The amended counterclaims brought by defendants in Dish Network's copyright infringement complaint against Tele-Center and Planet Telecom are as defective as the original counterclaims dismissed in July (see 1707240016), Dish said in a motion (in Pacer) to dismiss with prejudice filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Tampa. Dish said Florida law doesn't recognize a cause of action for accessing URLs, which is the basis of the Tele-Center/Planet conversion and trespass to chattel claims. It said the defendants -- collectively doing business as UlaiTV, PlanetiTV and AhlaiTV -- failed to show Dish interfered with or unjustifiably used the URLs. It said the defendants' breach of contract claim doesn't show which provision pertains to URL use and lacks factual support for its assertions of Dish hacking a set-top box. Counsel for the defendants didn't comment Monday.

The U.S. District Court in Los Angeles should clarify its 2016 injunction order against VidAngel's video filtering technology to make clear it doesn't apply to new filtering tech that the company rolled out in June, VidAngel said in a motion (in Pacer) for clarification posted Friday. The company said it's not seeking a judicial determination the new technology is meaningfully different or non-infringing, and the implications for the content company plaintiffs suing it for copyright infringement "are nil," since they could amend their complaint to challenge the company's new technology or file a new lawsuit. Outside counsel for the plaintiffs didn't comment Monday. VidAngel is appealing the preliminary injunction order to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (see 1702100010).

The government is wrong in its interpretation that a longstanding antitrust consent decree bars BMI from granting fractional licenses to perform songs, the organization told the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a brief filed last week. The filling was in response to BMI's yearlong legal fight with DOJ, which is appealing a lower court ruling that sided with BMI and said the decree's language doesn't prohibit such licensing (see 1705120040). DOJ, which filed an opening brief in May, favors 100 percent licensing, and supported by technology companies, broadcasters and others (see 1705260049). BMI said prohibiting fractional licensing could harm the market, which could become less competitive. It cited the Supreme Court's 1971 decision in U.S. v. Armour, which said a party to a consent decree can't engage in any activity "expressly and unambiguously prohibited" in the decree unless it falls outside that scope and then it isn't regulated. BMI said its consent decree "says nothing about fractional licensing." It said the government's stance is based on a "logical fallacy" and wants the court to "find an implied prohibition against fractional licensing." BMI posited a decree that required a pizzeria to sell pizzas to all customers without specifying whether the establishment "may only sell pizzas." The decree doesn't expressly address selling slices, so BMI said the pizzeria can sell both slices and whole pies. BMI said fractional licenses either are included in its repertory and therefore it can sell them or, they're excluded from the repertory and not regulated by the decree. "Either way, BMI is free to license such fractional interests and is certainly not prohibited from doing so," it added.

The U.S.' $396,353 bill of costs should be rejected entirely because the federal government, unlike the four plaintiff states in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint against Dish Network, didn't provide any supporting documentation for its costs request, Dish Network said in an objection (in Pacer) filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Springfield, Illinois. It said much of the costs are in categories not recognized by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals as recoverable, such as $233,278 seemingly spent on discovery expenses in the TCPA lawsuit brought by the federal government and California, Illinois, North Carolina and Ohio. The court in June issued a $280 million verdict against Dish (see 1706060069). The FTC didn't comment Wednesday.

The Supreme Court should rule that cell-site location information (CSLI) is fully protected by the Fourth Amendment, said technology companies, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and other civil society and attorneys groups in separate amicus filings in Carpenter v. U.S. They were among several amicus briefs filed Monday. The high court in June agreed to hear the case that could decide whether law enforcement agencies will be required to get a warrant to obtain historical cellphone location data of individuals (see 1706050006). Airbnb, Apple, Cisco, Dropbox, Evernote, Facebook, Alphabet's Google and Nest Labs, Microsoft, Mozilla, Snap, Twitter and Verizon and its subsidiary Oath said CSLI reveals a "wealth of detail about people's personal lives" and they should "reasonably expect to retain significant privacy." The coalition said firms may use and share such data to create or improve services. EFF's coalition said law enforcement is finding CSLI "increasingly useful" because they can "not only place suspects at specific crime scenes, but can also reconstruct almost anyone's movements for many months in the past." Both filings said the third-party doctrine, which says a user can't have a reasonable expectation of privacy when information is voluntarily given to a third party, is outdated. EFF described it as "ill-suited in the digital age" after a 6th U.S. Court of Appeals ruling last year that said CSLI isn't protected because it's a business record held by third-party providers. The coalition said just because data may have been "traditionally classified as 'non-content'" it shouldn't bar Fourth Amendment protection and courts, instead, should focus on the sensitivity of the data. The American Civil Liberties Union listed other filings from organizations including the Center for Democracy & Technology, Electronic Privacy Information Center with 36 tech and legal experts, and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 19 media groups.

A federal court rejected VidAngel's counterclaims against Disney, Lucasfilm, Fox and Warner Bros. and its affirmative defense of copyright misuse. In an order (in Pacer) Thursday, U.S. District Judge Andre Birotte of Los Angeles rejected the video filtering company's arguments that the studios' 2014 agreement with the Directors Guild of America prohibiting alternation of a motion picture was an unreasonable restraint on trade and that the studios license only film content under anticompetitive terms and conditions that restrict editing and filtering. VidAngel's allegations that it was advised by business partners no agreement would be possible without director or DGA approval were "implausible" or contradicted by evidence, said the judge, who said plaintiffs have arguably rational, legal business reasons for not selling VidAngel DVDs. Birotte rejected VidAngel allegations plaintiffs colluded with digital video distributors like Google Play and Amazon to not support VidAngel's filtering service, saying there was insufficient evidence. Plaintiff studios are suing for alleged Copyright Act and Digital Millennium Copyright Act violations for streaming their content to subscribers without permission. Outside counsel for VidAngel didn't comment Friday.

Facebook prevailed in a lawsuit against a country-rap artist who sought removal of pages, and the musician said he'll continue the suit. The Court of Appeal of California, 1st Appellate District Division 2, decided last week that Mikel Knight's allegations were insufficient to defeat an anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuits against public participation) motion. The opinion, posted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation that filed an amicus brief for Facebook, reversed in part a lower court ruling. In Cross v. Facebook, Knight, whose real name is Jason Cross, sued because some users created "Families Against Mikel Knight." In a statement, Knight said Friday: "I'm a Texan! A place historically known for fighting big battles and winning. We will see them in the Supreme Court." The page was created after independent album-selling contractors hired by Knight's marketing company were involved in auto crashes. Knight alleged comments incited "violence and death threats" against him and members of his label. Facebook refused to take down the pages. Its anti-SLAPP motion said the suit's claims were barred by the Communications Decency Act and not viable under California law. The trial court said CDA barred three claims but let stand the others including the right of publicity, which protects a form of IP. Knight alleged Facebook continued to place ads on the unauthorized pages and generated revenue using his name or likeness, but the appeals court said he didn't show the ads appearing next to the pages used his name or likeness or were created by Facebook: "Evidence demonstrates that Facebook has not used Knight‘s identity, and any right of publicity claims fail for this reason alone. Likewise for failure to show appropriation." EFF said if the superior court ruling were allowed to stand, it "would have threatened a huge range of online expression."

Dish Network hasn't shown errors in seeking to have a $280 million Telephone Consumer Protection Act verdict amended or altered (see 1708010010), U.S. District Judge Sue Myerscough of Springfield, Illinois, said in order (in Pacer) Thursday denying the Dish motion. Myerscough, in a sister order (in Pacer) addressing Dish motions to alter or amend or clarify the injunction order against it and to extend time to comply, modified language of the injunction but otherwise denied the company's motion to alter. The judge said the verdict covers all telemarketing by Dish, including future products, including any for its spectrum holdings, and denied several requests for limits or tweaks to the injunction order terminology or boundaries, though it approved others. The court OK'd the extension. Dish said it "appreciate[s] the clarifications made to the injunction [but] respectfully disagrees with the Court’s denial of the motion to amend the findings of fact and conclusions of law. The amounts awarded in this case radically and unjustly exceed, by orders of magnitude, those found in the settlements in similar actions, notably against DirecTV, Comcast and Caribbean Cruise Lines. DISH is being held responsible for telemarketing activities conducted by independent third-parties, including in circumstances where such third-parties intentionally hid their telemarketing efforts from DISH. We intend to appeal.”

The FTC and states that complained about Dish Network's telemarketing practices are opposing the company's bid to have a $280 million fine reduced. In an opposition (in Pacer) to Dish's motion to alter or amend the judgment posted Monday in U.S. District Court in Springfield, Illinois, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint plaintiffs said the $280 million is a huge reduction from the $783 billion in statutory damage and maximum penalties Dish faced, and the award isn't disproportionate to the substantial harm inflicted on U.S. consumers. They said Dish -- in challenging the court finding that all the calls made by outside marketers Star Satellite and Satellite Systems Network were conclusively made to residential phone numbers -- is advocating "for a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard" while the court, using the relevant preponderance standard, found that each separate call was likely made to a residential number. The filing was in response to a motion (in Pacer) earlier in the month by Dish, saying the court found it liable for calls made by those outside marketers since the intended recipients were residential phone subscribers, but TCPA makes no mention of intended recipients and instead focuses on actual recipients.

Cox Communications' "sham" Digital Millennium Copyright Act defense and its attempt to obfuscate through discovery abuses drove up the cost of litigation, so it can't complain about having to bear those costs, said BMG Rights Management and Round Hill Music in a supplemental principal and response brief (in Pacer) filed Friday with the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Cox, fighting BMG's motion for $10.48 million in attorney's fees and $2.92 million in expenses (see 1610030005), never addresses those behaviors that caused the lower court to award fees, they said. They said Cox argued the torrent piracy lawsuit raised novel issues, but the 4th Circuit and the Supreme Court in its 2016 Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons decision rejected "novelty" as protection from avoiding fees. Counsel for Cox didn't comment Monday.