|District Court Enjoins
8/1. The U.S. District Court (CDCal) issued an
[12 pages in PDF] in Warner Bros. v. WTV Systems, titled "Order Granting
Motion of Motion Picture Studio Plaintiffs for Preliminary Injunction".
The District Court concluded that the Zediva service provides an unauthorized
public performance of copyrighted movies, rather that a permissible DVD rental
service, and issued a preliminary injunction.
The plaintiffs (Warner Bros., Columbia, Disney, Paramount, Twentieth Century Fox, and
Universal) filed a
complaint on April 5, 2011, in the District Court alleging that WTV Systems'
Zediva web site "streams Plaintiffs' movies on demand to paying customers over
the Internet" without plaintiffs' authorization.
They alleged copyright infringement in violation of
U.S.C. § 501. They alleged that Zediva provides a public performance in
violation of their exclusive rights of copyright, under
U.S.C. § 106(4).
See, stories titled "Movie Companies Sue Zediva for Copyright Infringement"
and "Commentary: Zediva, Movie Streaming, and the First Sale Doctrine" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 2,217, April 5, 2011.
The District Court opinion lists many ways that consumers can view
copyrighted movies with authorization: "by going to a movie theater; by buying a
copy of the Copyrighted Work on DVD or Blu-ray Disc; by renting a copy of the
Copyrighted Work on DVD or Blu-ray Disc at a bricks-and-mortar store or through
a mail subscription service, such as Netflix; by downloading and licensing a
permanent copy of the Copyrighted Work through a service, such as amazon.com; by
accessing the Copyrighted Work ``on demand´´ for a fixed period of time through
a cable, satellite, or internet delivered video on demand platform, such as
Comcast, DirecTV, or Vudo; by viewing the Copyrighted Work through a
subscription video on demand streaming service, such as Netflix; by watching the
Copyrighted Work on a scheduled subscription cable television channel, such as
HBO; or by watching the Copyrighted Work for free on network television."
However, the movie company plaintiffs do not authorize all distribution
channels at once. Different distribution channels have different windows. In
particular, the Court wrote that they "may not make that Copyrighted Work
available through rental DVD mail subscription services, such as Netflix, or
rental kiosks, such at Redbox, until 28 days after the initial home video
release date." Also, they "may also have granted exclusive rights to a cable
television channel to distribute the Copyrighted Work after the initial home
video release, and, during that time, the Copyrighted Work is often not
available through video on demand."
The Court explained that "Defendants provide their customers with access to
DVDs purchased by Defendants containing the Copyrighted Works. To operate their
service, Defendants have purchased hundreds of DVD players and installed them in
cabinets at a data center they lease in Santa Clara, California. Defendants also
have purchased copies of Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Works on DVD, and place those
DVDs in their DVD players, with each DVD remaining in its respective DVD player
while it is transmitted to Defendants’ customers on multiple occasions. ...
Defendants stream the content of the DVD to a customer ..."
As a consequence of their unauthorized streaming, the Zediva defendants
"are able to offer performances of Plaintiffs' Copyrighted Works at below-market
prices. While most licensed internet video on demand services currently charge
between $3.99 and $5.99 to watch new releases of Plaintiffs' Copyrighted Works,
Defendants charge only $1.99 per movie, or 10 movies for $10. Defendants also
have an availability advantage over licensed internet video on demand services
because, unlike Defendants, those services must take certain Copyrighted Works
off the market during exclusivity periods that certain Plaintiffs may have
granted to subscription cable television channels while Defendants can continue
to offer those Copyrighted Works during the exclusivity period." (Footnote
The District Court then listed the showings that a
plaintiff must make for a preliminary injunction: "(1) a likelihood of success
on the merits; (2) a likelihood that the moving party will suffer irreparable
harm absent a preliminary injunction; (3) that the balance of equities tips in
the moving party’s favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public's
First, as to the merits of the claim, the District Court began with the
statute, 17 U.S.C. § 106(4), which provides that "the owner of copyright under
this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following
... (4) in the case of ... motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to
perform the copyrighted work publicly".
The key legal issue in this case is whether what Zediva does constitutes
performing the copyrighted work publicly -- that is, a public performance. The
Court applied the definitions from Section 101 of the Copyright Act, and
examined the legislative history of the relevant definitions, and concluded that Zediva provides public performances. Hence, the plaintiffs are likely to prevail
on the merits.
Second, as to irreparable harm, the District Court concluded that the Zediva
defendants are interfering with the movie company plaintiffs' ability to
negotiate contracts, "because potential licensees will not be willing to pay a
premium for a non-exclusive period". In addition, the plaintiffs are not
receiving normal licensing fees, the continued existence of the authorized
licensees is threatened, and "the development of a successful and lawful video
on demand market" is threatened.
The District Court concluded also, with little discussion, that the third and
fourth elements, balance of equities or hardships, and public interest, weigh in
favor of the plaintiffs. Therefore, it granted the motion for preliminary injunction.
The Motion Picture Association of America's
(MPAA) Dan Robbins stated in
release that this "decision is a great victory for the more than two million
American men and women whose livelihoods depend on a thriving film and
television industry. Judge Walter rejected Zediva's argument that it was
`renting´ movies to its users, and ruled, by contrast, that Zediva violated the
studios' exclusive rights to publicly perform their movies, such as through
authorized video-on-demand services."
"Movie fans today have more on-demand options than ever for watching films at
home, from iTunes to Netflix to Amazon to Vudu to Hulu to the VOD offerings from
cable and satellite operators. All these legitimate companies have obtained
licenses from the copyright owners. The court found Zediva's service threatened
the development of these lawful VOD and Internet-based services."
This case is Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., et al. v. WTV Systems, Inc.,
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, D.C. No. CV
11-2817-JFW (Ex), Judge John Walter presiding.
|Sen. Franken Writes FCC Regarding
Bloomberg's Complaint Against Comcast
8/4. Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) sent a
letter to the
Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division and the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) regarding Bloomberg's complaint to the FCC about Comcast's compliance with merger
conditions imposed by the FCC when it approved the Comcast NBCU transaction in
Sen. Franken (at right) wrote that
"It is now six months since this deal was approved, and a complaint has already been filed
by Bloomberg, L.P. regarding Comcast's refusal to place Bloomberg's financial news channel in
the same ``neighborhood´´ as other cable news networks, including Comcast's CNBC and
He wrote that "At the time the Commission adopted this condition, it recognized that
Bloomberg was a close competitor of CNBC and that Comcast would have an incentive to
disadvantage this network to gain advertising revenue and subscribers."
The FCC issued its
Memorandum Opinion & Order (MOO) [279 pages in PDF] approving the merger, subject to
conditions, on January 20, 2011. It is FCC 11-4 in MB Docket No. 10-56.
That MOO, in Appendix A, at page 121, sets forth the following condition: "If Comcast
now or in the future carries news and/or business news channels in a neighborhood, defined as
placing a significant number or percentage of news and/or business news channels substantially
adjacent to one another in a system's channel lineup, Comcast must carry all independent news
and business news channels in that neighborhood."
Bloomberg filed a
complaint with the FCC on June 13, 2011, in which it wrote that "Despite a clear
requirement in the FCC Order that Comcast include independent news channels,
such as Bloomberg Television ("BTV"), in Comcast's existing news neighborhoods,
Comcast refuses to implement the Commission's express direction."
Bloomberg continued that it "has asked Comcast to place BTV in Comcast's
existing news neighborhoods on all Comcast systems in the 35 most populous DMAs.
Comcast, however, has refused, claiming that it does not currently have any news
neighborhoods and, in any event, that the Commission's news neighborhooding
condition applies only to neighborhoods that will be created in the future.
Neither of these assertions has any merit."
Comcast filed an answer
[206 pages in PDF] with the FCC on July 27, 2011. It wrote that Bloomberg is attempting to
"extract preferential channel placement on Comcast's cable systems through regulatory
gamesmanship", that it has not violated the MOO, and that the complaint should be
On August 3 the FCC granted Bloomberg's request that the deadline for its reply be extended
to August 30. The FCC's proceeding on this complaint is MM Docket No. 11-104.
Sen. Franken, who opposed the merger, wrote in his letter that "I
fear that Comcast's alleged attempt to maneuver around the neighborhooding
condition in the merger order is only the beginning of a series of lengthy and
expensive battles over conditions, and I urge the Commission to act promptly if
Comcast is in violation of this or any other conditions in its merger order."
He added that "I am concerned that small online video
distributors and independent channels may not have the resources to file a
relevant complaint, and there may be no known constituencies or public interest
groups with sufficient resources to police Comcast's efforts to wiggle around
the Commission and DOl's carefully crafted conditions".
He concluded that "We have seen a trend over the last two
decades of FCC and DOJ acquiescence to large media/telecommunications mergers.
Many of these mergers have been sold to the public based on the strength and
number of conditions that are imposed on the transaction. But conditions mean
absolutely nothing if the corporation cannot be trusted to implement them in a
full and transparent manner and if there is minimal enforcement of the
corporation's efforts to skirt the requirements of the deal."
|This issue contains the following items:
• District Court Enjoins Zediva
• Sen. Franken Writes FCC Regarding Bloomberg's Complaint Against Comcast
• Google Says Patents Attack Android
• Biden to Visit PRC and Japan
|Google Says Patents Attack
8/3. Google's Chief Legal Officer David Drummond wrote a
piece in the Google web site titled "When Patents Attack Android". He argued that
there is "a hostile, organized campaign against Android by Microsoft, Oracle, Apple and
other companies, waged through bogus patents".
He offered this explanation. "They're doing this by banding together to acquire Novell’s
old patents (the “CPTN” group including Microsoft and Apple) and Nortel's old patents (the
``Rockstar´´ group including Microsoft and Apple), to make sure Google didn’t get them; seeking
$15 licensing fees for every Android device; attempting to make it more expensive for phone
manufacturers to license Android (which we provide free of charge) than Windows Phone 7; and
even suing Barnes & Noble, HTC, Motorola, and Samsung. Patents were meant to encourage
innovation, but lately they are being used as a weapon to stop it."
He wrote that "A smartphone might involve as many as 250,000 (largely questionable)
patent claims, and our competitors want to impose a ``tax´´ for these dubious patents
that makes Android devices more expensive for consumers. They want to make it
harder for manufacturers to sell Android devices. Instead of competing by
building new features or devices, they are fighting through litigation."
This is "anti-competitive" and "likely to draw regulatory scrutiny",
He added that "We're encouraged that the Department of Justice forced the group I
mentioned earlier to license the former Novell patents on fair terms, and that it’s looking
into whether Microsoft and Apple acquired the Nortel patents for anti-competitive means.
We're also looking at other ways to reduce the anti-competitive threats against Android by
strengthening our own patent portfolio."
See also, stories titled "Update on Apple Microsoft RIM Sony Ericsson Acquisition of
Nortel Patents" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,260, July 16, 2011, and "AAI Urges
DOJ to Investigate Acquisition of Nortel Patent Portfolio" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No.
2,255, July 11, 2011.
|Biden to Visit PRC and Japan
8/4. The White House news office stated in a
release that Vice President Joe Biden will travel to the People's Republic of China (PRC), Mongolia and Japan.
It states that in the PRC Biden (at left) "will meet with Vice President
Xi and other Chinese leaders, including President Hu and Premier Wen Jiabao, to consult on a
broad range of bilateral, regional, and global issues."
This release adds that VP Biden will visit the southwestern city of Chengdu. It is a
major center of information and communications technology manufacturing,
services and research. Many U.S. companies have operations there.
web page titled "Chengdu Cloud Computing Center", IBM's
web page titled
"IBM to Build Chengdu into a Smart City", Intel's
web page regarding its assembly
testing facility in Chengdu, and Cisco's
release titled "Cisco Collaborates with
Chengdu to Support the Development of Local Information Society and Sustainability
The release states that "In Japan, the Vice President will express steadfast U.S. support
for its close ally in the wake of the recent earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear emergency. The Vice
President will thank U.S. civilian and military personnel for their assistance in responding to
the disaster, as well as highlight Japan's resilience during the recovery and rebuilding
New items are highlighted in
|Friday, August 5
The House will not meet. It is in recess until 2:00 PM on
The Senate will meet in pro forma session at 10:00 AM.
10:00 AM. The
Senate Finance Committee (SFC) will hold a hearing
on the nominations of Michael Punke (to be Deputy U.S. Trade Representative), Paul
Piquado (to be Assistant Secretary of Commerce), and David Johanson (to be a
member of the U.S. International Trade Commission). See,
notice. Location: Room 215, Dirksen Building.
EXTENDED FROM JULY 8. Deadline to submit comments to
the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in connection with
June 21 event titled "Patent Standards Workshop". See,
the Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 93, Friday, May 13, 2011, at Pages 28036-28038, and FTC
release of May 9, 2011.
See also, story titled "FTC to Hold Workshop on Standard Setting and Patents"
in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No.
2,242, May 16, 2011. See, FTC's June 29, 2011,
|Monday, August 8
The Senate will not meet. It is in recess until
2:00 PM on September 6. However, it will hold pro forma sessions twice per week
EXTENDED TO AUGUST 15.
Deadline to submit comments to the
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in response to its
notice in the
Federal Register regarding the proposed self-regulatory guidelines submitted to the FTC by
Aristotle International, Inc. under the safe harbor provision of the Children's Online
Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) Rule. See, Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 123, Monday,
June 27, 2011, at Pages 37290-37291. See,
notice of extension.
|Tuesday, August 9
The Senate will meet in pro forma session at 11:00 AM.
10:30 AM. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold an
event titled "open meeting". See,
tentative agenda, and story titled "FCC Releases Tentative Agenda for August 9
Meeting" in TLJ Daily e-Mail Alert No. 2,264, July 20, 2011. Location: FCC, Commission
Meeting Room, 445 12th St., SW.
Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) in response to its
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) [17 pages in PDF] regarding Terrestrial Trunked Radio,
or TETRA, technology. The FCC adopted this item on April 18, 2011, and released the text
on April 26, 2011. It is FCC 11-63 in WT Docket No. 11-69 and ET Docket No. 09-234. See,
the Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 91, Wednesday, May 11, 2011, at Pages 27296-27300.
|Wednesday, August 10
Deadline set by Rep. Ed
Markey (D-MA) and Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX)
for Groupon to respond the interrogatories propounded in their July 26
the July 11
collect, share more information". See also, Rep. Markey's
|Thursday, August 11
10:00 AM. The Department of Commerce's (DOC)
Bureau of Industry and Security's (BIS)
Materials Technical Advisory Committee will hold a partially closed meeting. See,
notice in the
Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 146, Friday, July 29, 2011, at Page 45508. Location: DOC,
Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution & Pennsylvania
Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) [15 pages in PDF] regarding whether to make the
grandfathered providers permanently eligible for universal service subsidies under the FCC's
rural health care program. The FCC adopted this NPRM on June 20, 2011, and released
the text on June 21, 2011. It is FCC 11-101 in WC Docket No. 02-60. See,
notice in the
Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 123, Monday, June 27, 2011, at Pages 37307-37309.
Deadline to submit comments to the
National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST)
Computer Security Division (CSD) regarding its draft
SP 800-56 C [17 pages in PDF] titled "Recommendation for Key Derivation through
|Friday, August 12
The Senate will meet in pro forma session at 12:00 NOON.
|About Tech Law
Tech Law Journal publishes a free access web site and a subscription e-mail alert.
The basic rate for a subscription to the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert is $250 per year for
a single recipient. There are discounts for subscribers with multiple recipients.
Free one month trial subscriptions are available. Also, free subscriptions are
available for federal elected officials, and employees of the Congress, courts, and
executive branch. The TLJ web site is free access. However, copies of the TLJ Daily
E-Mail Alert are not published in the web site until two months after writing.
For information about subscriptions, see
subscription information page.
Tech Law Journal now accepts credit card payments. See, TLJ
card payments page.
TLJ is published by
carney at techlawjournal dot com
3034 Newark St. NW, Washington DC, 20008.
Copyright 1998-2011 David Carney. All rights reserved.