UMG V VEOH. MyVidster v Gunter ISP not liable. Tre Milano V Amazon not liable for counterfeit sold. US court criticism of Amazon blocking without C&D. Flava Work case. Music Industry Mulls Suing Google Over “Pirate” Search Results. The recording industry considers filing a lawsuit against Google for allegedly abusing its dominant market position to distort the market for online music.
Industry groups including IFPI and the RIAA want Google to degrade links to "pirate" websites in its search results. IFPI has obtained a "highly confidential and preliminary legal opinion" to see if they can force Google to step up its anti-piracy efforts though a lawsuit. It’s no secret that the entertainment industries believe search engines are not delivering enough when it comes to protecting copyright works. Two months ago the RIAA and IFPI accused Google of massively profiting from piracy and obstructing efforts of rightsholders to reduce the availability of illegal content. Thus far, this row between Google and the entertainment industries has largely taken place behind closed doors, but a confidential document circulating among music industry executives shows that a lawsuit is also being considered.
August 2010 Archives. Broadcaster Gets 230 Defense for Readers’ Website Comments–Miles v.
Raycom By Eric Goldman Miles v. Raycom Media, Inc., 2010 WL 3419438 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 26, 2010). FTC Dings PR Firm for Fake Reviews — In re Reverb Communications [Post by Venkat] In re Reverb Communications, FTC No. 092-3199 (Aug. 26, 2010) (Settlement) Professor Goldman has posted a bunch about the FTC’s endorsement guidelines. Internet Rewards Program Class Action Survives Initial Motion to Dismiss — In re Easysaver Rewards [Post by Venkat] In re: Easysaver Rewards Litigation (S.D.
Ghostwritten Attorney Newsletter is an “Ad” for TCPA Junk Fax Law Purposes–Holtzman v. By Eric Goldman Holtzman v. Google Avoids Liability for Failed Google Search Appliance Installation–Market America v. By Eric Goldman Market America, Inc. v. Did a Court Eliminate 512(h) Subpoenas? By Eric Goldman with additional comments from David Gingras Maximized Living, Inc. v.
Google, Inc., 2011 WL 6749017 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2011). The initial 512(h) subpoena. 17 USC 512(h) is a relic of a different era. Indeed, neither the clerk nor a judge have any statutorily provided discretion to refuse the subpoena. With that background, let me turn to this case. The court does something goofy to reach this result. The problem with this result is that copyright owners must submit a 512(c)(3) takedown notice to service providers before seeking a 512(h) subpoena. As a practical matter, this case’s result may not be earth-shattering even if it survives appeal.
Copyright owners also can avoid this result by filing the 512(h) subpoena request basically at the same time as they send the 512(c)(3) notice.