Archive

Archive for the ‘Google.com’ Category

Lying on the Internet could soon become a federal crime

November 16, 2011 2 comments

An article posted by Andrew Couts on www.digitaltrends.com discusses the potentially terrifying legal conclusion that the US Department of Justice is looking to make violation of a website’s terms of service agreement a Federal crime. Read more here:

http://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/lying-on-the-internet-could-soon-be-a-federal-crime/

Hotfile getting hotter: The cyberlocker site fires back at Warner Bros.

September 16, 2011 Leave a comment

By Nickolas B. Solish

This is a follow-up to “Cyberlocker sites come under the radar of copyright holders,” which ran in the Daily Journal on Aug. 19.

Striking back against its accusers, the file-hosting website Hotfile.com has brought a countersuit against Warner Bros. Entertainment alleging copyright fraud and abuse.  The complaint accuses Warner Bros. of abusing Hotfile’s anti-piracy tool by filing false copyright take-downs notices.  These notices are only to be used for copyrighted files owned by Warner Bros..  Now the Florida-based company is seeking damages from the movie giant.

The complaint comes after an earlier suit this year against Hotfile by the Motion Picture Association of America, an association of five major Hollywood studios.  The suit is based on a larger campaign by the MPAA to attack copyright abuse on cyber-locker sites.  A cyberlocker is an online storage provider that allows users to upload and share files.  Visitors to the site then can download those files for free by clicking a link.

Cyberlocker sites came under the attention of the MPAA due to a spike in traffic since the beginning of 2011.  These sites now receive more traffic than BitTorrent sites, bringing them under scrutiny by the major studios.  Hotfile recently became one of the top 100 visited websites in the world.

Hotfile’s recent suit against Warner Bros. is a counter-claim to the original MPAA action.  The counterclaim accuses Warner Bros. of “repeated, reckless and irresponsible misrepresentations to Hotfile falsely claiming to own copyrights in material from Hotfile.com.”  The complaint goes on to say that Hotfile even told Warner Bros. about these misrepresentations, but even this did not stop the false claims.

To fight copyright abuse, Hotfile provides “special rightsholder accounts” to certain copyright owners.  Warner Bros. had such an account assigned to their manager of anti-piracy Internet operations, Michael Bentkover.  The tool allowed an unlimited amount of file-takedowns by copyright holders, so long as the complainant held the copyright to the file.

Many of the files taken down by Warner Bros. were not files for which they owned copyrights.  Hotfile alleges this was a breach of the special rightsholder account agreement, which provided that when Warner Bros. reported a file, it was asserting “under penalty of perjury that [it is] the owner or an owner or an authorized legal representative of the owner of copyrights.”  Warner Bros. also represented that it had a “good faith belief” that the owner did not authorize use of the file on Hotfile.com.

Warner Bros. is accused of “willful blindness” in its use of the special rightsholder account.  The complaint points out that Warner Bros. searched for a file entitled “The Rite,” which had been uploaded to filesonic.net, not Hotfile.com.  “[B]ecause Warner apparently went to a third party search site looking for links to The Rite, it returned a page containing not only the filesonic link to The Rite but also dozens of seemingly unrelated links to other files at filsonic.com, Hotfile.com and other sites.”  Warner then “used the [special rightsholder account] to delete each of the twenty or so Hotfile links listed on that page even though . . . none appear to have any relationship to The Rite or to Warner.”  Warner Bros. is accused of deleting “hundreds if not thousands” of similar files in this manner.

Interestingly, there is speculation that Warner Bros. had a financial incentive other than preventing infringement for taking these files down.  A deal was proposed by Warner Bros. to replace files removed for infringement with links to purchase Warner-owned content.  If Warner Bros. takes down more files, they create more links to paid content sites.

The three counts Hotfile alleges are violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, intentional interference with a contractual or business relationship, and negligence.  The complaint demands a jury trial and asks for compensation for lost revenues caused by Warner Bros’s actions.  Finally, the complaint asks for a permanent injunction requiring Warner Bros. to individually review every file they request to be taken down.

This suit and the original MPAA suit have the potential to greatly alter the legal landscape for cyberlocker sites on the Internet.  Hotfile’s countersuit will also clarify how much legal recourse websites have against big copyright holders under the DMCA.  A trial date has not yet been set.

Is Grooveshark Swimming in the Deep End?

By Nick Solish

Originally published in the Daily Journal on July 28th, 2011

Troubles seem to be never ending for music streaming site Grooveshark.com.  A complaint was recently filed by a group of songwriters and copyright holders accusing the Web site of copyright infringement.  Grooveshark allows users to listen to music via streaming, a continuous downloading and playing of a song using an Internet connection.  It is unique from services like Pandora and Last.fm because it allows users to pick the actual tracks that they listen to, whereas Pandora and Last.fm will play similar tracks but do not give users song-by-song control.

Grooveshark has been the target of copyright infringement lawsuits by big music publishers like Universal Music Group, with whom a case is currently pending.  Grooveshark has also faced EMI Music in court, with whom they are settling.  However, despite Grooveshark’s attempts to make licensing deals with copyright holders, a new complaint has been filed against the company for failure to do so.

Several music copyright companies have sued Escape Media Group (Grooveshark’s parent company, “EMG”) in the Middle District of Tennessee.  Amongst the plantiffs are former Grand Funk Railroad frontman Mark Farner and Larry Weiss, writer of “Rhinestone Cowboy.”  The plaintiffs accuse EMG of copyright infringement, including contributory copyright infringement and vicarious copyright infringement.

The plaintiffs allege that Grooveshark provided its customers access to copyrighted music without having to pay for it.  Specifically, it claims that users can listen to entire copyrighted works using “on-demand streams,” which they define as “on-demand real time digital transmissions of sound recordings using so-called streaming technology.”  The complaint also alleges that Grooveshark actively encourages users to share music through services like Facebook and Twitter, and further accuses Grooveshark of encouraging users to upload copyrighted content to the site.  This uploaded content then becomes part of the searchable database accessible by Grooveshark users.

Plaintiffs are upset because Grooveshark failed to obtain plaintiffs’ “authorization, license or permission” to use the sound recordings on its site.  They also cite EMG’s failure to obtain a compulsory license before copying plaintiffs’ music onto EMG’s computers.

EMG has faced scrutiny in the past for its approach to music.  The Grooveshark app has been removed both from the Apple Store and the Android App Store in the past few years due to mounting pressure from music copyright holders.

Defending against a recent lawsuit filed by Universal Music Group, Grooveshark’s Senior Vice President of Information Products, Paul Geller, wrote an open letter defending Grooveshark as entirely legal.  Geller cited Grooveshark’s policy of honoring “take down claims,” which allegedly put them in full compliance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).  Compliance with DMCA “take down claims,” argues Grooveshark, brings them under the same protection as Youtube.com, who is only required to take down offending videos if a proper take down claim is filed and deemed legitimate.

Geller also notes that Grooveshark has already secured thousands of licenses from copyright holders and is attempting to secure licenses for all of its music.  Finally, Geller cited over two million songs that Grooveshark has taken down in response to take down complaints, as evidence that they are trying to maintain strict compliance with copyright law.  An earlier suit between Grooveshark and EMI ended in a licensing deal, which Geller no doubt hopes will be repeated in future suits.

However, it is unclear whether removing infringing content is enough to put Grooveshark in compliance with the Copyright Act.  Grooveshark’s legal status is likely to hinge on whether it is considered an interactive service as defined in 17 U.S.C. Section 114(j)(7).  In Arista Records LLC v. LAUNCH Media Inc., 578 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2009), several large copyright holding groups led by BMG sued Yahoo’s interactive radio service, LaunchCast, under the DMCA.  Interactive services under the DMCA are required to pay licensing fees to content owners, whereas non-interactive services merely have to pay a smaller statutory licensing fee.

The Copyright Act defines a service as interactive if it is either specially created for the user or if a user can use the service to find and play a specific song.  Grooveshark’s ability to allow users to pick specific songs and create playlists seems to make the service “interactive” under the statute, which may make it vulnerable in the current suit.

The current suit appears to follow in the footsteps of the recent Universal Music Group suit. In January 2010, UMG brought suit against Grooveshark in New York state court, which is unusual because the case was not filed in federal court and only pursued violations against pre-1972 recordings.  Filing specifically for these violations allows UMG to recover under both federal and state law, whereas post-1972 recordings would only be recoverable under federal law.  A New York case, Capitol Records Inc. v. Naxos of America Inc., 262 F.Supp.2d 204 (2003), held that pre-1972 recordings are protected under state copyright law because 17 U.S.C. Section 301(c) allows recovery for these recordings under state common law or state statutes until Feb. 15, 2067.

It remains to be seen whether the current suit will end in a settlement and possible licensing deal.  However, attitudes in the industry toward alleged music pirates may be changing.  This week, former Google.com chief information officer Douglas C. Merrill, once an EMI executive, said publicly that LimeWire pirates were some of the best customers on iTunes.  He was speaking at an Expo in Sydney about data he had obtained as chief operating officer of New Music and president of Digital Business at EMI.  During his time there, he profiled users of LimeWire, a music downloading service, and found that its users actually were more likely to purchase music than the average person.

The future of Grooveshark is indicative of the future of music on the Internet.  If innovative services like Grooveshark.com are shut down by music industry hold-outs, the future of digital music on the Internet is like to stagnate.  However, Grooveshark users are given free access to copyrighted music that otherwise would have to be purchased, compensating artists and copyright holders.  One thing is clear: Whatever happens to Grooveshark will be a bell-weather for other music streaming sites, and the decision will be watched closely by those within the music industry.

Nick Solish is a lawyer at Bryan Cave and recent graduate of the University of Texas. He can be contacted at nickolas.solish at bryancave.com.

Is Use of a Competitor’s Trademark for Advertising Infringement?

By Nick Solish

Originally published in the Daily Journal, Los Angeles on July 5, 2011

Suppose that you were looking for a plumber and a friend recommended Joe’s Plumbing to you.  You might type Joe’s Plimbing into Google.com’s search engine and hit enter. The first thing you see is a link for Eric’s Plumbing, who claims to be as good as Joe’s Plumbing but with much lower rates. If you hire Eric’s Plumbing instead of Joe’s Plumbing, does Joe’s Plumbing have a claim against Google for diverting a potential referral?

Advertising on Google is controlled through their AdWords service. Google’s help section explains that, “AdWords ads are displayed along with search results when someone searches Google using one of your keywords.” Advertisers can use Google’s keyword suggestion tool to generate suggested keywords with which to associate their ads. Thus, a search for a specific term will bring up a specific ad. Just as anything can be searched for on Google, any word can become a keyword for purposes of AdWords. As such, brand names and other protected trademarks can be purchased as keywords from Google AdWords.

Google’s keyword suggestion tool had been recommending “Rescuecom” to advertisers of computer repair services on AdWords. Thus, a search for “Rescuecom” would also contain advertisements for competitors of Rescuecom above and alongside regular Google search results. However, “Rescuecom” was a registered trademark. In 2006, Rescuecom brought an action against Google alleging that Google was liable under the Lanham Act for infringement, false designation of origin, and dilution of Rescuecom’s eponymous trademark. Specifically, Rescuecom alleged that Google’s placement of advertising in search results misled users into believing that competitors’ ads appearing on screen were part of a relevance-based search for Rescuecom.

Trademark law under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1114 and 1125, imposes liability for unpermitted “use in commerce” of another’s mark, which is “likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive,” regarding “the origin, sponsorship or approval of his or her goods [or] services . . . by another person.” The trial court did not even reach the question of whether Google’s use was likely to cause confusion or mistake of origin because it found that Google’s actions did not constitute a use in commerce of Rescuecom’s trademark.

On appeal, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal, disagreed with the trial court. Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc., 562 F.3d 123 (2nd Cir. 2009). Both decisions were largely governed by each court’s interpretation of the 1-800 Contacts Inc. v. WhenU.com Inc., 414 F.3d 400 (2d Cir.2005) decision, which had discussed when use of a trademarked term by an advertiser constituted a “use” for purposes of the Lanham Act. 1-800 Contacts involved an advertising program made by WhenU.com called “Save Now.” Save Now was a program that launched pop-up advertisements when users visited specific Web sites in Save Now’s index.

Unlike Google, WhenU’s software did not allow advertisers to purchase specific keywords to associate ads with. The 2nd Circuit in 1-800 Contacts also noted that Save Now only triggered ads by using the plaintiff’s Web address, not plaintiff’s protected trademark. Also, because Save Now did not publish the index of Web sites it advertised on and kept this list private, the court found that Save Now’s use of plaintiff’s trademark was not a “use in commerce” under the Lanham Act.

The trial court in Rescuecom had held that 1-800 Contacts was relevant precedent and thus, that Google’s use of the Rescuecom trademark was not a “use” under the Lanham Act. The 2nd Circuit disagreed, distinguishing 1-800 Contacts on two counts; the Web address complained of by plaintiff was not actually a protected trademark, and because of a distinction with between Save Now’s mechanism of action and Google’s.

To elaborate on the latter, while Google searches brought forth specific advertisements when specific keywords were searched for, Save Now’s pop-ups were random and not associated with specific keywords. Further, advertisers were not able to purchase keywords to trigger their advertisements using Save Now. Instead, advertisements were displayed based on general categories rather than by use of specific keywords. Save Now also did not allow for the sale of specific keywords to advertisers.

These aspects were in direct contrast with the 1-800 Contacts decision, according to the 2nd Circuit. Google was selling Rescuecom’s trademark as a keyword to competitors through the AdWords service. Likewise, Save Now does not “use or display” the trademark in 1-800 Contacts, but Google “displays, offers and sells” trademarks such as Rescuecom’s to the highest bidder, thus triggering protections under 15 U.S.C. Section 1127. The court also agreed with Rescuecom that Google’s placement of sponsored links directly above search results could lead to confusion, as Rescuecom had alleged in its initial complaint.

Google compared its keyword suggestion tool to the practice of vendors placing generic products next to name brand equivalents. However, the court was largely unpersuaded by Google’s analogy; although refusing to rule on whether Google’s use of Rescuecom’s trademark actually caused likelihood of confusion or mistake, the court did vacate the trial court’s decision and remand the case for further proceedings.

On remand, Rescuecom filed for dismissal before the trial began, claiming victory over Google in a May 2010 news release. But Rescuecom’s decision not to pursue the case on remand appears to have left some legal questions unanswered. The 2nd Circuit’s opinion, however, seems to leave room for future plaintiffs to seek redress against Google and other Web advertisers for similar trademark claims.

In a memorandum and order for Jurin v. Google Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94020, a related California case, plaintiff, the owner of the trademark “Styrotrim,” sued Google alleging that it had, through AdWords, misappropriated this trademark and generated advertising revenue while committing trademark infringement. Plaintiff also claimed that advertisements appearing on searches for Styrotrim might confuse users. Plaintiff analogized his case to Rescuecom but the court disagreed, distinguishing that decision by saying it relied mostly on the “use in commerce” portion of the Lanham Act, which was not in issue in this case.

It is unclear whether future litigation will lead to profit sharing between advertisers like Google and owners of registered trademarks sold as keywords. Altogether, the courts have yet to clarify whether the Lanham Act provides protections for owners of trademarks when those trademarks are sold as keywords to advertisers. However, future litigation will almost certainly arise in this area and the outcome will likely involve a great deal of revenue, whether it remains with the advertiser such as Google or must be paid out to the rightful trademark owners.

Nick Solish is a lawyer at Bryan Cave and recent graduate of the University of Texas. He can be contacted at nick.solish@gmail.com.

Sink or Swim: Can Grooveshark Maneuver the Ocean of Copyright Laws?

By Nick Solish

Imagine using the Internet to listen to any song you wanted to for free.  Now imagine putting those songs into playlists, sharing them with friends, and listening to them from your mobile phone.  This is the concept behind Grooveshark.com, listed in Time Magazine’s “Best Websites of 2010,” a Web site where users can upload music and listen to other users’ musical uploads.

Recently, Google.com removed Grooveshark’s application from the Android mobile store for violating Google’s terms of service.  Google did not mention any specific violation, but has recently courted record labels and copyright holders in anticipation of Google’s new music downloading service.  There was also speculation that record companies pressured Google to remove the application or face legal action.  Apple Inc. similarly removed its iPhone Grooveshark application in August, 2010 after receiving a complaint from Universal Music Group, who is currently in litigation against Grooveshark.

In response to Google’s recent action, Grooveshark’s Senior Vice President of Information Products, Paul Geller, wrote an open letter claiming their operation is entirely legal.  Geller cites Grooveshark’s FAQ page, which states they will honor “take down claims” that fully comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) terms and will remove infringing content.  Compliance with DMCA “take down claims,” argues Grooveshark, brings them under the same protection as Youtube.com, who is only required to take down offending videos if a proper “take down claim” is filed and deemed legitimate.

Geller also noted that Grooveshark has secured licenses with thousands of artists and is working to secure licenses with others.  Grooveshark claims to pay copyright holders for sound recordings played through its service.  Furthermore, it has taken down almost two million infringing files and suspended over 20,000 user accounts for copyright infringement.  A 2009 suit with EMI Music, one of the big four record companies, was dropped in favor of a licensing deal; Grooveshark hopes more record companies will follow.

However, it is unclear that compliance with the DMCA is sufficient to make Grooveshark’s operations entirely legal.  Whether its operation is protected by the copyright code may hinge on whether Grooveshark is deemed an interactive service as defined in 17 U.S.C. Section 114(j)(7).  In Arista Records LLC v. LAUNCH Media Inc., 578 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2009), a consortium of groups led by BMG, the third largest group of record labels, sued Yahoo’s interactive radio service, LaunchCast, under the DMCA.  The DMCA requires an interactive service to pay licensing fees to content owners, whereas a non-interactive service merely has to pay a smaller statutory licensing fee.

The appellate court in Arista Records discussed the definition of an interactive service under the DMCA as a service “enabl[ing] a member of the public to receive a transmission of a program specially created for the recipient, or on request, a transmission of a particular sound recording, whether or not as part of a program, which is selected by or on behalf of the recipient.”  The phrase “specially created” is ambiguous and the court examined Congress’ intent in enacting the 1972 Copyright Act to determine what “specifically created” meant, finding the intent behind the protection of sound recordings was to prevent piracy.  Radio stations were exempted as radio broadcasting was considered free advertising for record companies.

In response to the growth of Internet radio, Congress enacted the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act (DPSR) in 1995. This gave copyright holders of sound recordings an exclusive, but narrow, right to perform or play sound recordings via digital audio transmission.  This right only extended to performances through paid subscription services and “interactive services.”  These service providers were required to obtain licenses for each sound recording performed, while non-interactive services qualified for the much lower statutory licensing fees set by the Copyright Royalty Board.  The law was partly enacted because it was believed that interactive services would be a greater detriment to record sales than non-interactive services, which more closely mirrored traditional radio.

The Copyright Act defines a service as interactive if it is either specially created for the user or if a user can use the service to find and play a specific song.  The 2nd Circuit determined the LAUNCHcast service would be interactive if a user could request and play a particular sound recording or have a program specially created on request.  LAUNCHcast does not do this, rather, it bases song recommendations on genres a user enjoys and on a song rating scale.  Consequently, the 2nd Circuit deemed it as non-interactive and thus, not responsible for individually licensing performed sound recordings.  Applying this criteria, Grooveshark seems to be an interactive service under the DPSR and the 1972 Copyright Act.  It allows users to play specific sound recordings at their request, meeting the 2nd Circuit’s criteria for an interactive service.  Thus, despite Grooveshark’s compliance with take down notices, it is unclear how this will shield them from liability under the DPSR interactive services provision.

In January 2010, UMG brought suit against Grooveshark in New York state court.  UMG’s suit is unusual because it was not filed in federal court and only pursued violations against pre-1972 recordings.  Filing specifically for these violations allows UMG to recover under both federal and state law, whereas post 1972 recordings would only be recoverable under federal law.  A New York case, Capitol Records Inc. v. Naxos of America Inc., 262 F.Supp.2d 204 (2003), held that pre-1972 recordings are protected under state copyright law because 17 U.S.C. Section 301(c) allows recovery for these recordings under state common law or state statutes until Feb. 15, 2067.   Grooveshark faces an uphill battle both because it is dealing with unfamiliar state common law remedies, and because it is located in Florida.

UMG does not specifically allege that Grooveshark is an interactive service and therefore owes compulsory licensing fees under the DPSR.  However, UMG does allege that users access protected content on Grooveshark through a search, and when a file is played, Grooveshark’s Web site creates a copy of that sound recording on the user’s computer, which then plays for the user via streaming.  Furthermore, UMG discusses Grooveshark’s VIP service where users are charged a monthly fee but can store music on their phones, like an mp3 player.  These allegations form the basis for its copyright infringement claim, based on illegal distribution and copying of protected content.

UMG is using the Naxos decision to seek additional remedies that may be prohibited under the 1972 Copyright Act.  The Naxos court noted that “‘where a product is placed upon the market, under…statement that the substitute or imitating product is a duplicate of the original, and where the commercial value of the imitation lies in the fact that it takes advantage of and appropriates to itself the commercial qualities, reputation, and salable properties of the original, equity should grant relief.’”  Escape Media Group (EMG), Grooveshark’s parent company and defendant in UMG’s suit, mostly denied the allegations of the complaint in their answer without further explanation.  However, EMG specifically denied that any of the features of Grooveshark’s VIP service were designed to enhance infringement and distribute any sound recordings to users.

It remains to be seen whether Naxos will be interpreted to allow common law or state statutory remedies against Grooveshark.  Its files do seem to imitate real mp3s by acting as duplicates of songs users must otherwise purchase, which makes the service commercially valuable.  Grooveshark may argue they are equivalent to an Internet radio service, but giving users control over songs played distinguishes it from traditional radio, or even Internet radio companies.

While it is unclear whether UMG will succeed in its suit, it does seem like Grooveshark will be swimming upstream.

*Originally published in the Los Angeles Daily Journal on May 2, 2011.  Reprinted with permission.  

%d bloggers like this: