Creative Protection

Single software licence shared 774,651 times

By Nicole Kobie

Posted on 6 Dec 2010 at 12:21

A single licence for Avast security software has been used by 774,651 people after it went viral on a file-sharing site, according to the company.

Avast noticed that a license for its paid-for security software, sold to a 14-user firm in Arizona, was being distributed online. Rather than shut down the piracy, the company decided to see how far the software would spread.

The Avast Pro licence showed up on file-sharing sites, and a year and a half later it had topped three-quarters of a million active users.

Full story.

Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc.

Timothy Vernor purchased several used copies of Autodesk, Inc.’s AutoCAD Release 14 software (“Release 14”) from one of Autodesk’s direct customers, and he resold the Release 14 copies on eBay. Vernor brought this declaratory judgment action against Autodesk to establish that these resales did not infringe Autodesk’s copyright. The district court issued the requested declaratory judgment, holding that Vernor’s sales were lawful because of two of the Copyright Act’s affirmative defenses that apply to owners of copies of copyrighted works, the first sale doctrine and the essential step defense.

Autodesk distributes Release 14 pursuant to a limited license agreement in which it reserves title to the software copies and imposes significant use and transfer restrictions on its customers. We determine that Autodesk’s direct customers are licensees of their copies of the software rather than owners, which has two ramifications. Because Vernor did not purchase the Release 14 copies from an owner, he may not invoke the first sale doctrine, and he also may not assert an essential step defense on behalf of his customers. For these reasons, we vacate the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Vernor and remand for further proceedings.

Download Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc.

F.B.T. Prods., LLC v. Aftermath Records

This dispute concerns the percentage of royalties due to Plaintiffs F.B.T. Productions, LLC, and Em2M, LLC, under their contracts with Defendant Aftermath in connection with the recordings of Marshal B. Mathers, III, professionally known as the rap artist Eminem.1 Specifically, F.B.T. and Aftermath disagree on whether the contracts’ “Records Sold” provision or “Masters Licensed” provision sets the royalty rate for sales of Eminem’s records in the form of permanent downloads and mastertones. Before trial, F.B.T. moved for summary judgment that the Masters Licensed provision unambiguously applied to permanent downloads and mastertones. The district court denied the motion. At the close of evidence, F.B.T. did not move for judgment as a matter of law, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Aftermath. On appeal, F.B.T. reasserts that the Masters Licensed provision unambiguously applies to permanent downloads and mastertones. We agree that the contracts are unambiguous and that the district court should have granted summary judgment to F.B.T. We therefore reverse the judgment and vacate the district court’s order awarding Aftermath its attorneys’ fees.

Download F.B.T. Prods., LLC v. Aftermath Records

RIAA Accounting: Why Even Major Label Musicians Rarely Make Money From Album Sales

from the going-behind-the-veil dept

We recently had a fun post about Hollywood accounting, about how the movie industry makes sure even big hit movies "lose money" on paper. So how about the recording industry? Well, they're pretty famous for doing something quite similar. Reader Jay pointed out in the comments an article from The Root that goes through who gets paid what for music sales, and the basic answer is not the musician. That report suggests that for every $1,000 sold, the average musician gets $23.40.

Full story.

'Hollywood Accounting' Losing In The Courts

If you follow the entertainment business at all, you're probably well aware of "Hollywood accounting," whereby very, very, very few entertainment products are technically "profitable," even as they earn studios millions of dollars. A couple months ago, the Planet Money folks did a great episode explaining how this works in very simple terms. The really, really, really simplified version is that Hollywood sets up a separate corporation for each movie with the intent that this corporation will take on losses. The studio then charges the "film corporation" a huge fee (which creates a large part of the "expense" that leads to the loss). The end result is that the studio still rakes in the cash, but for accounting purposes the film is a money "loser" -- which matters quite a bit for anyone who is supposed to get a cut of any profits.

Full story.

RIAA v. Library of Congress

By law, the Copyright Royalty Board sets the terms and rates for copyright royalties when copyright owners and licensees fail to negotiate terms and rates themselves. As part of its statutory mandate, the Board sets royalty terms and rates for what is known as the § 115 statutory license. That license allows individuals to make their own recordings of copyrighted musical works for distribution to the public without the consent of the copyright owner.

In carrying out its statutory responsibilities under 17 U.S.C. § 115, the Board instituted a 1.5 percent per month late fee for late royalty payments. It also implemented a pennyrate royalty structure for cell phone ringtones, under which copyright owners receive 24 cents for every ringtone sold using their copyrighted work.

The Recording Industry Association of America challenges those two aspects of the Board’s decision, arguing that they were arbitrary and capricious for purposes of the Administrative Procedure Act. We conclude that the Board’s decision was reasonable and reasonably explained. We therefore affirm the Board’s determination.

Download RIAA v. Library of Congress

Cincom Sys., Inc. v. Novelis Corp.

Novelis Corporation appeals from the order of the district court granting summary judgment to plaintiff Cincom Sysems, Inc. (“Cincom”), on its claim of copyright infringement. See 17 U.S.C. § 501. Novelis argues that the district court erred by concluding that a series of mergers Novelis underwent as part of an internal corporate restructuring resulted in a prohibited transfer of the software license Cincom had granted to a former Novelis subsidiary. Finding that our prior decision in PPG Industries, Inc. v. Guardian Industries Corp., 597 F.2d 1090 (6th Cir. 1979), governs Novelis’s appeal, we agree with the district court that Novelis’s actions led to an impermissible transfer of the software license and accordingly affirm its judgment.

Download Cincom Systems Inc v. Novelis Corporation

Court takes case over licensing of NFL apparel

Frederic J. Frommer
Associated Press  —  6/30/2009 6:49 am

WASHINGTON -- In taking a case involving the National Football League's exclusive licensing deal for sports merchandise, the Supreme Court could go beyond caps and give leagues more leeway in areas such as team relocation, legal scholars said Monday.

"A broad ruling in favor of the NFL could rewrite almost all of sports antitrust law," said Gabe Feldman, associate law professor and director of the Sports Law Program at Tulane University in New Orleans.

The court will hear an appeal from American Needle Inc., of Buffalo Grove, Ill., which filed an antitrust challenge to an agreement the NFL struck with Reebok International Ltd. American Needle had been one of many firms that manufactured NFL headwear until the league granted an exclusive contract to Reebok in 2001.

The NFL won the case in the federal appeals court in Chicago. But it also asked the Supreme Court to hear the case in a quest for a more sweeping decision that could put an end to what the league considers costly, frivolous antitrust lawsuits.

Full story.

MTH negotiates new Union Pacific licensing deal for all

Royalty-free agreement covers model train manufacturers in all scales

November 8, 2006

Standing firm on principle, Mike Wolf, president and owner of MTH Electric Trains, has negotiated a new royalty-free licensing deal with the Union Pacific RR that extends to all model railroad manufacturers and their products in all scales.

"It was the right thing to do," Wolf said in an exclusive interview with Kalmbach Publishing Co., publisher of Model Railroader.

Wolf announced that the deal, reached November 2, 2006, is royalty-free and continues in perpetuity. "It's the best thing for the long-term health of the hobby," Wolf said, forsaking any advantages that MTH would have gained from negotiating a deal only for itself.

Bob Turner, Senior Vice President Corporate Relations for Union Pacific, said, "Mike Wolf is to be commended for his commitment to the model railroad industry. His energy and passion helped us find a solution that will better reflect the positive relationship that Union Pacific and the model train industry have enjoyed for many years."

The Union Pacific had sued MTH in 2005, stating that the model train manufacturer continued to produce Union Pacific-branded trains in violation of the railroad's 2002 licensing program.

Rather than give in, MTH chose to defend itself on principle. "It was wrong. They [Union Pacific] had supported us in our manufacturing efforts, and we spent $5 million in tooling just for their trains, like the Big Boy, Challenger, and turbines," Wolf said emphatically.

Full story.