Flash Digest: News in Brief
By Samantha Rothberg

Chinese National Sentenced to 12 Years in U.S. Prison for Selling Pirated Software

Songwriters’ Rights Group BMI Sues Pandora Over Fee Dispute

Google Argues Wi-FI is “Radio Signal” in Street View Case

New York Aims to Crack Down on 3D Gun Printing

Ninth Circuit Affirms DMCA Safe Harbors for Streaming Video Providers

UMG v. Veoh
by Pio Szamel ­– Edited by Jacob Rogers

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the Federal District Court for the Central District of California, which had granted summary judgment finding that the streaming-video host Veoh was protected by the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) and dismissed additional infringement claims against Veoh’s investors.

Jersey Boys’ Use of Ed Sullivan Show Clip Is Fair Use, Ninth Circuit Affirms

SOFA Entm’t, Inc. v. Dodger Prods., Inc.
By Erica Larson – Edited by Alex Shank

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision of the District Court for the Central District of California to grant summary judgment and award attorneys’ fees to Dodger Productions, Inc. (“Dodger”) in its suit against SOFA Entertainment, Inc. (“SOFA”). In an opinion by Judge Trott, the court concluded that Dodger’s unlicensed use of a clip from the Ed Sullivan Show fell squarely within the fair use exception.

Ninth Circuit Requires Reasonable Suspicion for Forensic Laptop Searches at the Border

United States v. Cotterman
By Casey Holzapfel ­– Edited by Jessica Vosgerchian

In an en banc decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a decision of the District Court of Arizona suppressing evidence found in a laptop seized by border agents. The Ninth Circuit held that comprehensive searches of electronic devices must meet a standard of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

No Warrant Required for Undercover Agent to Use Concealed Recording Device, Says Ninth Circuit

United States v. Wahchumwah
By Pio Szamel – Edited by Geng Chen

The Ninth Circuit affirmed a ruling by the Eastern District of Washington which held that the use of a concealed audiovisual recording device on the person of an undercover agent to record inside a defendant’s home without a warrant did not violate the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. In inviting the undercover agent into his home, the defendant “forfeited his expectation of privacy as to those areas that were knowingly expose[d] to” the undercover agent.