Live video streaming service Ustream is being sued by Square Ring, Inc, a boxing promotional company owned by professional boxer Roy Jones, Jr. The suit alleges that Ustream has committed “massive and blatant copyright infringement” by allowing 2,377 users to view a broadcast of the fight Roy Jones Jr. vs Omar Sheika free of charge. Furthermore, the suit says that Ustream has ignored repeated requests by Square Ring Inc. to gather more information about the infringement. From the suit:
Following the illegal exhibition of Plaintiff’s Copyrighted Broadcast on USTREAM’s website on March 21, 2009, notifying Defendants of the copyright and trademark infringements and, in a good faith effort to avoid litigation, requested information pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff’s letter further advised Defendants that, to Plaintiff’s knowledge, they permitted approximately 2,377 users to view Plaintiff’s pay-per-view program completely free of charge, in violation of Plaintiff’s rights. To date, Defendants have neither complied with Plaintiff’s request nor responded to Plaintiff’s letter…
The court document, embedded below, also details Square Ring’s attempts to proactively prevent the event from being pirated. According to the suit, Square Ring sent Ustream four notices in the week leading up to the fight, asking that the service either provide a ‘take down tool’, or that it have staff actively monitor and delete any streams of the fight. The document says that while some other sites did provide take-down tools, Ustream did not cooperate.
Ustream has given us the following statement regarding the suit:
Ustream is serious about complying with the copyright laws and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and we’re aggressively taking short- and long-term steps to work with the content industry to meet their needs. We believe the Square Ring lawsuit does not have merit and that we’re fully protected by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act Safe Harbor provisions.
Piracy is a problem that has long plagued live video sites like Ustream and its competitors, which include Justin.tv. Because content is being streamed by users, it can be difficult for the services to monitor and prevent copyrighted material from being streamed. But while they’d never admit it, piracy can also help these sites establish sizable user bases — one need only look to YouTube for proof, which was a hotbed for pirated material in its early days and was later acquired by Google for $1.65 billion.
Ustream Sued by Square Ring Productions –
Image via Wikimedia
I was under the impression that if the website complies with requests to remove it as soon as they’re made aware they were legally clear. So, if someone posted a link to warez and as soon as you were aware of it you removed it that would legally be okay.
Is this not correct – assuming that ustream did actually legitimately remove upon request.
Damn Ustream – you guys really f’ed up here:
“According to the suit, Square Ring sent Ustream four notices in the week leading up to the fight, asking that the service either provide a ‘take down tool’, or that it have staff actively monitor and delete any streams of the fight. The document says that while some other sites did provide take-down tools, Ustream did not cooperate.”
Take down tools are an industry standard in the online video industry (live & static).
I don’t think this will be the last Ustream lawsuit if they fail to provide such a simple tool for copyright protection.
obviously you’re a competitor…remember, there’s always two sides to every situation and parties tend to overstate things in litigation…
I wouldn’t be taken back by the sensationalism of the claims….
As with many of these copyright cases I think a lot of it will depend on the judge, but DMCA disputes always seem to value good faith quite a bit, which is why Square Ring is already playing up their proactive role and Ustream’s choice to ignore them.
I don’t know the specific legalities, but I suspect your safe harbor protections can go out the window if *allowing* something to happen crosses the line into *encouraging* it to happen. Is there not some test similar to the “knowledge and compliance” laws or some-such that govern physical establishments (such as a bar where lots of people sell drugs or a strip club where dancers offer private services)?
Big companies are targets…no surprise here…looks like they’re trying to get $ out of this…going after the big boy with money…
This is the same story being played all over again. When YouTube started all record labels started suing Youtube and now they are suing companies like UStream for live streaming…but aren’t they able to realize and that if somebody is streaming them live coz there are folks out there who are watching them live on internet.
This is pretty stupid. It’s not how the DMCA works, and it looks like they’re targeting Ustream because they’re the biggest and actually have money.
If they tried this with Justin, they’d sue them out of business.
Thomas, Square Ring is actually a user of Justin.tv’s DMCA takedown tool and they have been for some time. You can read more about that here http://newteeve...ti-piracy-tech/
Evan, I am sure you know that this is just a play. At least the 95% of the content at Justin is illegal. I don’t think that you want to loose almost all the visitors.
I think the industry has changed from the You Tube days.
Lawsuits are common nowadays….
I read the details, I think it was a play to get attention for the 8/15th ppv event that happened
I don’t think there is a way to preemptively take down video content. You have to send a notice after the content has been posted.
Ustream is in the clear. What does this Roy guy think he’s doing?
The real question is if the DMCA is suitable for video streaming in this day and age. The DMCA is primarily suited toward permanent files- That is, data that is saved on a server and sent to users over and over again. Video streaming is different- Usually it isnt recorded and if you missed it, there is no way to view it again from that site. To say that ustream is compliant with the current DMCA may be true- but its also no work for them to be compliant, as they store no files.
Its likely that there will need to be specific provisions for streaming data added to the DMCA in the future, as the current version does not address data streaming.
Oh god that would be horrible. Give companies the ability to preemptively take down any content they believe may infringe on their copyrights. That will absolutely be abused (worse than the current takedowns) where a competitor could just take down all of your streams/content.
Roy Jones Jr. VS. Ustream – This case is now online at the AllRise Court – http://bit.ly/Wh8Op
Litigation can be a profitable sport.
Square Ring would have been better off streaming the fight over Ustream themselves. It’s a great way to get more fans.
Boxing is dead because of the UFC, not Ustream. They are looking for a scapegoat.
They don’t need fans, they need customers. Fans don’t pay the rent.
+1
When are companies like square ring (and music labels, etc) going to realize that they need to adjust their business models instead of suing everyone and their mother.
Social media should be embraced, not destroyed.
No, people shouldn’t be commended for stealing content. The boxing industry chose the PPV model, and people are improperly using web services to circumvent the industry’s business model. Just because you disagree with the rules, doesn’t mean you can break them.
Like YouTube before it, Ustream needs to work out the piracy issues inherent in social broadcast… people want to see this stuff, but rights holders hate it.
What ? The rights holders hate it when people DON’T pay to see it. Sorry, but giving things away is not a business model.
Dude, raising VC is a business model…
That was a great performance by Roy Jones against Jeff Lacy last Saturday. It is phenomenal how fast Roy Jones is.
UStream deserves this one, if in fact that there were FOUR requests of said content be removed on sight.
Is this a sign of UStream dropping the ball? What’s going to drop next at UStream?
You sound bitter for some reason Mark? lol
he’s a JTV fanboy… get a life Mark.
If Square One wants to be pissed about something, be pissed that only 2,377 people were viewing the stream!
There is your freakin’ eye opener!
When you want someone to help you pump this up and promote 2009 style, CALL ME! I am here for you!
I agree with Adam, If Square Ring had any brains, they would see an opportunity, not a problem. The fact that there was any interest at all is amazing to me, but nontheless where else could they get worldwide coverage and put there own sold ad’s in the stream. Boys, your missing a good way to make a buck and support your sport..
whats next suing grandma streaming to her kids because theres a TV on in the background..
Ustream is desperate to play with the big boys by streaming infringing content. The dudes running it think that can follow YouTube and get viewers by ignoring illegal shows and hoping they get away with it – It’s a company with sketchy values and ethics if I’ve ever seen one. Why not build your reputation without stealing other people’s content? One day, probably with this lawsuit, they’ll get theirs….frankly, that’s how it should be, you can only push your luck and screw people over for so long. It will be really interesting to see what happens with this…………