Press "Enter" to skip to content

Category: Telecom

Freemium is not “for free” in secondary transmission of signal

Non – profit organization Sports Fans Coaliti on NY, Inc. (“SFCNY”) operated the Locast service, which captures over-the-air (“OTA”) broadcast signals and retransmits them over the internet, enabling viewers to stream live television on their preferred internet-connected viewing device. The signals include copyrighted transmissions from plaintiffs’ broadcast stations. Locast has not paid for a license or obtained plaintiff’s consent to retransmit those programs.

Comments closed

Whether the Copyright Office can help stakeholders identify and adopt standard technical measures without congressional action?

As noted in the Report, the Office believes that the identification and adoption of standard technical measures (“STMs”) may provide an opportunity to improve the overall functioning of the notice-and-takedown system through relatively small, incremental changes that nonetheless could have a large impact on the ability of all rightsholders to protect their rights online.

Comments closed

Technological Changes Since the 1990s Have Changed the Landscape in which Section 512 Operates

The technology that allows copyright owners to distribute content directly to consumers’ living rooms via streaming services also enables new forms of piracy: streaming of unlicensed content and stream-ripping – that is, using software to make an unlicensed copy of streamed content that would otherwise be licensed.

Comments closed

Section 512 report – Notice-and-Takedown Process

OSPs seeking protection under the safe harbors in sections 512(b), (c), or (d), must, in addition to the section 512(i) requirements, maintain a compliant notice-and-takedown process by responding expeditiously to remove or disable access to material claimed to be infringing upon receipt of proper notice from a copyright owner or the owner’s authorized agent.

Comments closed

Which clarifications or revisions would be the most beneficial for improving section 512?

First, the Office recommends that Congress clarify the distinction between “actual knowledge” and “red flag knowledge.” Court decisions interpreting the red flag knowledge provision have often required a level of specificity regarding the types of information from which infringing activity is present as to blur the line between actual and red flag knowledge and conflate the existence of either knowledge type with receipt of a takedown notice from a rightsholder.

Comments closed

Research on illegal IPTV in EU – enforcement measures

Key points:

  • Rights holders can avail of civil enforcement measures against both direct infringers and intermediaries.
  • A wide spectrum of blocking injunctions can be sought against internet access providers to repress IPTV infringements.
  • Internet intermediaries can receive orders to disclose information on infringers; however, disclosure of information on end-users of illegal IPTV services may not be compatible with EU data protection law.
  • Criminal measures are also available in all EU Member States against IPTV infringers on a commercial scale.
  • Import and sale of IPTV devices may be prohibited on the ground of non-compliance with EU standards on radio equipment.

Comments closed

EU illegal IPTV research – the actors of the illegal IPTV ecosystem

Another part of fundamental EU research on IPTV. Now – actors and ecosystems participants. The ecosystem for unauthorised IPTV includes several actors. They consist of primary infringers (the providers of the unauthorised content), a series of active and passive intermediaries, and final consumers. In addition, a number of facilitators and enablers can also be involved by giving instructions and providing tutorials for the installation of middleware — software instrumental for the fruition of the unauthorised content.

Comments closed