of leadership in broadband penetration. The Commission needs to think anew and act anew to meet these challenges, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to do just that."
release [PDF] that "Speeding the wide deployment of broadband services throughout this country is one of the top priorities for the Commission. The Court's decision should not mean that policymakers turn their backs on American consumers or neglect public safety. I look forward to working with my colleagues at the FCC and with Congress to both promote a truly competitive marketplace and to ensure that all consumers are protected and have access to affordable broadband services." Congressional Reaction. Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), the Chairman of the House Commerce Committee, stated in a release that "I commend the court for upholding the FCC's deregulatory approach to broadband services. The FCC correctly determined that broadband services should not be regulated as common carriage. After an erroneous ruling by the Ninth Circuit, the court affirmed the validity of the FCC's determination."
Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) and Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI) issued a joint statement. They wrote that "We are carefully reviewing the
Brand X decision reached by the Supreme Court today. Brand X involves the legal treatment of cable modem services, and the decision announced today will have a number of complex policy implications for the communications industry and consumers."
Kyle McSlarrow, P/CEO of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA), stated in a
release that "Today's Supreme Court's decision is a victory for consumers and maintains the momentum to advance broadband in the U.S. Classifying cable modem service as an interstate information service, as the FCC did, keeps this innovative service on the right deregulatory path."
Walter McCormick, P/CEO of U.S. Telecom Association (USTA), stated in a
release that "Today's Supreme Court decision clarifies the Commission’s role in setting a framework for service providers in the rapidly changing communications market. While this was the correct decision for the cable industry, it further highlights why all providers must be given the same incentive to invest and deploy new technologies."
"We will also work with Congress as it revisits the Telecommunications Act in order to ensure customer choice and the future deployment of advanced communications services and applications", said Baker.
The House will meet at 9:00 AM for morning hour, and at 10:00 AM for legislative business. The House will take up HR 3057, the "Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006". See,
8:00 AM - 5:00 PM. Day two of a two day workshop hosted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) regarding the Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) 201 implementation. Registration is required. See,
notice in the Federal Register, June 9, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 110, at Pages 33734. Location: undisclosed.
9:30 AM. Day one of a two day hearing of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) regarding its proposed rules regarding regulation of speech on the internet. See,
list of witnesses, with links to written comments. Location: FEC, 999 E Street, NW.
CANCELLED. 10:00 AM - 1:00 PM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Network Reliability and Interoperability Council (NRIC) will meet. See,
notice in the Federal Register, June 1, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 104, at Page 31470. Location: FCC, 445 12th St., SW, Room TW-305. See,
notice of cancellation in the Federal Register, June 22, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 119, at Page 36169.
2:00 - 3:00 PM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) North American Numbering Council (NANC) will meet by teleconference. See,
Public Notice numbered DA 05-1620, and dated June 9, 2005.
3:00 - 5:00 PM. The House Science Committee's Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards will hold a hearing titled "Small Business Innovation and Research: What is the Optimal role of Venture Capital?". The witnesses will be Ron Cohen (CEO of Acorda Technologies), Ann Eskesen (President of Innovation Development Institute, Fred Abramson (P/CEO of AlphaGenics), and Jonathan Cohen (CEO 20/20 Gene Systems). Press contact: Joe Pouliot at 225-0581 or joe dot pouliot at mail dot house dot gov. Location: Room 2318, Rayburn Building.
Day one of a four day conference of the Wireless Communications Association International (WCA) titled "WCA 2005". See, FCC notice and
notice in the Federal Register, June 14, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 113, at Pages 34477 - 34478.
9:30 AM. The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will hold a hearing on vulnerabilities in the U.S. passport system. See,
notice. Location: Room 562, Dirsksen Building.
9:30 AM. Day two of a two day hearing of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) regarding its proposed rules regarding regulation of speech on the internet. See,
POSTPONED. The House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property (CIIP) will meet to mark up HR 2795, the "Patent Act of 2005". Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), the Chairman of the CIIP Subcommittee, announced this meeting at a hearing on June 9, 2005. See,
story titled "House CIIP Subcommittee Holds Hearing on Patent Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,151, June 10, 2005. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.
11:00 AM - 12:00 PM. The National Science Foundation's (NSF) National Science Board's Committee on Programs and Plans will meet. The agenda includes "Review of NSF draft Cyber Infrastructure Vision document" and "Next steps for developing a Board-approved High Performance Computing Strategy for NSF". See,
notice in the Federal Register: June 22, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 119, at Page 36213. Location: NSF, Public Meeting Room 130, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA.
12:00 NOON - 1:30 PM. The Advisory Committee to the Congressional Internet Caucus will host a panel discussion titled "The U.S. Patriot Act and E-Surveillance". The speakers will be William Moschella (Department of Justice), James Dempsey (Center for Democracy and Technology), and Emily Sheketoff, (American Library Association). See, notice. Lunch will be served. RSVP to
rsvp@netcaucus.org or 202 638-4370. Location: Room HC-5, Capitol Building.
Copyright Office's Copyright Royalty Board regarding its interim regulations governing the organization, administration, and procedures of the Copyright Royalty Board. See,
notice in the Federal Register, May 31, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 103, at Pages 30901 - 30916.
The House may meet at 9:00 AM for morning hour. See,
Effective date of the final rule of the Department of the Treasury's (DOT) Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the DOT's Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), the Federal Reserve System, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) implementing § 216 of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003, which is also known as the FACT Act. The FACT Act was
HR 2622 in the 108th Congress. It is now Public Law No. No. 108-159. § 216 of the FACT Act adds a new § 628 to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) that pertains to protecting consumers against the risks associated with unauthorized access to information about the consumer contained in a consumer report, such as fraud and related crimes, including identity theft. The FCRA is codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. The new section is codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1681w. See,
notice in the Federal Register, December 28, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 248, at Pages 77610 - 77621. See also, story titled "Financial Regulators Publish Notice of Final Rule Implementing Section 216 of FACT Act" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1046, December 29, 2004.
Deadline to submit comments to the Antitrust Modernization Commission (AMC) in response to the AMC's request for public comments regarding the Robinson-Patman Act. See,
notice in the Federal Register: May 19, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 96, at Pages 28902 - 28907.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its public notice regarding refreshing the record on issues raised in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) related to carrier identification code (CIC) conservation and the definition of "entity" as found in section 1.3 of the CIC Assignment Guidelines. This public notice is DA 05-1154 in CC Docket No. 92-237; it was released on April 26, 2005. See,
notice in the Federal Register, June 1, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 104, at Pages 31405 - 31406.
Deadline for states and telecommunications relay services (TRS) providers to file with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) their annual consumer complaint log summaries. See, FCC
The House will not meet on Monday, July 4 through Friday, July 8. See,
The Senate will not meet on Monday, July 4 through Friday, July 8. See,
Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) in response to its Public Notice [PDF] regarding the United Telecom Council (UTC) request to be the Access Broadband over Power Line (Access BPL) database manager. This is DA 05-1637, dated June 9, 2005, in ET Docket No. 04-37.