IP: ReplayTV lawsuit followup

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> From: "Claburn, Thomas" <Thomas_Claburn () ziffdavis com>
> To: <farber () cis upenn edu>
>
> Regarding the suit against SonicBlue and its Replay4000.
> http://www.latimes.com/business/la-000010608feb11.story?coll=la-headline
> s-business
>
> The actual complaint (Civ. No. 01-09358-FMC (Ex)) makes for interesting
> reading (for a legal document).
>
> There are six counts against ReplayTV/SonicBlue: direct copyright
> infringement, contributory copyright infringement, vicarious copyright
> infringement, violation of Section 553 of the Communications Act,
> violation of Section 605 of the Communications Act, and Unfair Business
> Practices.
>
> The copyright claims are fairly straightforward.
>
> Regarding Section 553,from page 28 of the amended complaint:
> "The Communications Act makes it unlawful for any person to intercept or
> receive or assist in intercepting or receiving any communications
> offered over a cable system, unless specifically authorized to do so by
> a cable operator or as specified by law."
>
> A claim that equates the Replay4000 with stealing cable. So don't lend
> those Sopranos tapes to your friends either.
>
> Regarding Section 605, from page 29:
> It "forbids any person receiving, assisting, in receiving, transmitting,
> or assisting in transmitting, any interstate communication by radio from
> publishing the contents thereof except through authorized channels."
>
> It seems this charge, which applies specifically to the "Send Show"
> feature, requires a fairly broad definition of "radio."
>
> Regarding the charge of Unfair Competition, page 29:
> "California Business & Professional Code 17200 provides for injunctive
> or other relief against 'any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act
> or practice.'"
>
> "Defendants have engaged in one or more unfair business acts and/or
> unfair business practices by providing a device that enables users to
> instantly and completely eradicate an essential revenue-producing aspect
> of plaintiffs' business."
>
> Curiously, it's the device that's unfair, not the actions of consumers.
> I wonder whether ammunition manufacturers could make similar claims
> against makers of bullet-proof vests.
>
> Worth noting: the Hollywood studios decided to drop the Go Video
> Dual-Deck VCR from their complaint.
>
> http://www.sonicblue.com/company/press.asp?ID=508
> http://www.sonicblue.com/video/govideo/ddv2120.asp
>
> It also features the ability to skip commercials. But it uses analog
> tape rather than a digital hard disk. The strategy the studios seem to
> be pursuing is to let them eat analog, so to speak. You have a right to
> make good copies, but not perfect digital copies. There was a recent
> court decision that upheld this view (perhaps being appealed), though I
> can't remember the details.
>
> Thomas Claburn, Senior Editor
> Ziff Davis Smart Business Magazine
> 50 Beale Street, 13th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105
>
> 415/547-8122 (v) * 415/547-8029 (f)
>
> http://www.smartbusinessmag.com
> http://www.lot49.com

For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/