Vaneet Sharma and his company, Astro Vastu Solutions, are trafficking in an “illicit” internet streaming television service called Sharma IPTV using Dish Network and Sling TV channels that are retransmitted without authorization to users that purchase the Sharma service, alleged Dish and Sling in a Digital Millennium Copyright Act complaint Friday (docket 3:24-cv-00961) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco. Identifiers that are unique to Dish’s internet transmissions of its channels “were detected when conducting a technical analysis of the corresponding channels” on the Sharma service, said the complaint. The analysis confirmed that channels retransmitted on the service originated from Dish and Sling, it said. Sling’s logo was also "observed on certain channels" retransmitted on the service, “further proof” that the Dish and Sling channels were used to “seed” the service with unauthorized content, it said. Sharma was notified that he must cease providing the service because it infringes Dish’s and Sling’s rights, but he “failed to comply,” said the complaint. Sharma admitted that he won’t stop providing the service because the profits that he receives from the service “are too good to stop,” it said. He told Dish and Sling that if they prosecute a DMCA case against him, he'll simply blame his ex-wife for running the Sharma service under his name, said the complaint.

The five defendants alleged by Dish Network and Sling TV in a Jan. 24 complaint to have sold set-top boxes for two illicit streaming services that capture and retransmit Dish and Sling television programming without authorization deny they violated the anti-trafficking provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act or committed trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, said their answer Thursday (docket 1:24-cv-00340) in U.S. District Court for Northern Georgia in Atlanta. The plaintiffs’ claims are barred because the defendants “had no prior knowledge that a product or mark was being infringed upon,” said their answer. The defendants acquired the rights to sell or distribute the product or services “through a purported wholesaler, vendor or supplier,” it said. The defendants didn’t “knowingly or intentionally use, sell or distribute an infringing product or mark in commerce or have reason to know that any such marks or products were infringing,” it said.

Shopify entered into an agreement with defendant Zachary Lotz that blocks him from offering products, goods or services through the Shopify platform for a year, said their stipulation Wednesday (docket 1:23-cv-01254) in U.S. District Court for Western New York in Buffalo. Lotz also is barred from submitting any notices of alleged copyright infringement containing “misrepresentations” that he owns or controls copyrights that he doesn’t own or control, it said. Shopify sued Lotz Dec. 4 to halt his bogus Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown notices against Shopify merchants through his knowingly false allegations of copyright infrngement (see 2312050006).

Though OpenAI disagrees with the claims in the New York Times Co.’s Dec. 27 copyright infringement lawsuit against Microsoft and OpenAI (see 2312270044), it views the complaint “as an opportunity to clarify our business, our intent, and how we build our technology,” said OpenAI the company Monday in its first public comments about the litigation. Microsoft and OpenAI generative AI tools rely on large-language models that were built by “copying and using” millions of the NYT copyrighted news articles, in violation of the Copyright Act, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and other statutes, alleged the newspaper. But the New York Times Co. isn’t telling “the full story,” said OpenAI. Its discussions with the company “appeared to be progressing constructively” through the parties’ last communication Dec. 19, it said. “The negotiations focused on a high-value partnership around real-time display with attribution in ChatGPT,” in which the NYT “would gain a new way to connect with their existing and new readers, and our users would gain access to their reporting,” it said. OpenAI had explained to the publishing company that, like any single source, “their content didn't meaningfully contribute to the training of our existing models and also wouldn't be sufficiently impactful for future training,” it said. OpenAI learned about the lawsuit by reading about it in the NYT, it said. The litigation “came as a surprise and disappointment to us,” it said.

Two supervisors of a California cocktail lounge showed a Ngannou vs. Gane Ultimate Fighting Championship event without authorization and without paying a licensing fee, alleged a copyright infringement complaint (docket 8:24-cv-00041) filed Monday in U.S. District Court for Central California in Santa Ana. The UFC event, which originated via a satellite uplink, was subsequently retransmitted via encrypted satellite, cable and IPTV streaming, it said. Plaintiff Ultimate Fighting Championship, which owns rights to the Francis Ngannou vs. Cyril Gane event held Jan. 22, 2022, said defendants Dana Turner of Long Beach, California, and Mira Schoenrock of Peoria, Arizona, principals of Squire Cocktails in La Habra, California, received a commercial benefit by not paying the licensing fee to the plaintiff and obtaining the signal to the broadcast by “alternative means.” UFC seeks statutory penalties of up to $30,000, enhanced damages of $150,000 for willful violation of 17 U.S.C. chapter 504 and attorneys’ fees, costs and interest.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Appeals Court will apportion 10 minutes per side for Feb. 5 oral argument at 10 a.m. in Yout’s Digital Millennium Copyright Act appeal against the Recording Industry Association of America (see 2312210046), said a hearing notice Thursday (docket 22-2760). Yout contends that the district court improperly granted the RIAA’s motion to dismiss Yout’s DMCA complaint, “erroneously concluding” that its YouTube-ripping software platform was a circumvention tool (see 2302030005). The RIAA’s argument is that Yout can’t “plausibly plead” that its platform doesn’t violate the DMCA. Both sides asked the 2nd Circuit in May to hold oral argument in the appeal (see 2305190025).

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Appeals Court calendared oral argument for Feb. 5 in Yout’s Digital Millennium Copyright Act appeal against the Recording Industry Association of America, said a text-only docket notice Wednesday (docket 22-2760). Yout contends that the district court improperly granted the RIAA’s motion to dismiss Yout’s DMCA complaint, “erroneously concluding” that Yout’s YouTube-ripping software platform was a circumvention tool (see 2302030005). The RIAA’s argument is that Yout can’t “plausibly plead” it doesn’t violate the DMCA. Both sides asked the 2nd Circuit in May to hold oral argument in the appeal (see 2305190025).

Plaintiffs Dish Network and Sling TV reached a confidential settlement with defendant Sentry and its owner, Michael Graziano, over violations of the anti-trafficking provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (see 2310110050), said the parties' consent motion Wednesday (docket 9:23-cv-05074) in U.S. District Court for South Carolina in Beaufort. Sentry and Graziano are alleged to have profited from the sale of an “illicit streaming service,” called Tanggula, that captures and retransmits Dish and Sling content without authorization by circumventing Dish’s security measures. The parties ask that the court, to facilitate the settlement, enter a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from operating Tanggula and to dismiss the claims, said the consent motion. The defendants agreed to make a confidential monetary payment to the plaintiffs as part of the settlement, obviating the need for an award of damages, it said. Entering the permanent injunction and order of dismissal “will conserve judicial resources and allow the parties to avoid the expense and other burdens of continued litigation,” said the consent motion.

Overturning the jury’s verdict in a copyright case in favor of Universal Music Group and other music labels would “upend decades of well-established law governing contributory copyright infringement,” said the Copyright Alliance’s amicus brief (docket 23-50162) Friday in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Internet service provider Grande Communications is appealing a Jan. 30 ruling by U.S. District Judge David Ezra for Western Texas in Austin (docket 1:17-cv-00365) in favor of music labels that Grande is liable for copyright infringement for knowing its subscribers were engaging in copyright infringement and continuing to provide them the services necessary to infringe. Ezra awarded the labels $47 million in statutory damages (see 2303160029). Overturning the district court ruling would “would permit bad actors” like Grande “to facilitate massive digital theft, all to the grave detriment of the copyright holders, consumers of expressive works, and the creative economy,” said the brief. Reversal would “damage the very incentives for creation of expression for which the Framers took care to provide in the Constitution,” it said. Grande “attempts to cast itself as a mere innocent equipment provider,” but it “knowingly and materially contributed to copyright infringement on a massive scale,” said the alliance. “To evade liability, Grande argues that only those who induce copyright infringement or who distribute a product capable solely of infringing uses may be found liable for contributory infringement,” said the brief. That argument “ignores longstanding and unbroken case law,” which recognizes that secondary liability comprises three distinct doctrines: contributory infringement, vicarious liability, and inducement of copyright infringement, it said. Grande also doesn’t acknowledge "the clear legislative history and relevant statutory language of the Copyright Act of 1976," it said.

Viral DRM, a syndicator of videographic content depicting tornadoes, hurricanes, flooding, blizzards, volcanoes and climate change impacts, brought suit Monday in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco to stop YouTube infringers from stealing its footage, reposting it to their own YouTube channels and illicitly collecting ad revenue from it. Viral DRM’s videos of extreme weather events “are frequently copied, downloaded, and reuploaded by infringers,” said its complaint (docket 3:23-cv-06261). Viral DRM “is a popular and frequent source of footage of weather events that cannot be obtained elsewhere,” it said. “This makes plaintiff a frequent target for infringers and pirates.” Once the pirated videos are downloaded, the defendants edits them to remove or crop out Viral DRM’s “proprietary watermarks and metadata,” it said. After editing the pirated videos, “the defendants combined the plaintiff’s videos with other video content that they either stole from others or created themselves,” it said. They then “reupload the resulting video to their YouTube channels and enabled advertising on them to earn monetization revenue,” it said. Viral DRM notified YouTube and the defendants of the infringement allegations via Digital Millennium Copyright Act notices, it said. Some of the defendants responded to the notices by removing the content they had uploaded to YouTube, it said. Others responded to the DMCA notices “with false and misleading counternotices,” it said.