By Paul
On Friday, the court reduced the damages in the Jammie Thomas-Rasset filesharing case from $80,000 per song to $2,250 per song. The total now stands at $53,000 which is much less than the the jury awarded. Here is what Judge Michael Davis had to say at page 15:
Although Plaintiffs highlight valid reasons that Thomas‐Rasset must pay a statutory damages award, these facts simply cannot justify a $2 million verdict in this case. Thomas‐Rasset was not a business acting for profit. Instead, she was an individual consumer illegally seeking free access to music for her own use. Congress set a high maximum for statutory damages in order to ensure that damages awards could be large enough to outweigh the potential gain from infringing. As the Court noted in its September 2008 Order, in the case of commercial actors, the potential gain in revenues is enormous and enticing to potential infringers. In the case of individuals who infringe by using peer‐to‐peer networks, the potential gain from infringement is access to free music, not the possibility of hundreds of thousands – or even millions – of dollars in profits. The need for deterrence cannot justify a $2 million verdict for stealing and illegally distributing 24 songs for the sole purpose of obtaining free music.
It will be very interesting to see if this reasoning is applied in future copyright statutory damages rulings.
A copy of the Order can be found at Copyrights and Campaigns
By Paul
I have a short article over on TECHdotMN about why new businesses need to have a plan to protect trade secrets.
By Paul
I am pleased to announce the launch of the TECHdotMN blog. This is a collaboration between a number of people who are interested in startups and technology in Minnesota. I will be contributing as the legal correspondent. There are already a number of local startup spotlight posts written with much more to come. Here is a link to my “welcome post.”
TECHdotMN
By Paul
The movie Blade Runner is based on the novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? written by Philip K. Dick. The androids or replicants in question were Nexus-6 series. I am still confused how a phone, however awesome, is going to evolve into a sophisticated killing machine in only five more revisions. In all seriousness, it is a difficult case to make that brands of fictional products in novels automatically have any trademark protection. As a side note, I believe Google’s use of DROID is under a license from Lucasfilms.
Link to the Wall Street Journal story.
Hat tip to the always interesting boingboing.net
By Paul
From the William Mitchell alumni website:
David Kappos, undersecretary of commerce and director of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office is coming to William Mitchell College of Law to discuss his vision for the USPTO. Save the date.Tuesday, April 6, 20104:30 pmWilliam Mitchell’s Auditorium The event is free and open to the public. Seating is limited
Here is the link to register.
By Paul
While ordinarily an ISP or web service like Vimeo could get off the hook under section 512 of the DMCA, it does complicate things when your staff creates and posts a video that is allegedly infringing.
Link to the Trademark Blog which includes both the video in question and the complaint.
By Paul
Great post by John Ottavianni on Eric Goldman’s Technology and Marketing Blog recaps some of the more consequential developments in cyberlaw this past year.
By Paul
Texas based Lookout Services has accused a Minnesota Public Radio reporter with violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The reporter was doing a story about how Lookout had exposed the private data of a number of Minnesota consumers. Apparently doing your job as a reporter carries with it the risk of being a “hacker.”
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act has both civil and criminal provisions and prohibits the “unauthorized access” of a computer. The phrase “unauthorized access” is pretty vague and has allowed prosecutions to go forward for such things as creating a phony Facebook account as Lori Drew had done to harass her daughter’s classmate. But unlike the Drew case, there is the new twist of a reporter doing the unauthorized accessing. So, which should be more important: a company’s right to be secure in its data, or a journalist’s right to discover and report? If the reports are true, perhaps a company should be expected to take reasonable security precautions before having CFAA remedies available.
See more at the MinnPost article.
