+1 212 318 2000
Europe, Middle East, & Africa
+44 20 7330 7500
+65 6212 1000
SAN FRANCISCO--A case in which the federal government seized domain names being used by a sports programming streaming website was dismissed at the request of prosecutors, according to an Aug. 29 order by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (United States v. Rojadirecta.org, S.D.N.Y., No. 11-cv-04139-PAC, dismissed 8/29/12).
The government, in a letter to Judge Paul A. Crotty cited “certain recent judicial authority involving issues germane” to the case and the “particular circumstances of this litigation” in seeking to dismiss its complaint.
The move comes two days after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a paid online service that streams broadcast content live to subscribers and offers a remote digital video recording service is not a “cable system” entitled to a compulsory license under the Copyright Act (166 PTD, 8/28/12).
Representatives of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency could not be reached for comment Aug. 29. Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher Frey, who argued on behalf of the government, referred comments to the press office of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York's press office, which declined comment.
Authorities alleged the 10 websites offered access to illegal telecasts of copyrighted professional football, basketball, hockey, wrestling, and ultimate fighting events.
“The decision to seek dismissal of this case will best promote judicial economy and serve the interests of justice,” according to the letter from Frey and U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara.
The order returning the domain names also directs the Public Interest Registry to return rojadirecta.org and VeriSign Inc. to return rojadireca.com to the registrants.
“This shows that when a domain name owner fights back and challenges what was in this case a legally improper seizure, that investment of time and resources can pay off even where this is a dispute that should never have arisen of the first place,” said Joseph Gratz of Durie Tangri, San Francisco, who represented Rojadirect.
“This is not a dispute that left anybody better off. My client has been without their domain name for 20 months now, the government has been litigating a case that they have now, after substantial briefing and argument have realized is a case that should have never been brought,” Gratz told BNA on Aug. 29.
“The winner here, if there is one, will be the interest of freedom and the freedom of speech against government action to seize the means of speech,” Gratz said.
The court declined to return the domains prior to a hearing. The registrant appealed to the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit heard arguments in the case Dec. 19, 2011, and has not yet ruled.
DOJ earlier in August seized three domains for selling illegal copies of Android cell phone apps (163 PTD, 8/23/12).
The ICE-led National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center in July announced seizure of 70 websites that the agency said were illegally selling counterfeit merchandise (135 PTD, 7/16/12).
“This is one reason I believe that outsourcing cases to the federal government is improper because if copyright holders had brought this lawsuit and suppressed this domain name by getting a preliminary injunction, they would have had to put a cash bond in place’’ to protect the owner, Andrew Bridges of Fenwick & West, San Francisco.
Copyright holders get the government to cover their legal expenses and “they get to completely avoid the risk of having to put their own money at risk by having to put up a bond,” Bridges told BNA Aug. 29.
Bridges represented a second registrant, the operator of DaJaz1.com, a music blog, whose site was seized during an early round of seizures in November 2010. He declined to comment on redress issues.
Bridges pointed to the Seventh Circuit's Aug. 2 ruling that the host of a “social bookmarking’’ website is unlikely liable for contributory copyright infringement based on a service that allows users to “bookmark” infringing content uploaded on third-party sites, and play that content through an embedded link surrounded by ads. Flava Works Inc. v. Gunter, 7th Cir., No. 11-3190 (7th Cir. Aug. 2, 2012).
Regarding that decision, Bridges said, “it would have been very hard for the government to make a criminal case based on a site that links to streaming sites.”
By Joyce E. Cutler
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).