Justin.TV found not guilty in case filed by Zuffa for streaming

source: blog.ericgoldman.org

Communications Act. Zuffa's claims relate to the "stealing cable" provisions. Justin.tv claimed that 47 USC 230 applies, a pretty logical argument given that Zuffa is bringing a non-IP claim against Justin.tv for third party content. However, the court sidesteps the Section 230 issue, saying it's never been applied to the Communications Act (true) and that the court couldn't find any analogous "stealing cable" claim against websites, and it didn't want to touch this "novel" issue.

Instead, the court dismisses the "stealing cable" claim on its elements. The court says:

In essence, Zuffa alleges that Justin.tv’s users copied Zuffa’s UFC event and then rebroadcast the UFC event over the internet. This is not the type of conduct properly addressed by the Communications Act, but by copyright law (and, potentially, trademark law) because Justin.tv had no relationship with the original cable or satellite signal: by the allegations, Justin.tv did not receive or intercept any actual cable or satellite signal or broadcast. The Court finds no evidence in the statutory language, other cases, or legislative history that the Communications Act addresses this type of conduct or was meant to bolster or act as a separate type of copyright claim.

In a footnote, the court notes the troubling implications of Zuffa's argument:

If the Court were to allow claims such as these, it would have to allow similar Communications Act claims against scores of “cloud computing” service providers such as Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon.com, Dropbox, Box.net, and others because Jusint.tv’s [sic] particular streaming service would be irrelevant. As an example, say a person took a snippet (or longer) of video of a UFC match being broadcast on their television with their iPhone, Windows Phone, etc. The iPhone then automatically uploads that video to one of dozens of cloud storage systems such as Apple’s iCloud. The Court refuses to find that Apple (or Microsoft, etc.) would be liable under the Communications Act for merely receiving and storing this data under the Communications Act. Yet, Zuffa argues for exactly this result when it argues that Justin.tv’s mere receipt of this video stream makes Justin.tv liable. In passing the Communications Act, Congress did not intend such a result, and this Court will not broaden the effect of the statute in this manner.

read entire article...



Get the MMA Underground app. for iPhone and Andriod devices.
iPhone Application Andriod MMA Underground Application

Recent Comments »

Rambo John J site profile image  

2/11/14 6:35 PM by Rambo John J


D241 site profile image  

2/11/14 6:28 PM by D241

They used to be really funny, and sometimes, when appropriate they're still funny, but your gifs that have nothing to do with the topic, are fastly growing towards the super annoying side.   Just figured I'd give you a headz up.

D241 site profile image  

2/11/14 6:01 PM by D241


Kneeblock site profile image  

3/24/12 10:13 PM by Kneeblock

 Bad legal strategy by Zuffa but I guess they felt they had to do something to send a message. Still, I think there are better ways to spend their money, like on the fighters.

gusto site profile image  

3/24/12 8:25 PM by gusto

what hypothesis would i be testing

ThePundit site profile image  

3/24/12 8:33 AM by ThePundit

No, i probably wouldn't pay. But, I also wouldn't expect that I should get it free just because I WANT it.

Teenage mutant lesnar turtle site profile image  

3/24/12 3:16 AM by Teenage mutant lesnar turtle

 lol this. I'm assuming these people would gladly still pay if events were $100 each, happened on a weekly basis, and the main events were the likes of Hardy/Hazelett and McCorkle/Struve 2.

plebad0 site profile image  

3/23/12 11:29 PM by plebad0

sweetlol at butthurt little bitches 'pirating is wrong' whaaaa cry some more

Daniel Carver site profile image  

3/23/12 11:28 PM by Daniel Carver

So...you don't believe in the nonsense you're spouting enough to put it to the test?