[ LOGIN ] [ SIGN UP ]

[ Report ]

Roy Jones Jr. VS. Ustream
Charge: Massive and blatant copyright infringement

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.


Case Status: CLOSED Case Opened By: Yaguar on August 17, 2009 Tags: Boxing Ustream Copyright Category: Entertainment

Ruled on
August 24 2009

Guilty: 14

Not Guilty: 15

Ustream was found
Not Guilty

CASE SUMMARY

Votings:

Guilty: 14

Not Guilty: 15

Arguments:

Prosecution Arguments: 3

Defense Arguments: 1

Total Arguments Strength:

Prosecution: 0

Defense: 1

CASE HIGHLIGHTS

PROSECUTION

Most Active Member of the Prosecution:

Conspiracy Theory
2 Arguments

DEFENSE

Most Active Member of the Defense:

Yaguar
1 Arguments

Stronget Defense Argument: (Strength: 1)

Quote of Ustream to Techcrunch: "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." - Well said.

Posted by Yaguar

Most Opposed Defense Argument: (2 Opposing Arguments)

Posted by Yaguar

CASE ARGUMENTS

PROSECUTION

Sort By: Newest | Strongest | Most Opposed To

[ Report ]

[Part II] Plaintiff has raised a complaint. Defendant has raised an "affirmative defense" that they fall within safe harbor. Defendant therefore has the burden to prove that: It had no knowledge of, or financial benefit from, infringing activity on its network; It had a copyright policy and provided proper notification of that policy to its subscribers; and It listed an agent to deal with copyright complaints. The second two requirements for safe harbor are easily produced and should be produced so that there is at least some basis for believing Ustream when they say "we are not guilty." I don't see any such production. The first prong of the safe harbor defense, "no knowledge," will require extensive discovery of all of the communications that went back and forth during the time of the copyright infraction. Yaguar, try not to think with your cheating mentality gut next time. I refer to your defense of cheaters when you benefit, but not when someone else benefits.

Posted by Conspiracy Theory 1 Years ago. as a reply to this argument

This Argument is:

Strength:

Opposing Arguments:

(0)

[ Report ]

We now see Yaguar for who he really is. Yaguar, you don't mind breaking the law or infringing on others' rights, such as Ustream did here, so long as YOUR privacy, etc. isn't at issue. I'm talking about your stance here, sort of a "oh, goody, free use of his fight video is good" vs. your stance on Digsby, which is "oh, no! free use of MY computer is bad!" Now besides that simple ad hominem, let's get down to brass tacks. You quote the DMCA Safe Harbor provisions. Well, you quote someone quoting them. A blanket statement that "we believe that .... we're fully protected" by the Safe Harbor provisions isn't sufficient evidence that Ustream truly does have that protection. This is like a criminal saying, "I believe that I fall into the "excuse" category and therefore should be acquitted." The facts are what are critical here, not the puffery of innocence. [See Part 2]

Posted by Conspiracy Theory 1 Years ago. as a reply to this argument

This Argument is:

Strength:

Opposing Arguments:

(0)