An alliance of content owners, including streaming content providers, has identified some key global challenges to an expanding legal digital marketplace.

That came in their annual submission to the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) on how the government can make sure its trading partners protect copyright and get rid of barriers to digital trade in video, video games and other content.

The International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA), in its submission for the USTR's Special 301 report on trading partners and content protection, made what it said were key trends and recommendations.

Among the alarming trends IIPA identified was the proliferation of piracy devices, with set-tops weaponized for unauthorized access to streaming video, games and music, with China the major source of those devices.

Another big problem, it suggested, were stream-ripping services that circumvent copyright protections that are critical to digital deliveries, whether streamed, downloaded or in physical form.

IIPA also said many of the U.S. trading partners have yet to agree to, or to implement, the World Intellectual Property Organization Internet Treaties and its minimum copyright standards.

IIPA member groups include MPA, the Entertainment Software Association, and the Independent Film & Television Association. ■

A spokesperson for Sen. Thom Tillis signaled to Next TV late Monday that he will do his best to keep Democratic nominee Gigi Sohn off the Federal Communications Commission.

Also: Gigi Sohn‘s FCC Nomination Could Face Hold Threats

“Senator Tillis is going to do everything he can to stop Gigi Sohn’s confirmation, including putting a hold,” Tillis’s communications director, Adam Webb, said in an email.

Late last month, Tillis (R-N.C.), ranking member on the Senate Intellectual Property Subcommittee, asked President Joe Biden to withdraw Sohn's nomination, saying he had many concerns but copyright was chief among them.

Webb did say why the hold was being placed. In asking the president to withdraw her nomination, Tillis pointed to her “history as an anti-copyright activist” — including her support for TV signal streamer Locast, which a court said was not eligible for the copyright exemption it asserted. But he is also an opponent of Title II-based net neutrality rules and a source familiar with both issues said that Title II support was also a big factor.

In his letter to the president opposing Sohn, Tillis echoed broadcasters' concerns about Sohn's directorship role at TV station signal streamer Locast, whose business model of nonprofit streaming without paying a fee to content providers a court ruled violated copyright protections. “In Ms. Sohn’s current position at Georgetown's Institute for Technology and Law Policy,” he said, “she condemned media companies for trying to protect their content from unauthorized streaming from Locast.”

Sohn pointed out at her hearing that Locast was shuttered, its assets being sold, and would likely be history by year's end.

Tillis also complained about Sohn's role as advisor to then-FCC chairman Tom Wheeler, whom she advised to open up cable set-top boxes “in ways that would guarantee a surge in piracy,” the senator said.

Wheeler did tee up an open set-top box proposal in 2016, but failed to secure the necessary three Democratic votes, in part because then commissioner Jessica Rosenworce, now acting chair, did not agree with Wheeler’s approach.

Tillis said that as someone who believes in strong intellectual property protections, Sohn's record is disqualifying. ■

A Texas district court has found for Dish Network in the satellite TV service’s direct copyright infringement suit against streaming service Universe IPTV.

The court found that the Arabic language IPTV service — owned and operated by defendants Mohamed Omar, Hossam Abd Elghany, and Moustafa Maatouk — had provided access to Dish content to U.S. subscribers without authorization from the satellite provider, directly infringing Dish’s exclusive rights to distribute and perform that content.

The court ruled that Universe IPTV had knowledge of the copyright infringement and was guilty of both direct and contributory infringement.

As a result, said the court, Universe IPTV must pay Dish $7,050,000, which is $150,000 for each of 47 copyrighted works that were "maliciously infringed." Retailers are also enjoined from distributing the IPTV service.

It also enjoins the defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, dealers, distributors, and retailers from streaming Universe IPTV, and prevents anyone from providing the following to Universe IPTV if it involves the Dish's copyrighted content: “any form of electronic storage, computer server, website hosting, file hosting (including data center and colocation, primary and backup storage, back-end), domain hosting, domain name registration, privacy protection for domain registration, anonymization for domain registration, proxy, content delivery network services, content acceleration (including traffic routing, bandwidth, content delivery networks ("CDN"), web content optimization, website/data security), advertising (including search based online advertising), social media services, and email services.”

The court also ordered 10 internet protocol addresses to be disabled and told the registrars of various Universe streaming domain names, including Universeiptv.com, that they had 48 hours to disable the websites or make them otherwise inaccessible to the public, then transfer them to Dish.

The lawsuit was coordinated by the International Broadcaster Coalition Against Piracy (IBCAP), of which Dish is a member. 

“IBCAP continues to make it clear that courts in the United States have no tolerance for those who break the law by operating or selling illegal IPTV services,“ IBCAP executive director Chris Kuelling said. “The owners of this service are now liable for more than $7,000,000 in damages, the retailers are under court order to cease, and the Universe IPTV infrastructure will be disabled. Any dealer that continues to sell Universe IPTV will be in contempt of the Court’s order and liable for further damages. With our continued diligence, dealers of illegal IPTV services will quickly learn that it’s not worth risking their business by selling pirate IPTV services.”

Shades of SOPA-PIPA!* Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), fresh off the passage of his bill that would make illegal streaming a felony in some cases, has introduced a discussion draft of major copyright reform legislation that has computer companies fuming and studios gently applauding.

“The Motion Picture Association commends Senator Tillis and his staff for their work in seeking to address the shortcomings of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), the Motion Picture Association of America said of the draft. 

Tillis billed the draft (for a summary, click here)  as a landmark effort at reform rather than "tinkering around the edges" and invited comment, which he will surely get, from " all interested stakeholders - large and small, individuals and companies, YouTubers, and independent creators" by March 5.

The draft is the product of a host of hearings in 2020 on the DMCA and input from creators and distributors of copyright works, online service providers, public-interest groups, and academics," MPA pointed out in calling the draft a "first effort to find harmony among their many conflicting views."

Tillis said the bill among other things, "improves the exemptions available to users for circumventing technological protection measures (TPMs), increases attribution protections so that authors can be properly credited, and makes the Register of Copyrights a Presidential appointee and places the Copyright Office under the Department of Commerce."

Also Read: Commerce DMCA Meeting Looks to Tackle Standardized Takedowns First

MPA is particularly pleased with the proposals to narrow the copyright safe harbor it said has been broadened due to a misinterpretation of the DMCA.

On the other side were computer companies and edge providers represented by the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), whose members include Facebook, Google and Twitter.

They appeared to find discord--and even illegality--rather than potential harmony in the proposal. "

Industry works to provide new tools for greater compensation for creators and lawful alternatives for consumers," said CCIA president Matt Schruers. "Unfortunately, this discussion draft would not benefit individual creators and would impose notice and stay down provisions that are not just too severe but unconstitutional.”

CCIA said the draft "reads like a Christmas wish list for Hollywood and big content companies" and "increases the role of federal agencies in regulating copyright, gives greater power to copyright holders to file small claims suits and also adds rules and penalties impacting how internet companies take down copyright infringement online. "

CCIA said its discussions with Tillis about the draft would be about those many concerns.

*Almost a decade ago, studios and edge providers including Google, waged a battle royal over the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House and its Protect IP Act [PIPA] complement in the Senate. Neither made it into law.

Calling it a blow against copyright trolls, the attorneys for Spanish Broadcasting System (SBS) are celebrating a recent court decision.

The U.S. Court for the Southern District of New York has granted SBS $845,040.95 (SBS had asked for $1 million) for the fees it spent on those attorneys to win a copyright infringement suit, saying the original suit was unreasonable and frivolous and filed in bad faith. It awarded both district court and appellate court fees. The court said the plaintiffs appeared to "roll the dice on costly litigation without evidence."

The court had ruled in SBS' favor in May 2017--the case had been going on for years prior to that--but the decision was appealed, so SBS had to spend more money to defend that appeal, which it did successfully. James Sammataro, co-head of Pryor Cashman’s Media+Entertainment practice, represented Spanish Broadcasting System.

It then asked the court to make the plaintiffs pay their attorney fees.

The court has done so, in the hopes that it will help "deter Plaintiffs from bringing meritless infringement cases in the future." It did balk at covering the $1,000 per hour fee of one attorney, however, capping it at $750 per hour.

The Motion Picture Association has snagged a high-profile copyright expert.

Karyn Temple has joined MPA as global general counsel.

“I can think of no better person than Karyn Temple, one of the world’s leading experts on copyright, to help us advocate for our members’ global film, television and streaming businesses at this pivotal time of transformation in the industry,” said MPA chairman Charles Rivkin.

Karyn is the former Register of Copyrights, where she headed up the Copyright Office including advising all three branches of government on copyright policy and law.

Related: MPA Names Senior Director

Temple became register last March, but been acting director and register since October 2016, when she succeeded Maria Pallante atop the office in that acting capacity. Temple has been with the office as an associate register and director of policy and international affairs since 2013.

Temple's resume also includes the Justice Department, the Recording Industry Association of America and the Williams & Connolly law firm.

Music rights company BMG said it has won a “substantial” cash settlement from Cox Communications, stemming from a three-year-old copyright infringement suit against the cable operator, but declined to reveal the exact amount of the award.

BMG first sued Cox in 2015, claiming “contributory copyright infringement,” after it claimed Cox internet customers pirated BMG songwriters’ content online. BMG said although the Digital Millennium Copyright Act provides protections to companies that unknowingly enable their customers to infringe on other parties’ copyrights, “they must have systems in place for copyright owners to seek the removal of infringing content or tackle infringing activity.”

BMG claimed that Cox was not entitled to take the so-called “safe harbor” defense because despite knowing that several customers repeatedly violated BMG copyrights, they did not terminate their service.

A federal court judge agreed with BMG in his ruling November 2015 and the following month the rights company was awarded $25 million in damages and $8.5 million in costs. But that verdict was overturned on appeal, with the appellate court ruling that although Cox wasn’t entitled to safe-harbor protection, the judge in the lower court case misdirected the jury.

BMG said in a statement: "BMG succeeded in establishing in court its central claim that an ISP needs to take specific action against subscribers it knows to be repeat copyright infringers. BMG is optimistic that this victory will persuade other U.S. ISPs to tighten up their procedures on copyright infringement. Having achieved a landmark ruling, BMG concluded that it made sense to accept a substantial settlement.” 

Cox declined to comment, in keeping with the confidential nature of the agreement, but confirmed it had reached a settlement with BMG.

Judges on the Copyright Royalty Board completed their periodic hearings this week in anticipation of their upcoming allocation to program suppliers of the copyright license fees paid by cable and satellite operators. 

Just prior to the review, the latest figures (as of March 31) on annual deposits appeared, showing that cable operators paid about $203.5 million in license fees in 2017, down 0.61% from the previous year, which was 5.31% lower than in 2015.

The Copyright Royalty Board determines the distribution of statutory license royalties collected by the U.S. Copyright Office of the Library of Congress.   

Overall, fees are down about 15% from the peak in 2014. The start of the diminishing license fees, in part, was attributed to the WGN's shift in 2015 from a Superstation to WGN America, which unlike its predecessor WGN-TV, doesn't carry sports or syndicated programming subject to license payments.

The hearings that concluded this week played out over the course of several months, the first time in nearly a decade that the Board (formerly known as the Copyright Royalty Tribunal) has thoroughly evaluated the allocation process. This year it focused on how operators "value" the programming they carry that is subject to a compulsory license. In particular, they looked at whether the time devoted to a program or the popularity/audience size should affect the value.

The Board also looked at receipts from satellite carriers, which have dropped even more precipitously - a steady decline in year-to-year receipts since 2011:

Multichannel News obtained the latest unaudited data (and hence "not for public release") from a copyright expert who asked for anonymity. About one-third of the license fees represent payment to sports rights holders, the expert said.

The Copyright Office also tracks "DART" (Digital Audio Recording Devices and Media) receipts from "parties who manufacture and distribute or import and distribute any digital audio recording devices or media," as established in the 1992 Audio Home Recording Act. Payments in this category, which does not involve streaming media, have also fallen dramatically in recent years: just $4,829.83 last year, off 38.13% from 2016, which was down nearly 95% from 2015. At its peak in 2000, the category generated about $5.3 million in licensing fees, and it has been in steady decline (except for a couple upticks) ever since.

The swings in cable license fees are a legacy of 1976 rules on cable retransmission, which included a provision that cable operators had to pay for at least one distant signal equivalent (DSE).

According to the Copyright Royalty Board's summary, the cable industry has paid about $5.8 billion in license fees in the 40 years since the rules have been in effect. The $1.8 billion paid by the satellite industry since 1988 (when its rules took shape) reflects the fact that satellite regulation did not include a compulsory license to require DBS to carry distant signals.

This week's Copyright Royalty Board proceeding involves payments made by cable companies from 2010 to 2103. Although partial distributions have been made annually, about $355 million from those years has not yet been allocated, which is what the Board is now determining.

Copyright analysts contend that the Board's judges have never established a formula to gauge criteria for allocating funds based on factors such as the amount of airtime or the size of audience for programs subject to the fees. 

 Since 1978, a continuing argument presented to the arbitration panel has been, "What is the value to cable operators, and how do you show the value of a compulsory license?" Over the 40 year period, the judges have tried to find a way to determine who cable operators "value" the programming, whether it is a long (three-hour) sports event or a highly viewed, but short, syndicated show.

As an example, sports programming occupies only a small percentage of total programming hours, but it generates relatively high viewership.

The Board will dole out funds to several established categories of program suppliers, including movies, sports, commercial TV, religious TV, public broadcasting and Canadian TV suppliers. The Board faces a June 30 deadline for concluding this allocation phase, after which financial distributions will be made.

Roku said a Federal court in Mexico has lifted an earlier Mexico City court order that had been blocking the sale of Roku streaming devices in the country temporarily.

“Roku is pleased with today’s court decision, which paves the way for sales of Roku devices to resume in Mexico,” Steve Kay, Roku’s general counsel, said in a statement

RELATED: Court Blocks Roku Device Sales in Mexico Over Privacy Worries: Reports

The Federal court’s decision provisionally suspends the earlier ban. According to Bloomberg, retailers Liverpool and Palacio de Hierro were originally ordered to stop selling Roku products because of “legal issues,” noting that Cablevision, a Mexican cable operator run by Grupo Televisa, has obtained the initial order over concerns that Roku devices could be hacked to access subscription OTT services without payment.

Roku said it is now working with its local distributor and retailers in Mexico to restore the availability of Roku streaming devices in retail. In the meantime, the Roku platform continues to serve current customers across Mexico, the company added.

Cablevision, a Mexican cable operator run by Grupo Televisa, has obtained a court order that temporarily blocks the sale of Roku devices over concerns that they can be hacked to view unauthorized content, Bloomberg reported, citing a story that first appeared in Reforma.

Bloomberg said salespeople at retailers Liverpool and Palacio de Hierro told the publication that they were ordered to stop selling Roku products because of “legal issues.” The report said hackers in Mexico are selling compromised Roku devices that allow users to access subscription OTT services without payment.

“Our platform rules prohibit the distribution of content that violates copyrights,” a Roku official told Bloomberg. “We are working diligently with our distributor in Mexico to restore availability of Roku players in retail. Roku itself was not sued by Cablevision.”

Roku has been asked for further comment.

Update: Roku said a federal court in Mexico has lifted the ban.

The major Hollywood studios were not pleased Monday after the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal of a decision that it was OK for Google to digitize millions of books and make them available online without compensating the copyright holders,

In a blog post after the High Court denied cert, the Copyright Alliance, whose members include Disney, Sony, Universal and Viacom, said the court had missed a "golden opportunity" to at least clarify how the fair use doctrine should apply to digital media and new technologies for which it argues there is no adequate fair use test.

The alliance says that the court's ruling was based on the "dubious" finding that "Google’s mass digitizing effort was a fair use because the Google Books project conveys 'information' about the works to users and therefore transforms the books."

The court relied on the "transformative use" test to draw that conclusion based on a 20-year-old decision that the more a work was transformed, the fewer other factors have to be met for it to be considered fair use. One of those factors is the creation of a new, expressive, work, which studios argue didn't happen by Google simply digitizing the works.

“The Supreme Court’s decision to let the Second Circuit’s ruling stand reflects what we have long said: that fair use is a powerful and flexible doctrine that enables not only new works, but also innovative uses of existing works," said Raza Panjwani, policy counsel with Fair Use fan Public Knowledge.

“The Justices were apparently unpersuaded by the plaintiffs characterization of the Second Circuit’s opinion as a ‘a radical rewrite of copyright law.’ To the contrary, courts have long held that new uses of creative works, especially those that increase the public’s access to those works, are permissible fair uses, ranging from displaying image thumbnails in search engine results to recording copies of television shows for later viewing. We can now add ‘empowering researchers from around the globe to search millions of books to identify relevant volumes in seconds’ to that list."

The American Cable Association says its members are having trouble handling a flood of alerts alleging their subs are accessing online content that violates copyright protections and are looking for some help from the Copyright Office and Congress.

That came in comments to the Copyright Office, which is reviewing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) safe harbors. Those provide ISPs with copyright liability protections for their role in delivering digital content to subs.

ACA is particularly concerned about the impact of the Repeat Infringer Liability condition, which requires ISPs to respond to copyright holders' takedown notices for alleged infringing content.

Larger ISPs came up with the Copyright Alert System (CAS or "six strikes") of graduated notifications to infringing subs, but ACA says "is beyond the technical and financial capability of many smaller

and mid-sized providers."

But ACA says thanks to copyright owners' use of "'sniffers,' 'crawlers,' 'bots' and other like means to detect and identify (by IP address) individual instances of alleged infringement," ACA's members, who are small and midsized operators, are getting dozens or even hundreds of such notices every day "indiscriminately alleging that their subscribers are intentionally engaging in infringing behavior."

ACA wants an approach that "establishes a common interpretation of the law’s requirements while allowing for variations in how an online service provider meets those obligations."

Among ACA's key asks:

"Require copyright owners use a standard format for any notices that allege infringement that do not demand cash settlements from Internet users;

"Require copyright owners to send notices to a specific email addresses;

"Adopt guidelines that distinguish between actions that are innocent from willful and circumstances and that specify when service can be restored to a previously terminated user; and

"Resist suggestions that subpoena provisions be expanded to apply to conduit service providers."

The goal of the harbors is to balance the need of copyright holders to protect their content in a world of instant digital copying and transmitting with ISPs need for some protection from liability for a business model that requires them to disseminate content from millions of sources to millions of subs.

Periscope, Twitter’s new live streaming app, was in a bit of hot water with HBO after some of Periscope's users live-streamed the premium network’s April 12 season five premiere of Game Of Thrones, which is already wearing the crown of world’s most pirated TV show.

"We are aware of Periscope and have sent take down notices,” HBO said, in a statement. “In general, we feel developers should have tools which proactively prevent mass copyright infringement from occurring on their apps and not be solely reliant upon notifications."

Those takedown requests have been going directly to Periscope, and not to the consumers in question.

Twitter told Australia-based news site Mumbrella that it will look into suspending Periscope accounts that are found to be streaming copyrighted material, but that it does not constantly monitor for that kind of behavior.

Twitter’s Periscope terms of service page has a section dedicated to its copyright policy, which basically says, don’t send copyrighted material on the service,  or risk getting tossed out.

“Twitter, Inc. respects the intellectual property rights of others and expects users of Periscope Services to do the same,” it reads. “We will respond to notices of alleged copyright infringement that comply with applicable law and are properly provided to us….We reserve the right to remove Content alleged to be infringing without prior notice and at our sole discretion. In appropriate circumstances, Periscope will also terminate a user’s account if the user is determined to be a repeat infringer.” 

The board of directors of the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), the Hispanic civil rights advocacy group, has voted unanimously to urge Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder to change the name of the team.

The vote came at the Washington-based group's fall meeting over the weekend.

“Our brothers and sisters in the Native American community have been clear and consistent in their call to change both terms and images that they consider demeaning. As an organization committed to fairness and equality for all, NCLR fully supports these efforts,” said NCLR president and CEO Janet Murguía following the vote.

NCLR has previously teamed with the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights to push for a change of the name, which some Native Americans find offensive.

“The Latino community well understands that words matter and that they can denigrate, disparage and dehumanize," said Murguía. "We should treat all people with the respect and dignity they deserve."

Snyder has defended the name and has said he has no plans to change it.