The CopyKat - mid August musings for copyright monkeys

US Judge declines to dismiss criminal charges against Kickass Torrents Owner

For years in the USA, there's been ample debate and scholarly literature over whether there really exists a crime for secondary copyright infringement. On Friday, a federal judge in Illinois probably made the day for big copyright holders by ruling that the U.S. Government has properly indicted Artem Vaulin, the alleged founder of KickassTorrents. A copy of the judgment can be viewed in full here.

Vaulin is currently in a jail cell in Poland after the 31-year-old was charged last year by U.S. authorities with running one of the world's most popular places to illegally obtain movies, television shows, songs and video games.

Judge John Lee takes up the issue of whether secondary liability for copyright infringement can be extended from the civil realm to the criminal one. In his decision the judge says that Vaulin is basically missing the big picture.

"[A]s should be clear by now, the indictment does not charge Vaulin with common law secondary liability... Rather, the indictment relies on the text of the congressionally enacted conspiracy and aiding and abetting statutes... Thus, the indictment charges Vaulin not with crimes based upon common law theories, but for conduct made unlawful under unambiguous statutes."

Dawn of Planet of the Apes Halted as Peta call time on Monkey Selfie Case

Naruto, via his self-appointed lawyers from the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, is in the process of dropping his lawsuit over the now infamous monkey selfies. That's according to a Friday legal filing with the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, which is being asked to hold off on issuing a ruling that everybody believes is going to go against Naruto.

Nobody would say publicly what the deal is, or why this is happening. However, during oral arguments in the case last month, a three-judge panel of the court of appeals eviscerated Naruto's arguments.

On the positive side though, PETA's lawsuit has prompted public discourse about the idea of animals owning property. And that's why this lawsuit may have been about nothing more than monkey business all along.

T. Rex heir sues Sony over Baby Driver song copyright

Sony is being sued for using a song by glam rock band T. Rex in summer blockbuster Baby Driver "without permission".

The son of late frontman Marc Bolan has filed a lawsuit accusing the studio of copyright infringement over the use of the band's hit Debora. A full copy of the suit can be viewed here.

Feld Bolan won the rights to the works of his father's band three years ago and is seeking punitive damages.

"Inexplicably, defendants failed to obtain - or even seek - the permission of the composition's US copyright holder Rolan Feld," said the complaint filed in Los Angeles federal court.

Feld was made aware of the use of 'Debora' when a Sony Music representative contacted his lawyer to request a licence to use the track on the movie's soundtrack release. The complaint claims that Feld then let Sony know that use of the song in the movie was "unauthorised", but Sony is said to have responded with "conflicting explanations", and Feld says they have now ceased communications.

Cards Against Humanity granted injunction in copyright and TM claim

Cards Against Humanity owns copyright number TX0007492177 at the US Copyright Office for its “base” set and numerous other copyright for its expansion packs.

The company has used the trademark ‘Cards Against Humanity’ since 2009, along with the tagline “A party game for horrible people”, its trade dress, which consists of white lettering on a black background with vertically aligned text, and a three-card design.

Cards Against Humanity is sold to US consumers through Amazon, its own website, eBay and, since 2014, various selected retail stores. A US judge has granted the owners of card game Cards Against Humanity an injunction against Skkye Enterprises, a company accused of selling counterfeit versions of the game. 

Cards Against Humanity filed a copyright and trademark infringement claim(pdf) against Skyye in September 2016 at the US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

District Judge Audrey Fleissig granted (pdf) a permanent injunction and default judgment on Wednesday, August 9.On copyright infringement, Fleissig said that an award of $12,000 per infringement, totalling $60,000—or three times the highest estimated sales of defendants’ infringing game—in combination with the other damages, is a “just and suitably deterrent outcome”.The court awarded $20,000 per trademark infringement, for a total award of $60,000, which Fleissig said “compensates plaintiff in a fashion consistent with the purposes of the Lanham Act and case law”.

Cards Against Humanity was also granted an injunction against Skkye, along with an order for destruction of infringing goods.It was also awarded attorneys’ fees, subject to a further submission to the court on their reasonableness.

This CopyKat from Matthew Lingard

THE COPYKAT

Extradition to US for alleged torrenter Artem Vaulin

Artem Vaulin – the alleged owner of the torrenting site KickAss Torrents (“KAT”) and Ukranian national – is facing extradition to the United States. In July 2016 he was arrested in Poland and charged by criminal complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago, with one count of conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement, one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering and two counts of criminal copyright infringement. Vaulin has been held in custody since his arrest, having been denied bail.

The US is alleging that Vaulin, who is 30 years old, is responsible for the unlawful distribution of $1 billion of copyrighted materials.

Vaulin’s American defence council has asked the Illinois District Court to dismiss the case, arguing that torrent files are not copyright protected. Vaulin’s defence team argued that “Torrent files are not content files. The reproduction and distribution of torrent files are not a crime.” The defence council continued; “If a third party uses torrent files to infringe it is after they leave the KAT site behind and such conduct is too random, inconsistent, and attenuated to impose criminal liability on Mr. Vaulin. The government cannot use the civil judge-made law in Grokster as a theory in a criminal case.”

The Warsaw District Court has ruled in a preliminary ruling that Vaulin can be extradited. The extradition process does, however, have another hearing until the decision is final, as the process is decided in two stages. If the lower court fully grants the extradition request, Vaulin will have recourse to the Polish Supreme Court. If extradition is granted, he will be facing a criminal trial in the US.

And more extradition! it's off to the US for alleged torrenter Kim Dotcom

Kim Dotcom has been at the centre of an extradition saga since 2012. He is the founder of Megaupload, another BitTorrent site. Dotcom, a German national with permanent residency rights in New Zealand, was arrested at the behest of the US on criminal copyright violation and racketeering charges.

In a recently released decision, it has been ruled that Kim Dotcom cannot be extradited to the US on copyright infringement charges. Dotcom’s legal team had argued that there are no equivalent criminal sanctions for copyright infringement in New Zealand that would activate the extradition treaty with the US.

Instead, it was ruled that Dotcom can be extradited on grounds of conspiracy to commit fraud, which is an extraditable offence under section 24 of the Extradition Act 1999. Dotcom and his legal team immediately criticized the decision, stating that “The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that copyright charges can't be fraud charges. Let's just ignore that minor detail over here in New Zealand.”  Image portal gda https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/

The saga is not at its end, and further updates should be available in the upcoming months.

Piracy filters for ISPs – web blocking

The contentious issue of the blocking of pirating sites by ISPs has been reported on this blog previously here, here and here.

The Recording Industry Association of American (“RIAA”), along with 14 other groups of rightsholders have now expressed its dissatisfaction with the current DMCA takedown regime and is advocating for ISPs to directly filter out pirated content in comments filed with the US Copyright Office. It argues, inter alia, that “the notice and takedown system as currently configured results in an endless game of whack-a-mole, with infringing content that is removed from a site one moment reposted to the same site and other sites moments later, to be repeated ad infinitem.”

Google responded to the RIAA’s comments, principally pointing out the 99% of links it was asked to remove in January of this year “were not in our search index in the first place.”

These comments to the US Copyright Office are being made within the context of a review of US Copyright laws which is taking place at the moment.

Search engines potentially to be forced to delist piracy sites in Russia

A new copyright law has been proposed in Russia which would force search engines to delist piracy websites.

Sites that would potentially be blocked under the new law would be those that have been subject to a web-block injunction in the Russian courts, as well as piracy sites that have failed to respond to takedown requests by rightsholders.

Students to pay to play whilst learning music?

Conflict is brewing in Japan between The Japanese Society for Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers (“JASRAC”) and The Association to Protect Music Education.

The domestic Copyright Law grants an exclusive “right of performance” to composers and lyricists to perform their copyrighted music. JASRAC is planning to introduce a policy charging copyright fees for performances of copyrighted music at music schools in January 2018. This policy would be to charge music schools 2.5% of the income generated from tuition fees for a fixed rate licence to perform copyrighted music.

JASRAC argues that it is unfair that music schools are not covered under this right. In contrast, The Association to Protect Music Education argues that performing music for instruction is not for the purpose of having people listen to it, and that copyright fees are already paid through payment for scores and other materials.

The Association to Protect Music Education is ready to take legal action in order to verify that no such financial obligation flows from the domestic Copyright Act.

This CopyKat by Tibbie McIntyre