Contributory Copyright Infringement and Peer-to-Peer Networks
August 26, 2003
The second labor of Hercules was to kill the monstrous nine-headed Hydra. When Hercules struck off one of the Hydra's heads, two new ones grew forth in its place. The entertainment industry's fight against its modern menace, peer-to-peer file sharing networks, presents no lesser task. The record companies successfully shut down Napster (<i>see A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.</i>, 114 F. Supp. 2d 896 (N.D. Cal. 2000), <i>aff'd in part, rev'd in part</i>, 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001)) and Aimster (<i>see In re Aimster Copyright Litig.,</i> 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17054 (N.D. Ill. 2002)) only to witness the instant emergence of Gnutella, Grokster, Kazaa, Morpheus, and similar services (as well as the re-emergence of Aimster, now known as Madster). We know, of course, that Hercules completed his second labor after figuring out that he could prevent growth of the new heads by burning the wound. However, unlike the Hydra, peer-to-peer file sharing technologies evolve quickly and swiftly adapt to changed circumstances. Thus, Hollywood's plaintiffs are likened more to Sisyphus (who was condemned to an eternity of pushing the rock up the mountain only to have it fall down again) than to Hercules. The most recent example is the decision in <i>Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.</i>, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6994 (C.D. Cal. April 25, 2003).
Bit Parts
August 26, 2003
Recent developments in entertainment law.
Courthouse Steps
August 26, 2003
Recently filed cases in entertainment law, straight from the steps of the Los Angeles Superior Court.
Cameo Clips
August 26, 2003
Recent cases in entertainment law.
<b><i>Decision of Note</b></i> No Credit Needed For Public Domain Materials
August 26, 2003
In a major narrowing of the Lanham Act, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that the law allows the copying of public domain material without giving credit to its source. The 8-0 ruling in <i>Dastar Corp. v. 20th Century Fox Film Corp. </i> removes Lanham Act liability from parties that repackage facts or information that originated elsewhere. It could sweep away lawsuits often filed against major studios and publishers by authors and others who claim they were given insufficient credit for their contributions.
Protecting Against Defamation Claims From Docudrama Productions
August 26, 2003
Producers are rushing to meet the public's demand for reality content. This content includes film and TV productions based on the lives of real people. But there are pitfalls in producing 'biopics' or 'docudramas.' By their very nature, concocted scenes and contrived dialogue inherent in these types of productions may give rise to liability. In fact, there have been a growing number of civil actions or claims made concerning the manner in which certain parties have been portrayed.
Bit Parts
August 26, 2003
Recent developments in entertainment law.
Clause & Effect
August 26, 2003
If a TV network makes a non-recourse loan to a production company to produce a TV series, could the production company nevertheless be required to pay back the loan? Assume that the agreement with the network provides for a license fee to the production company as well as a loan for production costs that exceed the license fee, and that the loan will be repaid only from the series' net profits. What happens if the series is never syndicated and thus earns no net profits?
Courthouse Steps
August 26, 2003
Recently filed cases in entertainment law, straight from the steps of the Los Angeles Superior Court.
Raising a License Defense In a Copyright Infringement Action
August 26, 2003
The Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. Sec. 204) provides that '[a] transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent.' A copyright infringement defendant may argue that it made use of a plaintiff's work pursuant to a grant of rights or license from the plaintiff. Where a license is written, the consent defense is relatively straightforward, and frequently turns on whether or not the defendant acted in accordance with the terms and scope of the license at issue. Where no writing exists, however, a plaintiff can more readily challenge such consent and force the defendant to face the writing hurdle imposed by Sec. 204.
