KingsOwn19 Administrator
Favorite Fighter(s) : Lyoto Machida, BJ Penn, Anderson Silva,Dan Henderson, Emelianenko Fedor, Josh Barnett Posts : 12421 Join date : 2009-07-16 Location : Northern California
| Subject: Justin.tv def Zuffa via decision Tue Mar 20, 2012 11:56 pm | |
| Is the internet in the GOAT discussion yet? http://www.mixedmartialarts.com/news/392421/JustinTV-found-not-guilty-in-case-filed-by-Zuffa-for-streaming/Communications Act. Zuffa's claims relate to the "stealing cable" provisions. Justin.tv claimed that 47 USC 230 applies, a pretty logical argument given that Zuffa is bringing a non-IP claim against Justin.tv for third party content. However, the court sidesteps the Section 230 issue, saying it's never been applied to the Communications Act (true) and that the court couldn't find any analogous "stealing cable" claim against websites, and it didn't want to touch this "novel" issue. Instead, the court dismisses the "stealing cable" claim on its elements. The court says: In essence, Zuffa alleges that Justin.tv’s users copied Zuffa’s UFC event and then rebroadcast the UFC event over the internet. This is not the type of conduct properly addressed by the Communications Act, but by copyright law (and, potentially, trademark law) because Justin.tv had no relationship with the original cable or satellite signal: by the allegations, Justin.tv did not receive or intercept any actual cable or satellite signal or broadcast. The Court finds no evidence in the statutory language, other cases, or legislative history that the Communications Act addresses this type of conduct or was meant to bolster or act as a separate type of copyright claim. In a footnote, the court notes the troubling implications of Zuffa's argument: If the Court were to allow claims such as these, it would have to allow similar Communications Act claims against scores of “cloud computing” service providers such as Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon.com, Dropbox, Box.net, and others because Jusint.tv’s [sic] particular streaming service would be irrelevant. As an example, say a person took a snippet (or longer) of video of a UFC match being broadcast on their television with their iPhone, Windows Phone, etc. The iPhone then automatically uploads that video to one of dozens of cloud storage systems such as Apple’s iCloud. The Court refuses to find that Apple (or Microsoft, etc.) would be liable under the Communications Act for merely receiving and storing this data under the Communications Act. Yet, Zuffa argues for exactly this result when it argues that Justin.tv’s mere receipt of this video stream makes Justin.tv liable. In passing the Communications Act, Congress did not intend such a result, and this Court will not broaden the effect of the statute in this manner | |
|
Wolfgangsta Platinum Belt
Favorite Fighter(s) : Conor McGregor, Machida, Jon Jones, Ronda Rousey Posts : 18955 Join date : 2009-07-15 Location : USA
| Subject: Re: Justin.tv def Zuffa via decision Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:08 am | |
| | |
|
bobbitt15 Gold Belt
Favorite Fighter(s) : Chael Sonnen, Michael Chandler, Jorge Masvidal, Carlos Condit Posts : 14830 Join date : 2009-07-16 Age : 35 Location : Cincinnati
| Subject: Re: Justin.tv def Zuffa via decision Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:37 am | |
| I always found the quality of justin tv streams to be atrocious | |
|
GDPofDRC Administrator
Favorite Fighter(s) : Shogun, Fedor, Wand, Saku, Hendo, BJ, Bas, Cain, Mike Vallely Posts : 21274 Join date : 2009-08-04 Age : 104 Location : Fresyes, CA
| Subject: Re: Justin.tv def Zuffa via decision Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:45 am | |
| Looks like the big kebosh | |
|
Sponsored content
| Subject: Re: Justin.tv def Zuffa via decision | |
| |
|