JOLT Digest

Sony Settles Lawsuit with PlayStation 3 Hacker
By Vivian Tao – Edited by Chinh Vo

Sony Computer Entm’t Am. v. Hotz, No. CV11-0167 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2011)
Final Judgment hosted by Electronic Frontier Foundation

On April 11, 2011, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California entered a final judgment for plaintiff Sony Computer Entertainment America (“Sony”), granting Sony a permanent injunction against defendant George Hotz. The injunction prevents Hotz, a notorious hacker, from engaging in any unauthorized access to Sony products, circumventing security measures in those products, or trafficking and posting any information, service, or product that would lead to such circumvention.

While a motion to dismiss regarding Hotz’s claim over lack of personal jurisdiction is pending, this final judgment comes on the heels of a March 31 settlement agreement between Sony and Hotz. Both parties have agreed to accept this judgment and to waive their rights to appeal.

Ars Technica provides an overview of the case. PC World criticizes the judgment, stating that the injunction’s effect will be constrained by other sites that have already listed and can continue to include information from Hotz’s hacking efforts.

(more…)

U.S. appeals court affirms district court decision that a download is not a performance under the Copyright Act
By Greg Tang – Edited by Ian C. Wildgoose Brown

United States v. Am. Soc’y of Composers, Authors & Publishers, No. 09-0539 (2d Cir. September 28, 2010)
Opinion

On September 28, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the ruling of the Southern District of New York that a digital download of a song does not constitute a public performance under section 106(4) of the Copyright Act. The court also vacated the district court’s assessment of fees for the blanket licenses that Yahoo! Inc. and RealNetworks Inc. sought from The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (“ASCAP”), and remanded for further proceedings.

The holding in this case prevents ASCAP from “double-dipping” by receiving compensation for both copies and performances of its members’ musical works. It also provides much needed clarification on how license fees should be calculated for music streamed over the Internet.

JOLT Digest previously reported on the district court’s ruling that cell phone ringtones do not constitute public performances. BroadbandBreakfast.com and Bloomberg Businessweek each provide an overview of the case. The 1709 Blog and Internet Cases examine the court’s reasoning in detail. (more…)

By Chinh Vo

Google, Verizon Offer Proposal for Regulating Internet, Face Criticism

CNET reports that Google and Verizon have announced a joint proposal for regulating Internet service that offers a legislative framework for net neutrality. The proposal states that Internet service providers should not be allowed to discriminate against lawful online content producers and gives the FCC authority to deal with violators. The proposal, however, contains exceptions for Internet access over mobile networks and new services distinguishable from traditional broadband access, such as advanced health care, education, or entertainment. The New York Times describes criticism from net neutrality proponents who claim that these exceptions would create a loophole companies could exploit to avoid complying with open-access requirements. Other major Internet and telecommunications companies — including Ebay, Amazon.com, and AT&T — expressed concerns about the proposal and stressed the need to review its provisions more carefully.

Concert Organizer Files Trademark Suit Ahead of Festival Date to Preempt Bootlegging

The Hollywood Reporter, Esq. blog reports that concert-organizer AEG Live has filed suit against hundreds of John and Jane Does for infringement of trademarks related to the Mile High Music Festival in Denver. Though the festival will not take place until this weekend, the complaint claims that AEG has the sole right to sell products bearing the festival’s trademark and asks a federal court to allow local, state and federal police officers to seize bootlegged merchandise. AEG’s action is the second this summer to use the John Doe trademark lawsuit to employ law enforcement to control bootlegging, following a similar suit by a merchandising company before a series of Lady Gaga concerts in New York.

Oracle Files Patent and Copyright Suit Against Google for Use of Java in Android

VentureBeat reports that Oracle has sued Google for patent and copyright infringement over its use of the Java programming language in its Android operating system. Oracle, which took ownership of Java after acquiring Sun Microsystems, stated in a press release that “Google knowingly, directly, and repeatedly infringed Oracle’s Java-related intellectual property.” According to the complaint, Google had knowledge of the patents at issue after the company hired former Sun Java engineers a few years ago. As Ars Technica explains, Google “makes heavy use of Java in the Android software development kit,” but has also released a subsequent development kit that allows developers to use C and C++ to build Android components.

By Andrew Segna
Edited by Joey Seiler
Editorial Policy

In December, my JOLT Digest comment discussed the state of independent video game developers on the iPhone and the Xbox 360. This article discussed how a collective action problem plagued independent developers on these platforms. As the platform holders, Apple and Microsoft were able to foster environments that benefited their needs but often were potentially hazardous to independent developers. These hazards became realized when independent developers pursued short-term individual gains, which they are prone to doing due to their limited budgets that require turning quick profits. In order to avoid this problem, I suggested that a legal aid society should promote actions by independent developers that would benefit the class as a whole. The recent release of the iPad presents another manifestation of this problem. Through the case study of the iPad, I will discuss how this new technology presents potential for both success and failure for independent video game developers. However, this problem is not necessarily a legal one as much as it is a collective action issue. Lawyers should serve as mediators between independent developers to foster a unified strategy for the platform in order to ensure that independent developers succeed on both the iPad and in the industry. (more…)

Supreme Court Declares Animal Cruelty Statute Violates First Amendment
By Debbie Rosenbaum – Edited by Chinh Vo

United States v. Stevens, No. 08–769 (U.S., April 20, 2010)
Slip Opinion

The Supreme Court affirmed the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which had held that 18 U.S.C. § 48, a federal statute criminalizing the commercial production, sale, or possession of depictions of cruelty to animals, was an unconstitutional abridgment of the First Amendment right to freedom of speech and did not serve a compelling governmental interest.

In an 8-1 ruling, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a Virginia man who sold dog-fighting videos, holding that the First Amendment does not allow the government to criminalize whole categories of speech and expression that are deemed undesirable. The Court said that 18 U.S.C. § 48 was too broad because while some depictions of animal cruelty were appropriately exempted from the statute, other speech that should be protected, such as “most hunting videos” and photos of out-of-season hunting, was not.

Briefs and relevant court documents are available at the First Amendment Center. NPR, the Wall Street Journal, and the LA Times provide overviews of the case. The Volokh Conspiracy and the Constitutional Law Prof Law Blog analyze the decision. (more…)