SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
Subscribing entitles a reader to complete stories on all topics released as they happen, special features, confidential documents and access to the complete, searchable story archive online back to 2004.
IP-Watch Briefs

Advertisement


Inside Views

Contribute your views! Submit an Inside Views idea to info [at] ip-watch [dot] ch.

We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

Occupy IP: New Economy Businesses Clash With Old

It may be too much, too late for content providers finally trying to tame the internet, and a fresh approach is needed, writes Bruce Berman.




Special Reports

Non-Communicable Diseases Issue Energises Public Health Policymakers Read More >


Latest Comments
  • Copyrights are unique works set in a concrete mode... »
  • I deeply apprecite the initiative to combat agains... »

  • For IPW Subscribers
    A guide to Geneva-based public health and intellectual property organisations. Read More >

    Monthly Reporter

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter, published from 2004 to January 2011, is a 16-page monthly selection of the most important, updated stories and features, plus the People and News Briefs columns.

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter is available in an online archive on the IP-Watch website, available for IP-Watch Subscribers.

    Access the Monthly Reporter Archive >


    US Cablevision Decision Has Implications For Cloud Computing, Online Advertising

    Published on 3 July 2009 @ 4:56 pm

    By for Intellectual Property Watch

    A recent United States Supreme Court order letting stand a decision that a proposed remote digital video recorder does not violate copyright law has major implications for internet “cloud computing” and advertisers, intellectual property lawyers say.

    US cable operator Cablevision Systems Corporation announced plans in March 2006 to market a “remote storage DVR system” (RS-DVR) to allow customers without a stand-alone DVR to record cable programmes on central hard drives it kept at a “remote” location, according to the 4 August 2008 decision [pdf] by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Subscribers could request playback of the programmes on their home television, using only a remote control and a standard cable box outfitted with RS-DVR software.

    Cablevision notified its content providers of its proposal but did not request licences to use their programming, the appeals court said. Major broadcast and cable channels – including Cable News Network, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Disney Enterprises and Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. – sued in federal court, claiming the RS-DVR would directly infringe their rights to reproduce and publicly perform their protected works.

    Lower Court Decision

    That direct infringement would happen in three ways, plaintiffs argued. RS-DVR would briefly cache data in the buffers integral to the system, enabling Cablevision to make copies in violation of their exclusive reproduction right. Copying programmes on the hard disks used for playing back the content would also directly infringe that right. And transmitting the data from the server hard disks to customers who requested a playback would breach the public performance right.

    The district court agreed, barring Cablevision from operating the system without licences. It rejected Cablevision’s argument that the data were not copies as defined in the Copyright Act and that the amount of copying made during the data-buffering process was negligible.

    The court also ruled that because the copying was done by Cablevision, not individual subscribers, the cable operator was involved in direct infringement of the reproduction right. It dismissed Cablevision’s argument that playback transmission of a programme was made not to the public but exclusively to a particular customer.

    Cablevision appealed. The Second Circuit reversed the decision on all counts and, on 29 May 2009, the US high court declined to review the case.

    Novel Stance on Public Performance

    The real significance of the decision lies in its unprecedented analysis of the public performance right, a US intellectual property lawyer said. Holding that programmes called up individually by subscribers are private performances not subject to copyright paves the way for other “online digital storage locker” (or cloud computing) services to roll out without the need for content licences, he said.

    One such initiative is the Digital Entertainment Content Ecosystem (DECE), an attempt by copyright owners, consumer electronics makers, information technology (IT) companies, internet service providers and others to give consumers a totally interoperable media experience, the IP lawyer said. DECE will allow a consumer to purchase a DVD, put it into a DECE device, move the content to an online storage locker, hook a portable media player into the internet, and download the movie, presumably for a fee, he said.

    The DECE consortium was expected to make a preliminary announcement in January 2009 but is now apparently shooting for 2010, the lawyer said. The Cablevision decision allows DECE to offer its service without paying performance right royalties, he said. However, if another US circuit court disagrees with the Second Circuit, the issue could land in the Supreme Court, he said.

    Many lawyers expect royalty collecting societies and other rights holders to look for a similar case in another jurisdiction to set up such a conflict, and to push Congress to make such services public performances, the IP lawyer said.

    Good News for Cloud Computing

    The Cablevision ruling is good for IT companies moving into cloud computing, said Dow Lohnes PLLC attorney James Burger, who represents technology companies in IP and content licensing matters. If the court had found Cablevision guilty of direct infringement for giving its customers the RS-DVR data storage system, system operators storing consumers’ legally acquired entertainment media in the internet cloud could have faced the same claims, he said.

    Also important for potentially significant future internet business models is the Second Circuit’s ruling that caching content for 1.2 seconds or less is so transitory as not to result in a copyright violation, Burger said. Anyone who knows how a computer works understands that it makes cache copies of any data it processes, he said. In an increasingly mobile world, products and services in the cloud that manipulate consumers’ legitimately acquired media and deliver it to them anytime, anywhere and in any format are likely, he said. All will require transitory caching of content at every stage, he said.

    Bad News for Advertisers

    The “back-story” of why Cablevision’s proposal so upset content owners is that viewers of RS-DVR programming will be able to fast-forward through advertisments, said Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi LLP intellectual property attorney Christopher Larus.

    Now that this kind of technology has won approval, as least from the Second Circuit, it will gain traction in the US, he said. Advertisers whose revenue streams have traditionally been tied to broadcast content will have to come up with more targeted ways to reach consumers, he said.

    For non-US companies considering similar technologies, the Supreme Court’s action also leaves open the possibility that other circuits will reach different results, Larus said, adding that any business seeking to assess how its service might be viewed in the United States will continue to face uncertainty.

    Dugie Standeford may be reached at info@ip-watch.ch.

     


    Leave a Reply

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website. By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

    By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

    2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

    3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

    4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

    5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

    6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

    7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

    8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

    9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.