Posts made in July, 2013

Menu 

Nintendo Claims Advertising for “Let’s Play” Videos on Youtube

Posted by on Jul 18, 2013 in Computer Law, Copyright

                Youtube users started reporting this week that Nintendo has started claiming revenue for advertisement on user-created Youtube videos which feature content from Nintendo games.  Nintendo confirmed this news stating they became a Youtube partner in February of 2013 and registered their copyright content in the Youtube database.  Unlike most infringement cases, Nintendo is not asking Youtube to take down potentially infringing videos.  Instead Nintendo is issuing content ID match claims to place its own advertising before, within, or at the end of the videos. Nintendo is targeted videos featuring Nintendo-owned images or audio of a certain length.  The most common videos affected are “Let’s Play” videos.  These videos are show gamers playing through video games and can vary from a few seconds of gameplay to entire playthroughs of a game.  People upload these videos for humor, to demonstrate how to clear a certain part of the game, or just to show off how good they are.  “Let’s Play” channels can boast over 100,000 subscribers and individual videos can reach over 1,000,000 views. As a copyright owner Nintendo has the exclusive right to reproduce their works and to create derivative works under Section 106 of the Copyright Code.  Even though Youtube videos...

Learn More

Apple Found Guilty of E-Book Price Fixing

Posted by on Jul 10, 2013 in Computer Law, Copyright

On July 10, 2013 the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled Apple was guilty of anti-trust violations for its role in conspiring with book publishers to raise prices for electronic books.  The five publishers, Hachette Book Group, Inc., HarperCollins Publishers LLC, Holtzbrinck Publishers LLC d/b/a Macmillan, Penguin Group Inc., and Simon & Schuster Inc., had already settled with the Department of Justice.  Apple moved to trial because it claimed it was innocent.  The trial was conducted as a bench trial from June 3 to 20 to determine liability and injunctive relief. At its heart, the court’s ruling determined Apple played a central role in facilitating and executing the conspiracy to raise e-book prices.  In the court’s opinion, without Apple the conspiracy would not have been as successful.  Amazon was charging $9.99 for e-book versions of New York Times bestsellers and other newly released hardcover books.  Apple met with the five publishers in December of 2009 and January of 2010 and suggested prices of $12.99 to $14.99 for its planned iBookstore.  Apple promised to set those prices only if it could get agreements from the publishers allowing Apple to offer e-books simultaneously with their hardcover releases. At the iBookstore’s launch new release e-books were...

Learn More