Bit Parts

Copyright Infringement/Application Prerequisite. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia adopted the majority view that 'an infringement suit may be brought when a [plaintiff's] copyright application is completed and submitted to the United States Copyright Office.' Prunt' v. Universal Music Group, 06-0480 (PLF). A plaintiff thus wouldn't have to wait until the Copyright Office issues a formal certificate of registration. ' Copyright-Infringement Dismissals/Fees and Costs Awards. In the ongoing Bridgeport Music sampling suits, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee previously agreed in three sentence orders to voluntary dismissals without prejudice of the complaints against 20 defendants. But the district court failed to award attorney fees and costs to the defendants. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has remanded the case, noting: 'We agree with Bridgeport that Rule 41(a)(2) the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [under which the cases were dismissed] is not a fee-shifting statute like Sec. 505 of the Copyright Act ' It is nonetheless a discretionary procedural rule that explicitly allows a district court to impose terms and conditions upon a voluntary dismissal 'as the court deems proper' ' For the purposes of appellate review, therefore, the district court must provide some indication as to why it exercised its discretion as it did. We do not mean to imply that the district court's ultimate decision in the present cases is wrong on the merits ' an issue as to which we reserve judgment ' but instead that, standing alone, it is unjustified.' Bridgeport Music Inc. v. Universal-MCA Music Publishing Inc., 05-5719. ' Film Production /Personal Jurisdiction. The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey found it had personal jurisdiction over the defendants in a suit alleging that the film 'Find Me Guilty' violated journalist Robert Rudolph's rights in a book about the Lucchese crime family. Rudolph v. Yari Film Group Releasing Inc., 06-cv-1511 (DMC). The district court noted in its unpublished opinion that the 'defendants knowingly and purposefully invested their funds in a movie that was to be largely filmed in New Jersey based on events that took place in New Jersey involving New Jersey citizens ' Specific jurisdiction over the Foreign Defendants exists in this case ' namely [because] (1) the State of New Jersey has a strong interest in protecting Rudolph's (a New Jersey citizen) copyright from infringement; and (2) the Foreign Defendants admit they are producers of Find Me Guilty, a film widely distributed in the State of New Jersey.' ' Internet Safe-Harbor Defense/'Reasonable Implementation.' The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has defined what 'reasonably implemented' means for a Web-hosting service to qualify for safe-harbor protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Perfect 10 Inc. v. CCBill LLC, 04-57143. According to the appeals court: '[A] service provider 'implements' a policy if it has a working notification system, a procedure for dealing with DMCA-compliant notifications, and if it does not actively prevent copyright owners from collecting information needed to issue such notifications ' The statute permits service providers to implement a variety of procedures, but an implementation is reasonable if, under 'appropriate circumstances,' the service provider terminates users who repeatedly or blatantly infringe copyright.' In this case, the appeals court decided that adult-entertainment company 'Perfect Ten's communications do not substantially comply with the requirements of [17 U.S.C.] Sec. 512(c)(3). Each communication contains more than mere technical errors; often one or more of the required elements are entirely absent.' ' Screenplay Suit/Motion to Transfer. The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama granted a defense motion to transfer a suit over a screenplay to the Central District of California. Davis v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures, 2:05cv860-T. James Davis alleged in his complaint that that the movie 'Barbershop' infringed on his screenplay 'The Shop.' The Alabama federal district court explained: '[Davis] is the sole party and witness located in this forum ' [T]he 12 other parties reside or maintain offices in the Central District of California, as do the majority of the defendants' witnesses that can attest to the creation and production of 'Barbershop.' Moreover, all of Davis's witnesses are located in Georgia. Accordingly, it is unclear which, if any, of the proposed witnesses will be subject to compulsory process in the Middle District of Alabama, but it is certain that most of the defendants' witnesses will be subject to compulsory process in the Central District of California ' The location of relevant documents also weighs in favor of transfer. The files of all the defendants regarding 'Barbershop' are kept in California.'

Copyright Infringement/Application Prerequisite. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia adopted the majority view that 'an infringement suit may be brought when a [plaintiff's] copyright application is completed and submitted to the United States Copyright Office.' Prunt' v. Universal Music Group, 06-0480 (PLF). A plaintiff thus wouldn't have to wait until the Copyright Office issues a formal certificate of registration. ' Copyright-Infringement Dismissals/Fees and Costs Awards. In the ongoing Bridgeport Music sampling suits, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee previously agreed in three sentence orders to voluntary dismissals without prejudice of the complaints against 20 defendants. But the district court failed to award attorney fees and costs to the defendants. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has remanded the case, noting: 'We agree with Bridgeport that Rule 41(a)(2) the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [under which the cases were dismissed] is not a fee-shifting statute like Sec. 505 of the Copyright Act ' It is nonetheless a discretionary procedural rule that explicitly allows a district court to impose terms and conditions upon a voluntary dismissal 'as the court deems proper' ' For the purposes of appellate review, therefore, the district court must provide some indication as to why it exercised its discretion as it did. We do not mean to imply that the district court's ultimate decision in the present cases is wrong on the merits ' an issue as to which we reserve judgment ' but instead that, standing alone, it is unjustified.' Bridgeport Music Inc. v. Universal-MCA Music Publishing Inc., 05-5719. ' Film Production /Personal Jurisdiction. The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey found it had personal jurisdiction over the defendants in a suit alleging that the film 'Find Me Guilty' violated journalist Robert Rudolph's rights in a book about the Lucchese crime family. Rudolph v. Yari Film Group Releasing Inc., 06-cv-1511 (DMC). The district court noted in its unpublished opinion that the 'defendants knowingly and purposefully invested their funds in a movie that was to be largely filmed in New Jersey based on events that took place in New Jersey involving New Jersey citizens ' Specific jurisdiction over the Foreign Defendants exists in this case ' namely [because] (1) the State of New Jersey has a strong interest in protecting Rudolph's (a New Jersey citizen) copyright from infringement; and (2) the Foreign Defendants admit they are producers of Find Me Guilty, a film widely distributed in the State of New Jersey.' ' Internet Safe-Harbor Defense/'Reasonable Implementation.' The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has defined what 'reasonably implemented' means for a Web-hosting service to qualify for safe-harbor protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Perfect 10 Inc. v. CCBill LLC, 04-57143. According to the appeals court: '[A] service provider 'implements' a policy if it has a working notification system, a procedure for dealing with DMCA-compliant notifications, and if it does not actively prevent copyright owners from collecting information needed to issue such notifications ' The statute permits service providers to implement a variety of procedures, but an implementation is reasonable if, under 'appropriate circumstances,' the service provider terminates users who repeatedly or blatantly infringe copyright.' In this case, the appeals court decided that adult-entertainment company 'Perfect Ten's communications do not substantially comply with the requirements of [17 U.S.C.] Sec. 512(c)(3). Each communication contains more than mere technical errors; often one or more of the required elements are entirely absent.' ' Screenplay Suit/Motion to Transfer. The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama granted a defense motion to transfer a suit over a screenplay to the Central District of California. Davis v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures, 2:05cv860-T. James Davis alleged in his complaint that that the movie 'Barbershop' infringed on his screenplay 'The Shop.' The Alabama federal district court explained: '[Davis] is the sole party and witness located in this forum ' [T]he 12 other parties reside or maintain offices in the Central District of California, as do the majority of the defendants' witnesses that can attest to the creation and production of 'Barbershop.' Moreover, all of Davis's witnesses are located in Georgia. Accordingly, it is unclear which, if any, of the proposed witnesses will be subject to compulsory process in the Middle District of Alabama, but it is certain that most of the defendants' witnesses will be subject to compulsory process in the Central District of California ' The location of relevant documents also weighs in favor of transfer. The files of all the defendants regarding 'Barbershop' are kept in California.'