Yout is in such dire financial straits that it urgently needs the stay it requested, pending appeal, in Recording Industry Association of America’s motion for attorney fees, said the YouTube-ripping software company’s reply Thursday (docket 3:20-cv-01602) in U.S. District Court for Connecticut. RIAA, which opposes the stay, said it spent more than $250,000 in lawyers’ fees defending what it called Yout’s “meritless” lawsuit for a declaratory judgment that its software doesn't violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (see 2211230003). Yout is appealing to the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals the district court’s granting of RIAA’s motion to dismiss. It’s asking for a stay “so as not to have to face collections proceedings while simultaneously funding and supporting an appeal,” it said. Yout owes “a significant amount in attorneys’ fees” to Mudd Law, the firm that lost the district court case, it said. Yout paid Boston Law Group an initial $15,000 retainer to handle its 2nd Circuit appeal, with additional monthly payments of $7,000 as needed against which Boston Law Group will bill hourly, said a declaration by Yout founder Johnathan Nader. “At this time, I am funding this litigation almost entirely from my personal funds,” he said. “Yout is not generating any revenue beyond meeting its expenses and I have been depositing funds from my personal accounts in order to cover those expenses when needed,” he said.

The Recording Industry Association of America doesn't support Yout’s request for a stay, pending appeal, in the association’s motion for attorneys’ fees to recover the money it spent defending Yout’s “objectively unreasonable lawsuit,” said RIAA’s reply brief Dec. 22 (docket 3:20-cv-01602) in U.S. District Court for Connecticut. RIAA won the dismissal of Yout’s complaint for a declaratory judgment that its YouTube-ripping software, which allows users to make copies of streaming video and audio files, doesn't violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (see 2211230003). Yout waived any opposition to RIAA’s motion for attorneys’ fees by failing to file its response to the motion by the Dec. 1 deadline, said the RIAA. There is “no reasonable basis” for staying RIAA’s motion, it said. “The case law clearly provides that judicial economy favors deciding fee motions while they are fresh in the Court’s mind and to provide an opportunity for further efficiency by consolidating with the merits issues into a single appeal,” said the association. “Yout has failed to justify deviation from this routine practice.”

Defendant William Everly seeks a 14-day extension to Jan. 4 to answer Dish Network’s Sept. 30 complaint accusing him of Federal Communications Act and Digital Millennium Copyright Act violations, said his unopposed motion Wednesday (docket 3:22-cv-01748) in U.S. District Court for Northern Ohio in Toledo. The parties have been engaged in settlement discussions since the filing of the complaint, and the extension will give them more time “to explore a final resolution” without the need for further litigation, said the motion. The Dish complaint alleges Everly, of Toledo, “is involved in operating illicit streaming services” that capture the Dish internet communications of TV programming by circumventing Dish security measures and then retransmitting that programming without authorization to customers who bought access to those services from Everly.

The Free State Foundation and the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation applauded Tuesday's unanimous decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Green v. U.S. for upholding the constitutionality of the anticircumvention provisions in Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The two plaintiffs in Green wanted to publish works or create and sell devices intended to bypass security measures for accessing copyrighted works. They raised pre-enforcement First Amendment challenges to Section 1201, claiming the law is a facially overbroad restriction on protected speech and its application would unconstitutionally restrict their rights to engage in their projects relating to the bypassing of "technological protection measures.” The question before the court was whether the DMCA “is likely to violate the First Amendment rights of two individuals who write computer code designed to circumvent those measures,” said the D.C. Circuit opinion (docket 21-5195). “The district court answered no, and we agree.” The D.C. Circuit “was absolutely right to reject the flimsy First Amendment claims raised in Green,” Seth Cooper, FSF director-policy studies and senior fellow, blogged Wednesday. Constitutionally protected free speech “is an indispensable part of American freedom,” but those bedrock rights “were nowhere jeopardized by Section 1201,” he said: “The case was not a close call.” The decision was “an important vindication of copyright owners' right to exercise control over who can access their valuable creative content,” said Cooper. The ITIF agrees the court “reached the right decision” because the public “does not have a right to circumvent subscription-based platforms to gain unfettered access to creators’ works free of charge,” said Senior Analyst Jaci McDole Tuesday. The Constitution “provides creators intellectual property rights for a reason,” she said. “Creators’ livelihoods depend on controlling how their works are distributed and sold. It’s welcome news that the court upheld those constitutional rights in the Green case.”

U.S. District Judge Stefan Underhill for Connecticut, in an electronic order Monday (docket 3:20-cv-01602), granted a Nov. 21 consent motion giving defendant RIAA a deadline extension to Dec. 22 for a reply brief in support of its motion to recover attorneys’ fees in its legal fight against the YouTube-ripping software platform Yout. Underhill granted RIAA’s motion for dismissal of Yout’s complaint for a declaratory judgment that its software, which allows users to make copies of streaming video and audio files, doesn't violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (see 2211230003). RIAA says an award of attorneys’ fees would be “appropriate and justified” because Yout’s claims were “objectively unreasonable, if not frivolous.”

The YouTube-ripping software platform Yout seeks a 10-day deadline extension to Dec. 1 to respond to the RIAA’s Oct. 31 motion for recovery of $250,000 in attorney’s fees to defend against Yout’s Digital Millennium Copyright Act allegations, said Yout’s consent motion Monday (docket 3:20-cv-01602) in U.S. District Court for Connecticut in New Haven. RIAA doesn't oppose the extension, said Yout. It sought a declaratory judgment in an October 2020 complaint that its software, which allows users to make copies of streaming video and audio files, doesn't violate the DMCA. But Yout's argument fails to make a plausible case that YouTube lacks technological measures controlling access to videos there, U.S. District Judge Stefan Underhill ruled Sept. 30 in granting RIAA’s motion for dismissal of the case (see 2209300061). Yout is appealing Underhill’s dismissal. RIAA thinks a fee award is “appropriate and justified,” said its motion. “Yout’s claims were objectively unreasonable, if not frivolous, because Yout’s own allegations failed to establish that it was not violating the law,” said RIAA. “Evidence further suggests that Yout brought this lawsuit, not in good faith, but to prolong and advertise its stream-ripping business. In doing so, Yout caused RIAA to incur significant legal fees to defend this lawsuit and protect its members’ rights.”

Professional photographer Steve Matteo brought a Digital Millennium Copyright Act complaint Tuesday against Amazon Prime Video, alleging unauthorized uses, misattribution and omission of authorship credit related to the “wrongful dissemination via the internet” of Matteo’s copyrighted photographic work depicting former NHL star Bob Probert to promote the movie Tough Guy: The Bob Probert Story. Since Matteo created the photograph in 1999, he has not granted any person or company a license to use it, said his complaint (docket 1:22-cv-06392) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago. After Matteo’s lawyers tried unsuccessfully to contact Amazon’s in-house counsel in June to take down the photograph, Amazon removed Matteo’s copyright management information (CMI) “from its display and conveyance” of the infringing work and substituted its own CMI online, including the Amazon Prime Video brand name, logo symbol and claims to copyright ownership, said the complaint. Amazon’s behavior proves it “knew or had reasonable grounds to know that such actions would induce, enable, facilitate or conceal its copyright infringements,” it said. The suit seeks an injunction, impoundment of all copies of Matteo’s work and an award of damages and all profits that Amazon derived from its unauthorized use of Matteo’s photograph. Amazon didn’t comment Thursday.

The Sept. 30 decision in U.S. District Court for Connecticut “provided a solid interpretation” of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act for “protecting against unauthorized access to valuable copyrighted movies, TV shows, music, and ebooks,” wrote Seth Cooper, Free State Foundation director-policy studies and a senior FSF fellow, in an analysis Monday. In Yout v. Recording Industry Association of America (docket 3:20-cv-01602), U.S. District Judge Stefan Underhill in New Haven held in his ruling that the DMCA “prohibits the circumvention of technical measures used by an online platform that restrain access to copyrighted content by ordinary consumers using that platform in the ordinary course of operation,” said Cooper. Underhill’s “careful reasoning” in Yout v. RIAA about the “capacious meaning of key terms” in the DMCA’s Section 1201 “should be viewed as persuasive authority by courts in future court cases involving the anti-circumvention rights of copyright owners,” he said. “Indeed, the court ruling hopefully will dissuade other online edge service companies from designing and marketing technologies intended to circumvent restrictions on access to copyrighted content.” Yout will appeal Underhill’s granting of RIAA’s motion to dismiss to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, it said in an Oct. 20 notice (see 2210240004).

Santa Monica attorney Cecilia Chung petitioned the U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco Monday for a Digital Millennium Copyright Act subpoena ordering Twitter to produce documents that would identify the user who posted a copyrighted photo of her client, Angelina Vertucci, at the handle @KILLTOPARTY. Chung submitted two takedown notifications to Twitter in early October, but to no avail, said her declaration in support of the subpoena (docket 3:22-mc-80280): “The purpose of this DMCA subpoena is to obtain information regarding the identify of the infringer and such information will only be used for the purpose of protecting Vertucci’s rights under the DMCA.” Twitter didn’t comment Tuesday.

The Motion Picture Association, on behalf of the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment, served five Digital Millennium Copyright Act subpoenas Thursday on content delivery network Cloudflare and Tonic, a national domain name registry, court records show. The subpoenas, requested through the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, order the companies to produce the identities of individuals affiliated with websites in their spheres believed to have “exploited” ACE members’ “exclusive rights in their copyrighted motion pictures without their authorization,” said a declaration (docket 2:22-mc-00197) in support of the petitions by Jan van Voorn, MPA executive vice president and chief-global content protection. ACE “is a global coalition of leading content creators and on-demand entertainment services committed to supporting the legal marketplace for video content and addressing the challenge of online piracy,” said van Voorn’s declaration. ACE members include the five major studios, plus Amazon and Netflix. Cloudflare and Tonic didn’t respond Tuesday to requests for comment.