Judge Rules That RealDVD is Illegal

It has certainly been a long time coming, but in a case that has lasted the best part of a year Judge Marilyn Hall Patel has finally ruled in favour of the MPAA, which grants a preliminary injunction against Real to ban the sales of the program. The ruling states that while it isn't illegal for consumers to copy their own DVDs for personal use, it is illegal to provide consumers with a program that allows them to do just that. While that may not make a whole lot of sense on the surface, it is what law dictates, which protects access to details of copy protection codes, the content scramble system (CSS). The MPAA are satisfied with the courts decision, with head of the organisation Dan Glickman quoted as saying "This is a victory for the creators and producers of motion pictures and television shows, and for the rule of law in our digital economy."

Real are said to be disappointed with the ruling, and will be examining the verdict carefully as they take a possible appeal into consideration.

Latest Music Sharing Case Ruled in Favor of RIAA

Boston University student Joel Tenenbaum has been ordered to pay $675,000 in damages to the RIAA. Tenenbaum was happy that the fine wasn't higher, as it was for Jammie Thomas-Rasset who has to pay $1.92 million. Tenenbaum effectively dug his own grave when he admitted to downloading the songs and about lying in previous testimonies during his Thursday questioning. At this point the jury only needed to discuss damages and whether Tenenbaum did so willingly. The RIAA was also happy with the ruling, mostly because the defendant realized that the artists and music companies should be paid just as any other working person. Tenenbaum plans to appeal the ruling based on the guarantee of due process. He feels that the award is too large, and plans to file for bankruptcy if the ruling is upheld.

Books Deleted From Kindles by Amazon

This past week, Amazon deleted copies of George Orwell's 1984 and Animal Farm from users' Kindles. The books in question were legitimately purchased, or were they? Reports surfaced that MobileReference, the publisher who transfers public domain books to electronic format to sell for the Kindle, didn't have the authority to sell the books. Because the books are not yet in the public domain, the license to the book was deemed invalid and the books were deleted. The books have been removed from both the Amazon store and the MobileReference website. Amazon has said that the purchasing system was designed to take these actions automatically and will be changed for the future.

Irish Recording Industry Taking Different Approach Than RIAA

The Irish Recorded Music Association (IRMA) has decided to take the fight to the biggest ISPs in the country. The IRMA is attempting to sue BT Ireland and UPC Ireland into complying with a three strikes policy that would force disconnection of users with three copyright violations. However, UPC has said that Irish law doesn't require it to do so, and the company will fight the suit. The largest ISP, Eircom, has already settled with the IRMA, but has yet to disconnect any users as it is the only ISP to adopt the policy. In the case of the RIAA, the scheme is voluntary and ISPs aren't required to follow it. The IRMA faces a tough battle, as the European Parliament has stated that it is against internet disconnections, and a similar proposal has already been struck down in France.

Legal Action May Prevent Green Dam Filtering Software

Solid Oak Software, the company behind the CyberSitter program, has sent cease and desist letters to Dell and Hewlett-Packard. The letters are in regards to the Green Dam software that the Chinese government will be requiring all PCs sold in China to have installed. Solid Oak claims that the Chinese company responsible for the filtering software stole a good deal of the code from CyberSitter. Solid Oak wishes to take legal action against the Chinese company, but certainly doesn't blame the PC manufacturers. China has been criticized for the mandatory filter, and there are a few organizations that wold like to talk them out of it.

French Judiciary Overturns Anti-Piracy Law

Last month, legislation designed to address the problem of illegal filesharing passed the French National Assembly after being rejected on a previous attempt. The Hadopi law was named after the government agency that would have been responsible for policing the law and would have seen those judged to be persistent file sharers facing the possibility of having their internet connections cut for up to a year under a three strike system. However, after France's Socialist party asked the country's constitutional council to look into the legality of the law it was ruled that "free access" to online communications services is a human right and couldn't be withheld without a judge's intervention. The method by which the law was to be policed was also said to breach a citizen's right to privacy. While a blow to the French president, who had strongly backed the legislation, the ruling may not affect similar proposals in other EU countries as it was based on interpretation of the French constitution rather than EU law.

MPAA Says Don't Copy

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) is proving that it is still just as out of touch with the American consumer as it has always been. During the Real DVD case, U.S. District Judge Marilyn Patel questioned the on whether or not it was legal for a consumer to make a backup copy of a legally purchased DVD for personal use. The MPAA's attorney, Bart Williams, responded by saying, "Not for the purposes under the DMCA, one copy is a violation of the DMCA." While this is technically correct if making a backup copy requires circumventing the copyright, the MPAA usually uses mass piracy and the resulting lost profits to support the DMCA. This new statement means that the MPAA groups consumers that make backup copies into the same group as for-profit pirates that illegally copy dozens of DVDs and sell the copies. To be safe, I'll just keep my legal copies of the handful of DVDs I own and not worry about backups.

Legal Issue Resolved Between Apple and Cartier

Before Apple took down both the apps that resembled famous watches, the application known as Fake Watch that they were distributing for free, and the premium Fake Watch Gold Edition which was being sold, Cartier had a lawsuit filed against the company. This suit was filed with the United States District Court in Manhattan, but was later dropped by the French Jeweler due to Apple's removal of the two iPhone applications. Apple so far has not stated anything to the media on this issue, and if they do, the company will probably announce its apologies to Cartier International to the public.

Prosecution in the Pirate Bay Trial Also Seeking An Appeal

In the ongoing saga of the Pirate Bay copyright trial, the companies and lawyers who represent them have stated that the 30 million kronor penalty wasn't strict enough. The movie and music industry would like to see the penalty be around 100 million kronor, roughly $13 million. The industries are also pushing for more charges to be brought against the Pirate Bay in addition to the steeper financial penalty. At the same time, the Pirate Bay defendants are arguing that the judge in the case was biased due to his association with copyright groups and the prosecuting attorneys. The case is currently in the appeals court for this reason.

French Piracy Bill Passes National Assembly

The French piracy legislation, which was previously rejected has now been passed by the National Assembly and will go on to the Senate for final approval. The bill sets out measures aimed at cracking down on internet piracy, with repeat offenders facing being cut off from their service for a year under a "three strikes" system. On passing the bill, the French government will be setting a global precedent, and developments will be watched closely by other governments, who may consider similar methods of deterring piracy. The legislation is backed by the film and recording industries, with chairman of the IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry), John Kennedy describing the move as "an effective and proportionate way of tackling online copyright infringement and migrating users to the wide variety of legal music services in France". Some consumer groups have expressed concerns that the legislation could lead to innocent people being punished.

RealDVD Case Nears Conclusion

If you have a particularly good memory, then you may recall that RealNetworks (the makers or RealPlayer) put sales of its RealDVD ripping software on hold last year after being sued by major Hollywood film studios. The claim was that the software violated copyright and was illegal under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA), which forbids the bypassing of any digital rights management protection system. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has said that the software could allow users to copy a DVD and then share it around. RealNetworks now claims that enhanced security used in RealDVD means that a digital version made using the software can then only be played back on the same computer used to make the copy. There is of course a related argument, which is that consumers already have access to digital copies of DVDs should they want them and that aiming to restrict a consumers ability to make a legal backup of content only encourages them to adopt or continue to use the illegal methods of doing so.

The hearing resumes this Thursday, with closing statements likely to come soon after. A ruling from Judge Marilyn Patel (who also presided over the Napster case, which saw the peer-to-peer file-sharing service shut down) is then expected in the weeks following.

French Reject 'Three Strikes' Piracy Legislation

French politicians have rejected legislation that could have seen internet users caught downloading music illegally being cut off from their service. The music industry has sought backing from governments in the form of stricter laws in recent years, in an effort to stem what it sees as a major cause of reductions in revenue. If passed, the legislation would have meant that those caught downloading illegally would first be sent a warning e-mail, then a letter, and finally have their connection cut for a year if caught for a third time. Though backed by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, the proposed law was defeated by a vote in the National Assembly, with two members of Sarkozy's own government choosing to vote against the bill for the reason that it would have also seen those banned continuing to pay for their internet bills. If passed, a global precedent may have been set, which could have seen other countries pursuing similar legislation. The French government will still have the opportunity to re-introduce the legislation to parliament later in the year.

Upcoming Wolverine Movie Leaked To Torrent Sites

A copy of the upcoming movie X-Men Origins: Wolverine was released to torrent sites yesterday, a full month before it hits theaters on May 1. It is said to be full-length and high quality, but without some of the final special effects and sounds. Initial reactions from those not associated with Fox are mixed. Some are saying that those who download the movie weren't going to go see it anyway. Others feel that reviews that could come from this may turn away potential viewers and cost the studio millions of dollars. Whatever the case, it appears that companies need to take more precautions with intellectual property. The official response from Fox indicates a that they will do everything they can to destroy the person responsible for this.

The Courts are Filled with Intel Suits

I wouldn't recommend buying stock in Intel anytime soon (or stocks period, but that's another matter), as it seems Nvidia has filed a countersuit against Intel. The suit alleges that Intel has breached the 2004 agreement between the two companies by not allowing it to build motherboard chipsets for Intel processors that use integrated memory controllers (i.e. Core i7). Nvidia claims that Intel is being unreasonable by denying these rights, but simultaneously maintaining its own access to NVIDIA's patents. Intel has said that the license only extends to processors with discrete memory controllers. Nvidia says that they are just trying to stall so that Nvidia cannot make a better chipset than Intel's. Looks like Intel is going to be seeing a lot of courtrooms this year.

Windows Update Brings Microsoft a Lawsuit

Windows Update has been an integral part of Microsoft's operating systems for over a decade. It is used to provide numerous updates, patches, and fixes for Microsoft's operating sytems, office productivity suites, Internet browsers, and other Windows-based programs. Now, Isreal-based Backweb Technologies is suing Microsoft for what it claims is patent infringement. The lawsuit was officially filed in San Francisco federal court last Friday. Backweb Technologies cites violations of four of its US patents by Microsoft's Background Intelligent Transfer Service (BITS). BITS was released in 2001 with Windows XP and is now embedded in Windows Vista, Server 2003, and Server 2008. BITS is a file transfer program that runs in either the foreground or the background depending on computer usage. It is designed so that is does not affect other usage of the computer and is even capable of resuming work after a shut down or restart. The complaint states that, "Microsoft manufactures, uses, and sells products that infringe the three Transparent Update Patents." Backweb Technologies claims the fourth violation came from its 289 Patent when Microsoft released BITS v3.0 that was capable of peer-to-peer file transfers. Microsoft has not released an official statement on the matter yet.

The full lawsuit filing can be found here (beware, it is an 87 page PDF document).

Microsoft has seen its share of lawsuits recently: an Xbox 360 lawsuit that claims Microsoft had knowledge of hardware defects prior to release, PalTalk's Xbox Live lawsuit, and a lawsuit in Europe over monopolizing the Internet browser market.

US iTunes Store Spoofed by Fake Giftcards

Chinese hackers have reverse engineered the algorithm that creates iTunes giftcard codes. The codes generated by the hackers' algorithm are legitimate codes that work in the iTunes Store. However, the hackers are unable to use the cards as they only work in the US iTunes Store. The hackers are selling cards worth up to $200 USD for as low as $3 on Chinese auction sites.  Some have also appeared on US auction sites. This poses a major problem that Apple must solve. Apple has not pbulicly commented on the situation yet. This is probably because they are working as hard as possible to find a fix. Apple is running into a difficult situation because the hackers' codes need to be invalidated, but changing the code algorithm could potentially affect all other valid iTunes cards. Apple is in a bind as to how to prevent invalid cards from being used in the US iTunes Store without affecting the use of legally purchased iTunes giftcards. Hopefully Apple will come up with a fix in the near future.

Do you agree with the current $0.99 USD charge per song on the iTunes Store? It seeems reasonable to me.

Pirate Bay Trial Awaiting Verdict

After a little over two weeks of evidence being presented, the prosecution changing its mind about charges and a lot of media attention in Sweden, the closing statements in the Pirate Bay trial have been delivered and now the court is awaiting a verdict. As part of their closing statement, the prosecution called for the four administrators of the site to be given a one year prison sentence for their actions. Lawyers defending the four men called for them to be acquitted and also challenged estimates the prosecution have made about how much Frederik Neij, Carl Lundstom, Peter Sunde and Gottfrid Warg have made from the site. The music, film and video games industries are calling for damages and interest of 117 million kronor (around $12.5m) for losses incurred from downloads facilitated by the Pirate Bay. A judges decision is not expected for several weeks

Prosecutors Drop Some Charges Against The Pirate Bay

The trial against torrent-tracking site The Pirate Bay got under way this week and prosecutors have reduced the charges in half  on the second day of the trial. Acknowleding that Pirate Bay's role as a torrent tracking site, prosecutors dropped the charges on copying copyrighted material. Instead, the  prosecutors have chosen to focus on the charges of complicity to make copyrighted material available. The lawyer representing the music companies says the move does not change anything as to the basic claims for compensation, but is rather a move that simplifies the case and allows prosecutors to focus more closely on the "making available" issue the plaintiffs see as central to their case.

Case Against The Pirate Bay Gets Underway In Sweden

The Pirate Bay is one of the most popular public torrent trackers, and today four men behind the website appeared in court in Stockholm, Sweden under charges that they have assisted in copyright infringement. The prosecutions case is that the four men have profited from copyright infringement through one of the largest file sharing networks on the internet. The defendants argue that they have hosted no shared files and therefore aren't responsible for any infringement. If convicted, the men could face 2 years in prison along with a fine of 1.2 million kronor (about $140,000). The trial has attracted so much attention in Sweden that tickets to get into the courtroom were reportedly being sold for 500 kronor ($60) on the black market. Among the plaintiffs, who are calling for damages of 120m kronor (around $14m) are Universal, EMI, Song BMG, 20th Century Fox, MGM, Warner Bros and Columbia Pictures Industries.

UK Has No Plans To Legislate On Piracy

David Lammy, the UK Intellectual Property minister, has said that the government will not force ISPs to pursue file shares through legislation. Speculation had been building as the music industry attempts to crack down on pirates that legislation would be proposed to support industry goals. Speaking to The Times newspaper Mr. Lammy said, "We can't have a system where we're talking about arresting teenagers in their bedrooms". Though the BPI (which represents the UK music industry) favours a three-strike policy where file sharers are intially sent warning letters, which some ISPs sent out to customers, wider response has been muted. It is estimated that one fifth of Europeans use file-sharing networks, whereas just 10% make use of paid-for music services like iTunes.

YouTube Seeks out Copyright Violations

When a user of the video sharing website uploads a movie, YouTube expects the music that goes along with the video to have some kind of copyright ownership by the uploader. Most of the time, this is simply not the case, as many people upload videos with music that is completely copyrighted through various record labels. Now, Google is searching through YouTube, and instead of removing the video all together, they are disabling the copyright infringed audio that plays along with it. At this point in time, many fan-made videos, as well as some music videos, have no audio on them. This of course makes some things on the very popular video sharing site hard to understand while watching.

Apple, Google & Microsoft Sued

Cygnus Systems, a small Indiana company, decided to spread some holiday cheer this Christmas, delivering a lawsuit to Apple, Google and Microsoft. Cygnus claims that it holds the patent on a file preview feature used by the three companies in several products, including the web browsers for all three companies and the operating systems of Apple and Microsoft. Cygnus applied for its patent in June of 2001 and was granted the patent in March of this year. U.S. Patent 7346850 covers a "system and method for iconic software environment management." Though the products in question may have been released after 2001, the use of iconic previews occurred well before that, so we'll have to see how this one pans out. In the meantime, I heard rumors that Cygnus execs were spotted hanging out with the Grinch today.

Sony to Pay $18.5M to Agere Systems

In July 2006, Agere Systems sued Sony, claiming that Sony knowingly and willfully infringed on its patent for a "wireless local area network apparatus." Sony sought to have Agere's patents declared valid, claiming that Agere had obtained them improperly and that Sony had the rights to the technologies from a previous deal with AT&T and Lucent. Now, more than two years later, the jury has ruled in Agere's favor, ordering Sony to pay $18.5 million to Agere.

Movie Studios Sue RealNetworks Over RealDVD

The MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America), along with a number of studios have sued software company RealNetworks over its RealDVD software, which allows consumers to make copies of DVDs they own. The RealDVD does however, encrypt the copies it makes, with the intent of preventing file sharing (as well as conforming to Hollywood rules on DVD protection). The music industry has somewhat wised up as of late that consumers of digital music value the usability of the media they purchase. Because of that you can now purchase songs with little worry they will come packaged with restrictive DRM (digital rights management). With this move, it would appear that the movie industry is less concerned with providing that kind of flexibility to the consumer.

RIAA Pay Out $108K In Lost Case

The RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) has taken an active and aggressive stance when it comes to legal proceedings against those accused of downloading music. Many have frowned upon these strong arm tactics, which have often targetted individuals with little means of defending themselves (leading to a large number settling rather than risking court action). The RIAA hasn't always been successful in proceedings however, suffering key losses that set precedents on what is required to prove someone has downloaded shared files. The latest loss came in a case against Tanya Andersen, who was accused of downloading ganster rap. Forensics experts found no evidence of file sharing, leading to the judge ordering $107,834 to be paid in attorneys' fees to the defendants. That's a record award that should encourage attorneys to take on similar cases in the future.

UK ISPs Agree To Help Tackle Music Piracy

The BPI (who represent the Britsh music industry) have agreed on a plan with six leading UK ISPs, which will lead to thousands of net users suspected of illegally sharing music receiving warning letters. The six ISPs who have agreed to co-operate are BT, Orange, Virgin, Tiscali, BSkyB and The Carphone Warehouse. Customers of those ISPs who are alleged of sharing music illegally by the BPI can expect to find warning letters coming to their doors, though there doesn't appear to be any threat of legal action attached to such letters. Consultation has also been under way, which suggests among other things, that serial file sharers could have traffic management imposed on their connections. The BPI itself has gone as far as to suggest a three strike system that would see internet connections cut off for persistent pirates. Is this deal with ISPs a sign that more serious measures will soon be implemented, and is this the right path for the music industry and ISPs to be taking? We'd love to hear your thoughts on the matter.

Rambus Sues Nvidia

You may remember Rambus for its RDRAM memory, which debuted in 1999 but quickly faded with the success of DDR. Rambus hasn't faded, however, as the company holds several patents that it licenses out to companies such as Intel, AMD, Infineon, Sony, and Toshiba. One company that it hasn't licensed to is Nvidia and Rambus claims that Nvidia is infringing upon 17 of its patents, filing suit last week. We'll have to wait and see how this will affect Nvidia.

Apple Signs Visual Voice Mail License

In December, Klausner Technologies sued Apple and AT&T for patent infringement revolving around the iPhone's visual voice mail system that allows users to selectively listen to voice mails instead of having to sift through each one in order. Apple has decided to settle the suit, paying Klausner an undisclosed amount to license the technology. Apple joins AT&T, eBay, AOL and Vonage as licensees.

TorrentSpy Fined $110 Million

File sharing portal TorrentSpy has been ordered to pay $110 million to the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) for copyright infringement. The District Judge ruled that TorrentSpy should pay $30,000 for each of the 3,699 infringements shown and comes after the site was shut down on March 24th. The fact that the judgment is so large should send a strong message to other similar sites and highlight that what they do is illegal, at least that is what I imagine the MPAA is hoping. TorrentSpy's parent company and owners have filed for bankruptcy. This latest development cements the increasingly hostility that BitTorrent sites have been facing, though some notable examples (The Pirate Bay) still survive and have even re-opened after periods of downtime (Demonoid).

Ultra Lawsuit: US Commision goes to investigate!

We have another update on the Ultra lawsuit for you (Original OCC news post, update)! Ultra sued its competitors because they were importing power supplies that were not licensed under its own patent, so the US International Trade Commission (ITC) has launched investigations. This gives the whole news post a more serious basis, as it was regarded as a joke by many! The patent in question (see the update post for more information on it) was originally issued to TigerDirect co-founder Carl Fiorentino in September 2004, but he assigned it to Ultra products in 2006. A target date for the completion of the investigation will be issued within 45 days, the ITC said. Watch for more news on this as the investigation commences!