joegratz.net

Judge Fogel of the Northern District of California today denied UMG’s motion to dismiss in the Lenz v. Universal litigation (otherwise known as the “dancing baby” case). The order is here. It holds that copyright holders must conduct a fair use analysis before sending a takedown notice under the DMCA.

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts has dissolved the temporary restraining order which prevented three MIT students from giving their (really outstanding) presentation about transportation fare system security at this year’s DEFCON. The court also denied the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, so the students are free to share their fascinating research results with the world.

No written opinion has been released, but here’s the Court’s docket entry for the hearing:

Electronic Clerk’s Notes for proceedings held before Judge George A. OToole, Jr: Motion Hearing held on 8/19/2008 re [16] MOTION to Modify Terms But Not Duration of Temporary Restraining Order filed by Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, [50] MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority ; After hearing argument from all sides. Court DENIED [50] Motion for Preliminary Injunction and dissolves Temporary Restraining Order; GRANTS [26] Motion for Reconsideration of TRO; [16] Motion for Modification, is MOOT; [33] Motion for Protective Order and [40] Motion for Reconsideration and/or Modification of August 14, 2008 Discovery Order are PENDING.(Court Reporter: Marcia Patrisso.)(Attorneys present: Plaintiff: I. Mahony, M. Bodoin, T. Darling Individual Defendants: C. Cohn, M. Hoffman, A. Kessel, J. Reinstein, L. Kolodney, T. Brown. On the phone: Atty. Granick, Atty. Opsahl, Atty. McSherry, Defendant Z. Anderson, R. Ryan. MIT: J. Swope ) (Edge, Eugenia) Modified on 8/20/2008 (Edge, Eugenia).

Threat Level has more. This makes an auspicious start for the EFF Coders’ Rights Project. Congratulations to the students and to their lawyers!

This post from Boy Genius Report describes a case of the adults intervening when someone in Legal loses their sense of humor over a parody. Good work, Circuit City PR.

Reversing the district court, the Second Circuit today held that Cablevision’s proposed “Remote Storage Digital Video Recorder” does not give rise to direct copyright infringement liability for Cablevision.

The opinion:

• Construes MAI v. Peak to hold that RAM copies can be “fixed,” not that they are always fixed, and imposes a “duration requirement” on fixation, finding that while copies that lasted for “several minutes” could be fixed, copies lasting for only a few seconds were only “of transitory duration,” even though they lasted long enough to be copied.
• Holds that the Netcom/CoStar “volitional conduct” analysis for separating direct from contributory infringement has general application, and is not limited to internet-related copyright issues.
• Holds that transmission “to the public” requires that a particular transmission stream is capable of being received by the public (not just by a single subscriber). This means that the “public-ness” of a performance is measured with respect to one particular transmission, and not in the aggregate across a course of many transmissions. The court explicitly says that it looks only downstream to analyze whether a transmission is a public performance.