Appellate court rejects cable license for FilmOn

In its long-running bid to transform broadcasting, controversial firm fails to persuade judges to extend protections granted to cable companies. TV networks complained high-tech company’s through-air, content “capture,” and re-transmissions constitute infringement.

FilmOn boasts that it provides its customers through its website with an impressive access to “600 free live TV Channels” as well as “45,000 complimentary movies.” While Internet streaming services like Hulu and Netflix often say they have been forced to raise their prices to cover expensive content-licensing fees how, then, can FilmOn offer online such a wide, no-cost offering of copyright protected entertainment?

The answer—or so FilmOn thought, at least—rests in Section 111 of the Copyright Act. It allows bona fide cable systems to secure licenses that permit them to re-transmit a “performance or display of a work” previously broadcast by others—but without securing consent of the material’s copyright holder. Cable systems are protected against infringement claims, provided they pay fees to the U.S. Copyright Office, as spelled out by statute.

For FilmOn, which has become something of a broadcast copyright bad boy, Section 111 was a key legal step to advance the company’s controversial ambitions to transform broadcasting. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has pulled the plug on yet another aspect of its complex, continuing technology-based arguments in its battle with competitors and the TV networks. The appellate judges in Pasadena, Calif., recently ruled in favor of Fox, NBC, ABC, CBS and other broadcasters, finding that FilmOn can’t qualify as a cable system and thereby can’t obtain federal licenses allowing it to re-transmit copyrighted material from the networks.

Are we near the end of the long-running battle over what happens with free signals pulled from the air by thousands of tiny antennas at a central site, then sent onward? Hasn’t the highest court in the lands settled the contentious “Aereo” argument? (more…)

Read More

Blue film firm keeping up its barrage of suits

 

Malibu Media, LLC., an adult film company, filed 201 copyright infringement lawsuits in February. It also launched 747 cases in 2016, and 1,956 suits in 2015, according to Bloomberg Law data. If that sounds like a lot, here is a mind-rattling statistic: In 2014, the company accounted for up to 40 per cent of all copyright infringement claims in the country.

The company was founded by a husband and wife team in 2009. They have said they aim to upend the industry with a higher quality of erotic films. Malibu launched the site x-art.com and created porn that was more expensive to make than most of its competition. The firm charged a monthly subscription fee of $40 for access.

In 2011, after two years of promising growth, their subscriber base plateaued at around 50,000 users. The company soon determined that 300,000 people were watching pirated versions of the company’s movies each week. Malibu filed its first copyright infringement lawsuit in February, 2012. (more…)

Read More

‘Marshall Tucker’ rockers lose battle for mark


The southern rockers in The Marshall Tucker Band may be singing the blues. That’s because the musicians in the legendary, long-running, and oft-reconstituted band had their trademark lawsuit against their publishing company dismissed recently.

The band had filed various trademark claims against MT Industries (MTI) over “The Marshall Tucker Band” mark. But on March 1, a U.S. District Court in South Carolina granted a motion to dismiss the band’s claims of infringement and dilution against the company.

Band members had also initiated a claim of copyright cancellation, as well as other state law claims. MTI argued that the entire action should be dismissed, and filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the court’s lacked subject matter jurisdiction. How did this long hard ride end? (more…)

Read More

Sir Paul’s rights claims: music industry temblor

In artists’ battles to terminate, recover copyrights, $750-million Beatles catalog’s a legal behemoth

It’s a provision of copyright law that has proved advantageous for many—but not for Duran Duran. Now Paul McCartney, a titan of the music industry, has sent tremors through the business by asserting he soon will try it with his iconic tunes, which are worth tens of millions of dollars.

The music industry has braced for some time over what will happen with musicians’ termination notices and the subsequent recaptures of their compositions as permitted under the law. Some songwriters – who say they too were young, poor, naïve, and misinformed – insist they must seize back their copyrights after being taken advantage in earlier deals. Will this launch a new gold rush of innovative deal making early in careers? On the litigation front, will Sir Paul bring a new wave of lawsuits over copyrights to now-legendary works? (more…)

Read More