Copyright Infringement

May 8, 2013

Malibu Media Sues Twenty-Eight Additional “John Doe” Defendants for Copyright Infringement

Indianapolis, Ind. — Malibu Media, LLC of Los Angeles, Calif. has sued twenty-eight “John Does” for copyright infringement in separate complaints filed in the Northern District of Indiana and Southern District of Indiana.

Copyright lawyer Paul Nicoletti is again in federal court on behalf of Malibu Media. The company has filed twenty-eight similar lawsuits claiming copyright infringement. The “John Doe” defendants allegedly used the BitTorrent file-sharing protocol to illegally download, copy and distribute elements of various works of Malibu Media’s copyrighted material.

We have previously blogged about Malibu Media here and here. We have also blogged about some of the other copyright-infringement litigation filed by Paul Nicoletti here.

Malibu Media seeks a permanent injunction against infringing activities; an order by the court to remove infringing materials from all computers of each defendant; an award of statutory damages of $150,000 per infringed work and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

Practice Tip: The actions of companies such as Patrick Collins and Malibu Media have been called “extortionate” and, in at least one case, a class action suit has been filed against these “trolls.” The issue of “trolls” has also caught the attention of at least one U.S. lawmaker. Senator Charles Schumer has proposed legislation wherein the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office would review patent infringement suits before they could be filed in court. Of course, such legislation is not directly relevant to actions sounding in copyright, such as the multiplicity of lawsuits filed by Malibu Media. It may, however, sound a warning bell that tolerance of the questionable activities of intellectual-property trolls of all varieties is wearing thin.

April 1, 2013

Indiana Court of Appeals Holds that Forfeiture for Fraud in the Form of Copyright Infringement Requires Nexus Between Fraud and Forfeited Property

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Ind. – The Indiana Court of Appeals granted Indiana’s petition for rehearing and reaffirmed its January ruling in favor of defendant Michael Curtis that a conviction for fraud in the form of copyright infringement was, by itself, an insufficient predicate for forfeiture.

Curtis was charged with four counts of Class D felony fraud for selling pirated movies out of his truck. He pleaded guilty to one count of fraud, which was entered as a misdemeanor, and the remaining charges were dropped. The state also filed a complaint for forfeiture of Curtis’s truck under Indiana Code § 34-24-1-1(a)(1)(B) (2009), which allows the seizure of vehicles “if they are used . . . to transport . . . stolen [IC §35-43-4-2] or converted property.” The trial court granted the forfeiture.

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the decision, holding that fraud in the form of copyright infringement was neither garden-variety theft nor conversion and, thus, was not within the scope of the forfeiture statute. We blogged about that decision here.

The state asked for and was granted a rehearing. It argued that Yao v. State, 975 N.E.2d 1273 (Ind. 2012), required a different outcome. The appellate court disagreed, stating that, while Yao “might support the proposition that pirated movies constitute stolen property,” it failed to answer the question of forfeiture. On that issue, the court looked to Katner v. State, 655 N.E.2d 345 (Ind. 1995).

In Katner, the Indiana Supreme Court reversed the forfeiture of a vehicle predicated on an empty container in the possession of the driver that was found to have cocaine residue. There, the trial court had ordered the defendant’s vehicle forfeited under a statute allowing forfeiture where a vehicle was used to transport a “controlled substance for the purpose of. . . [p]ossession of cocaine.” The Court held that the state had not met its burden under the forfeiture provision to show a nexus between the property to be forfeited and the underlying offense.

The appellate court in this case held that such a nexus analysis was also appropriate for the forfeiture provision which applies to stolen or converted property. As the state had apparently had not shown a nexus between the use of the truck and the sales of the pirated movies, the court affirmed its earlier decision.

Practice Tip: It looks like Curtis can keep his truck. However, in the January decision, the appellate court suggested that legislation would likely be required to allow forfeiture in cases involving copyright infringement. In contrast, this current decision seems to hold that, should the required nexus between property and copyright infringement be proven at trial, a forfeiture statute could be used to seize property involved in that infringement.
Continue reading

March 15, 2013

Klipsch and Audio Products International Sue Monoprice for Patent, Trade-Dress and Copyright Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Ind. – Klipsch Group, Inc. (“Klipsch”) and Audio Products International Corp. (“API”), both of Indianapolis, Ind., have sued Monoprice, Inc. (“Monoprice”) of Rancho Cucamonga, Calif. alleging patent infringement, trade dress infringement, unfair competition and copyright infringement.

In an eight-count complaint, intellectual property attorneys for Klipsch and its subsidiary API allege that Monoprice has been engaged in manufacturing, importing, selling and/or offering to sell a system entitled “5.1 Hi-Fi Home Theatre Satellite Speakers & Subwoofer” which is a less expensive “knock-off” of plaintiffs’ “ENERGY® TAKE CLASSIC™ 5.1” (“Energy Take Classic 5.1”) home theater system.

Count I of the complaint alleges the infringement of API’s Patent No. 6,725,967 (“Low distortion loudspeaker cone suspension“; also called the “‘967 Patent”) which was issued by the U.S. Patent Office in 2004.

The system has apparently been well received, garnering positive reviews and selling well. In Count II, “Trade Dress Infringement and Unfair Competition,” it is alleged that API has continuously promoted the Energy Take Classic 5.1 system and its predecessors and that, as a result of the commercial success of the systems, the systems’ trade dress has acquired secondary meaning among relevant consumers as an identifier of the source of the Energy Take Classic 5.1 system. The complaint further alleges that Monoprice’s conduct is causing confusion among consumers as to the affiliation of Monoprice with API and as to the origin of Monoprice’s goods.

Counts III through VII [NB: this should have been “III through VIII”; “Count III” was enumerated as a separate count twice in the complaint], all pertain to copyright infringement. More specifically, it is alleged that Monoprice has violated the copyrights of:

· the Energy Take Classic 5.1 Home Theatre System as a whole

· the Energy Take Classic 5.1 Satellite Speaker

· the Energy Take Classic 5.1 Center Channel Speaker

· the Energy Take Classic 5.1 Subwoofer Speaker

· the Energy Take Classic 5.1 Subwoofer Backplate

· the Energy Take Classic 5.1 Owner’s Manual

The complaint lists 14 separate requests for relief [NB: these appear, upon first count, as 13; however “request for relief” letter “k” is listed twice]. Among these are requests for judgments against Monoprice for infringement of the ‘967 Patent, trade-dress infringement, unfair competition and copyright infringement. API seeks compensatory damages and, for willful and deliberate wrongdoing by Monoprice, statutory damages up to treble the actual amount found or assessed by the court. API also asks the court to enjoin infringing behavior by Monoprice. Finally, it asks for attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses.

Practice Tip: There is certainly some overlap between design-patent infringement and copyright infringement. However, the multiple counts of copyright infringement for speakers and similar “original work[s] of authorship” – all of the applications for which were filed on February 22, 2013 – attempt to proceed under copyright law against alleged infringements that seem more appropriately considered to be a matter of design-patent law. Proceeding under copyright law, however, does have two significant advantages: a liberal filing period and a substantially longer period of protection. Many products are brought to market without having filed for a design patent. If the application for such a patent is not filed within one year of the public offering or sale of the products, the statutory bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102 will prevent the design patent from being issued. Copyright has no such strict application deadline. Additionally, the 14-year life of design-patent protection is in stark contrast to the protection available under copyright law to a corporation for a work-for-hire, which can extend over 100 years.

March 5, 2013

Court Refuses to Quash or Modify Subpoena Designed to Identify Alleged Infringer of Copyrighted Movie

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, IN – The Southern District of Indiana ruled in favor of Plaintiff Patrick Collins, Inc. by denying the motion of pro se Defendant John Doe No. 7 to quash or modify Plaintiff’s subpoena.

In a lawsuit originally styled “Patrick Collins, Inc. v. John Does 1 – 13,” Patrick Collins, Inc. of Canoga Park, California (“Patrick Collins”), alleged direct and contributory infringement by 13 then-unidentified individuals including John Doe No. 7. The suit was filed by copyright attorney Paul Nicoletti.

By motion, Dustin Hillman (“Hillman”), identifying himself only as “John Doe 7,” asked the court to quash or modify the subpoena seeking to compel his internet service provider to provide his real name to the Plaintiff, stating that “such actions violate right to privacy and the disclosure of such matters may result in wrongful or unjust incrimination.”

Hillman attached for the court’s review an article which concluded that a common approach for identifying users infringing copyright law using BitTorrent (via the Internet) was not conclusive. He then asked the court to require Plaintiff to provide further information about its methods of identifying defendants and proof of the reliability of those methods. “Hardly a day goes by,” said Hillman, “that the news does not contain a story where a computer system containing highly confidential data has been hacked, spoofed and infected by malware.” He asked for the subpoena to be quashed or modified on these grounds.

The court was not persuaded. It discussed those situations under FRCP 45(c)(3)(A) where a court must quash or modify a subpoena and then those situations under FRCP 45(c)(3)(B) where a court may quash or modify a subpoena. Citing the Malibu Media litigation, a similar matter which we blogged about here, the court then noted that the burden of establishing the grounds to quash a subpoena is borne by the party seeking to quash it. Hillman, it said, had made an argument denying liability based on the possibility that his IP address may have been used by someone else. Such an objection was an argument on the merits of the case and was “irrelevant and premature” in the discovery phase of the litigation.

Hillman also asked the court to require the Plaintiff to disclose its “shake down methods” of collection, how much it had collected from alleged copyright infringers, the percentage of cases settled without trial and the total costs incurred by the Plaintiff. The court was not moved by this request, either, stating that no evidence of abusive settlement tactics had been presented to the court.

Hillman’s identity was deemed “relevant information that is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” and Hillman’s motion to quash or modify the subpoena was denied.

Practice Tip: Patrick Collins, Inc. has filed quite a few suits, including another case naming over 1,000 John Doe defendants. The company has been called a “copyright troll” on more than one occasion. The actions of companies such as Patrick Collins and Malibu Media have been called “extortionate” and, in at least one case, a class action suit has been filed against these “trolls.”

March 5, 2013

Malibu Media Sues Seventeen “John Doe” Defendants for Copyright Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, IN – Plaintiff Malibu Media, LLC of Los Angeles, CA has sued seventeen “John Does” for copyright infringement in separate complaints filed in both the Southern District of Indiana and the Northern District of Indiana.

Paul Nicoletti, a copyright attorney, has filed seventeen nearly identical suits in Indiana federal court on behalf of Malibu Media. The “John Does” allegedly used the BitTorrent file-sharing protocol to illegally download, copy and distribute elements of various works of copyrighted material.

We have previously blogged about Malibu Media here. We have also blogged about some of the other copyright-infringement litigation filed by Paul Nicoletti here.

Malibu Media seeks a permanent injunction against infringing activities; an order by the court to remove infringing materials from all computers of each defendant; an award of statutory damages of $150,000 per infringed work – which would total over $1 million for many defendants – and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

Practice Tip: The BitTorrent protocol is a decentralized method that allows users to distribute data via the Internet, and has become an extremely popular method for unlawful copying, reproducing and distributing files in violation of the copyright laws. While the copyright infringements committed with BitTorrent once consisted mostly of music copyright violations, the adult entertainment industry has increasingly been filing suit against infringers who have used BitTorrent-based technology.

February 22, 2013

BMI and Copyright Owners Sue Carey Tavern and its Owners for Copyright Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, IN – Copyright lawyers for Broadcast Music, Inc. (“BMI”), of New York, NY and eight other plaintiffs have sued VAT, Inc. (“VAT”) d/b/a Carey Tavern and its owners, Matthew and Valerie Schachte of Westfield, IN, for copyright infringement in the Southern District of Indiana.

In its complaint, BMI states that it has been granted the right to license the public performance rights of more than seven million copyrighted musical compositions, including the compositions at issue. The other plaintiffs are the owners of the copyrighted music that was allegedly infringed and include such artists as Dolly Parton, via her sole proprietorship Velvet Apple Music, and R.E.M., via Night Garden Music, a division of R.E.M./Athens LTD. Also plaintiffs in this case are: Sony/ATV Songs, LLC d/b/a Sony/ATV Tree Publishing, Moebetoblame Music, Sony/ATV Songs LLC, ECAF Music, Blues Traveler Publishing Corporation, and Universal Music-Z Tunes LLC d/b/a Universal Music Z Songs.

The suit, brought under The Copyright Act, alleges that the defendants infringed multiple songs in BMI’s repertoire by performing the copyrighted songs and/or causing the copyrighted songs to be performed publically in Carey Tavern. It alleges that there were seven instances of infringement, with each artist-plaintiff having at least one copyrighted song infringed by the defendants.

Plaintiffs allege that VAT has a direct financial interest in Carey Tavern, as do Matthew and Valerie Schachte. Further, it is alleged that Matthew and Valerie Schachte are officers of VAT, with primary responsibility for the operation, management and supervision of the activities of VAT.

The plaintiffs claim that further acts of infringement will injure them irreparably and ask that the court enjoin the defendant from committing further acts of infringement. The plaintiffs also seek statutory damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §504(c) and costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.

Practice Tip #1: BMI has a history of actively pursuing litigation in cases where copyrighted songs were performed in bars or restaurants without authorization.

We have previously blogged about BMI:

– BMI Sues Indianapolis Bar for Copyright Infringement of Honky Tonk Women

– BMI Sues Elkhart Bar for Copyright Infringement of Achy Breaky Heart and Other Songs

– BMI Sues Fishers Bar for Copyright Infringement of Counting Crow’s Mister Jones and Other Songs

– Broadcast Music, Inc. et al Sues Bertee’s Inc. et al for Copyright Infringement of Musical Composition

– BMI Sues Diamond Investments Inc. D/B/A The Juke Box Live for Copyright Infringement of Eight Songs

– BMI Sues Olive’or Twist Bar for Copyright Infringement of Unlicensed Performance of Five Songs

– BMI sues Shenanigans for Infringement of Song Copyrights

– BMI Sues R House of Brews for Musical Composition Copyright Infringement

– BMI Sues Bugsy’s Entertainment Group for Copyright Infringement

Practice Tip #2: The plaintiffs have sued not only the business entity but also its two owners as individuals. Copyright laws allow an officer of a corporation to be held liable for the corporation’s copyright infringement if the officer contributes to the infringement by inducing or encouraging the infringement. An officer can also be liable for copyright infringement if the officer supervises the infringing conduct and has a direct financial benefit from the infringement.

January 29, 2013

The World Trade Organization Suspends United States Intellectual Property Rights in Retaliation for Trade Restrictions Deemed Improper Under the General Agreement on Trade in Services

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Geneva, Switzerland – The World Trade Organization (“WTO”) has granted its permission for the twin-island nation of Antigua and Barbuda (“Antigua”) to disregard intellectual property rights granted by the United States (i.e., patents, copyrights and trademarks). The decision follows nearly ten years of negotiations and litigation pursuant to a 2003 complaint to the WTO by Antigua.

In the United States, there are three separate federal laws (the “Wire Act,” the “Travel Act” and the “Illegal Gambling Business Act”) and various state laws promulgated by Louisiana, Massachusetts, South Dakota and Utah that prohibit certain means of delivering gambling services, most particularly the interstate delivery such services. The dispute centered on the conformance of these laws with an international trade agreement when the laws restricted online gambling services offered in the U.S. by Antigua. [NB: Other WTO members participated as complainants but, by 2009, the U.S. had negotiated agreements with each of them.]

Via its attorneys, Antigua alleged that, together, the federal and state restrictions amounted to discrimination against foreign companies and constituted a breach of the United States’ agreement under the WTO’s General Agreement on Trade in Services (“GATS”). Antigua stated that its economy, which had, without the restrictions, included a substantial volume of online gambling services offered to the residents of the U.S., had been significantly damaged.

January 29, 2013

Indiana Court of Appeals Vacates Trial Court’s Order to Forfeit Truck Used for Sales of Pirated Movies

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, IN – The Indiana Court of Appeals has vacated the decision of The Honorable Timothy Oakes, Marion County Superior Court, to seize the truck of a defendant who pled guilty to fraud for having sold pirated movies from the truck.

In December 2009, the State charged Michael Curtis with felony fraud for selling pirated movies out of his truck. The State also sought forfeiture of the truck from which the movies had been sold under 34-24-1-1(a)(1)(B) which allows for the seizure of vehicles that are used to facilitate the transportation of “stolen . . . or converted property” valued at $100 or more.

Curtis pled guilty to one count of fraud and the remaining charges were dismissed. The court granted the State’s motion to seize the truck. Curtis filed a motion in opposition, which was not granted, and later appealed.

Upon appeal, Curtis cited Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985) as precedent and the Indiana Court of Appeals discussed the case.

The U.S. Supreme Court held that a copyright was “no ordinary chattel,” Dowling, 473 at 216. Theft of a copyrighted work via infringement was held to be distinguishable from theft of tangible property as it “plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.” Id. at 218.

In Dowling, the defendant had engaged in infringement but had been convicted under the portion of the National Stolen Property Act (“NSPA”) which criminalized actions wherein items, subject to other conditions, were “stolen, converted or taken by fraud.” 18 U. S. C. § 2314. The Court ruled that the language of “stolen, converted or taken by fraud” did not include copyright infringement. Under the rule of lenity — a rule which calls for construing ambiguous criminal statutes in favor of criminal defendants — the Court held that the defendant had not violated the NSPA by infringing upon a copyright.

In Dowling, the rule of lenity caused the Court to construe the language of a criminal statute narrowly. Here, the Indiana Court of Appeals was asked to interpret a statute authorizing forfeiture, another type of statute that is strictly construed. As the language “stolen . . . or converted” did not include either fraud or copyright infringement, the order of the trial court to forfeit the truck was vacated.

Practice Tip: While the penalties for copyright infringement can be significant, the rule in Dowling will presumably prevent many statutes prohibiting theft of tangible items from being applicable to copyright infringement unless the legislature makes clear its intent to include copyright infringement in the language of the statute.

January 10, 2013

Attorney and Professional Photographer Richard Bell of McCordsville, IN Sues Seventy-Three Defendants in Two Separate Complaints Filed in the Southern District of Indiana Alleging Copyright Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, IN – Attorney and self-proclaimed professional photographer Richard N. Bell, suing on his own behalf, filed two separate complaints alleging copyright infringement and unfair competition under the Copyright Act and conversion under Indiana statutory law as a result of the unauthorized use of a photograph he had taken and which had been registered with the United States Copyright Office. Bell is seeking damages, injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment. Mr. Bell has been disciplined by the Indiana Supreme Court for violating the Rules of Professional Responsibility. (See Disciplinary Action here.)

In the first complaint, filed January 4, 2013, Bell named twenty-five separate Defendants: Greg Bayers, LLC; Leppart Associates; crazy-frankenstein.com; Hometown Rentals; Frank Kirchner; Brent Bythewood; Pixmule.com; InternMatch; Team Champion; Electraproducts; Alex Bruni; Mark Groff; Greatimes Family Fun Park; Peter Brzycki; Tom Kelly; Relociti.net; gerberbabycontest.net; MerchantCircle, Inc; Amber Russell; WSBT, Inc.; Delia Askew; Intercontinental Industries; The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice; Linen Finder, Inc.; and Radio One of Indiana.

In the second complaint, filed January 8, 2013, Bell named the remaining forty-eight Defendants: Jerry Gordon; Demand Media, Inc.; Bryce Welker; Royal Corniche Travel Ltd.; VRBO.com, Inc.; Experience Credit Unions, LLC; Jaclothing.com; Glacier International; ABNHotels.com; 1&1 Internet, Inc.; Conde Nast Digital; Flixter, Inc.; Financing-USA.com; SodaHead, Inc.; NuMedia Marketing, Inc.; Jynell Berkshire; Tzvetelin Petrov; Los Pentecostales del Area de la Bahia; 10Best, Inc.; Keyes Outdoor Advertising; Zoom Communications Inc.; Christine Nevogt; Zarzar, Inc.; Hydro-Gear; Tam T. Dang; Lon Dunn; William McLaws, Trustee; Natl-electronic Residential Payment History Recording Agency; CVI; Constant Contact, Inc.; Charles Lantz; Schumacher Cargo Logistics; Eventbrite, Inc.; Celebrity Entertainment Corp.; Association of Equipment Manufacturers; Yardi Systems Inc.; DiamondIndyLimo.com; Marcelo Santos; National Rural Recruitment & Retention Network; Anbritt Stengele; Pinnacle Sports Equipment, Inc.; Marygrove College; RunAnyCity.com; Buzzle.com, Inc.; Charles Onuska; University of Indianapolis; and PersephoneMagazine.com.

December 10, 2012

Indiana Court Denies Motions to Sever and Quash in Bittorrent Porn Copyright Infringement Suit

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Fort Wayne, IN – Copyright attorney Paul Nicoletti filed a lawsuit on behalf of Malibu Media in the Northern District of Indiana alleging copyright infringement of the pornographic movie “Romantic Memories.” It alleges the infringement occurred by downloading it using the Internet file sharing “bittorrent” protocol. The suit was against 14 as-yet-unnamed Indiana Defendants, John Does 1-14. “Romantic Memories” had been coded with a “Unique Hash Number,” and upon investigation, 14 Internet Protocol (“IP”) addresses were identified. Upon receiving permission from the court, Plaintiff served third party subpoenas on two Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) to discover the names and other contact information of each Defendant.

Defendant John Doe No. 12, acting pro se, filed a Motion to Dismiss or Sever for Misjoinder and to Quash Plaintiff’s Subpoena. The court rejected the Motion to Dismiss on a technicality, noting that under local rules motions must be filed separately, and denied the Motions for Severance and to Quash.

Doe No. 12’s Motion to Quash under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a) argued that there was no evidence that any improper use of his IP address would be sufficient to support an assertion that he was responsible for such misuse. The Court acknowledged that Doe No. 12 had standing to object to the subpoena on the grounds that it would implicate his privacy interest. However, it went on to reject his argument as a mere denial of liability and not relevant to a Motion to Quash. Doe No. 12 further asserted that the subpoena should be quashed as a burden on his ISP. The court found that argument unpersuasive as 1) the subpoena would not burden Doe No. 12 personally and 2) Rule 45 only requires a court to quash a subpoena when it subjects a person to an undue burden. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A)(iv). Further, the court held that no exception for privilege was applicable, as courts have consistently held that “there is no expectation of privacy in Internet subscriber information because it has already been exposed to a third party, the Internet Service Provider.”

Doe No.12’s Motion to Sever under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 or 21 argued, that there was no single transaction or series of transactions as is required for permissive joinder. Courts across the country are split regarding whether joining anonymous defendants alleged to have participated in a single BitTorrent “swarm” in a single suit is appropriate. The court here allowed joinder as the Plaintiff alleged a set of facts sufficient to support a finding that the separate actions were part of the same series of transactions, noting that the file sharing protocol required each participant to send and receive portions of the work in order to download and view the entire work. The second requirement for joinder under Rule 20, a “common question of law or fact,” was sufficiently pled by the Plaintiff’s assertion, without exception, of the same counts of copyright infringement against all Defendants. Discretionary severance under Rule 21 was also denied as unnecessarily cumbersome at this stage of the litigation.

Finally, the court issued a warning to plaintiffs in situations such as these, stating that “the litigation strategy Plaintiff has employed in this case has a history of becoming abusive and potentially giving rise to sanctions under Rule 11.” The court further cautioned plaintiffs against improperly leveraging a defendant’s reluctance to have his identity revealed to coerce a settlement.