Amaretto Ranch Breedables, LLC v. Ozimals, Inc.

Last updated
Amaretto Ranch Breedables, LLC vs. Ozimals, Inc.
US DC NorCal.svg
Court United States District Court for the Northern District of California
DecidedDecember 21, 2010
Docket nos. 3:10-cv-05696
Citation(s)Amaretto Ranch Breedables, LLC v. Ozimals, Inc. [1]
Case history
Subsequent action(s)litigation terminated July 2013
Holding
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order GRANTED in favor of Amaretto
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Charles Breyer
Keywords
DMCA takedown, preliminary injunction, temporary restraining order

Amaretto Ranch Breedables, LLC v. Ozimals, Inc. was a copyright case in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California involving a DMCA takedown notice dispute between companies that produce virtual animals on Second Life. Ozimals filed a DMCA takedown notice to Linden Research, the makers of Second life, claiming that Amaretto's horse infringed on their bunnies and demanding their removal. Consequently, Amaretto responded with a counter-DMCA notice and applied to the court for a temporary restraining order to forbid Linden Research from removing their virtual horses. This was granted and held in effect as the case proceeded. Amaretto claimed in court that Ozimal's DMCA notice was copyright misuse and asked for a declaration that its horses did not infringe copyright. Ozimals counterclaimed for copyright infringement. The court eventually dismissed both claims.

Contents

Background

Second Life is an online website where users can live out their virtual lives. Users can make and sell their own virtual items. Ozimals is a company that creates virtual bunnies which can be purchased and raised in Second Life through feeding them virtual food. Amaretto Ranch Breedables sells virtual horses which can also be purchased and raised in a similar fashion.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act permits content owners to prevent infringement by seeking a court order that requires an internet service provider to block or remove access to content that allegedly infringes copyrighted content. [2] In this case, Ozimals claimed that Amaretto Ranch Breedables’ horses infringed on their bunnies and filed a takedown notice for their horses and feed. [3] Amaretto sued for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction barring Linden Research, the operator of Second Life, from removing their products. [2]

Case

As established in Winter v. Natural Res. Defense Council (2008), a plaintiff seeking preliminary injunction must show:

  1. Likelihood to Succeed on the Merits
  2. Likelihood of Irreparable Harm
  3. Balance of Hardships Weighs in Favor of Plaintiffs
  4. Public Interest Supports the Issuance of a Preliminary Injunction

Since software copyright protection does not apply to functionality as in this case, the case was considered likely to succeed. [3] Amaretto did not directly copy Ozimal's source code, and the idea of a growing virtual animal that could be fed and raised is not copyrightable. [3]

Likely irreparable harm is interesting in this case. Had the DMCA order gone through, it would have cut off Amaretto's source of income before it could challenge Ozimal's copyright claim. [3] Their virtual horses would have died for lack of food, and though Ozimals stated that they would agree to Amaretto distributing their product for free, Amaretto understandably refused to do so. [4] Furthermore, even if they were to litigate, had the takedown occurred, Amaretto would have lost a significant number of potential customers by missing out on the prime buying season. [1] Judge Charles Breyer ruled that irreparable harm was likely in this case. [1] For the same reason, he deemed that the balance of hardships would be in favor of the plaintiff. [1]

Finally, there was no identifiable public interest in this case. [1] Judge Breyer granted Amaretto the temporary restraining order against Linden Research from removing their horses until the preliminary injunction ruling. [1]

Subsequent Motions to Dismiss

Motion to dismiss First Amended Complaint

In April 2011, Ozimals was granted in part and denied in part their motion to dismiss Amaretto's First Amended Complaint (FAC). [5]

They argued that

  1. Section 512(f) Misrepresentation was not viable because no takedown had occurred. The judge agreed with Ozimals here, referring to Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., which stated that the damages incurred had to be from the DMCA removal of content.
  2. Litigation privilege does not bar the tortious interference and unfair competition claims. The judge ruled in favor of Amaretto in this case, as the original DMCA notification was not a judicial proceeding.
  3. Tortious interference claim wasn't plausibly pleaded. The judge sided with Ozimals here, ruling that merely arguing that the defendants falsely disparaged their products on online forums was not enough to determine interference with contract.
  4. The unfair business practices claim should be dismissed. Here, the judge ruled that Amaretto's unfair business practices claim was viable here, as Ozimals didn't have a valid copyright.

Ozimals’ motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. [5] In response, Amaretto filed a Second Amended Complaint. [6]

Motion to dismiss Second Amended Complaint

Ozimals also moved to dismiss Amaretto's Second Amended Complaint in July, which consisted of the following:

  1. declaratory relief;
  2. statutory and common law unfair competition;
  3. copyright misuse;
  4. defamation;
  5. trade libel;
  6. intentional interference with contract; and
  7. tortious interference with prospective business advantage. [6]

Ozimals moved to dismiss 2 and 6. Judge Breyer ruled against them on unfair competition, pointing out that it had already been decided in the previous case. However, he did dismiss the common law unfair competition claim, since that entails passing off one's goods as those of another. [6] State law claims based on DMCA takedowns are preempted here by the federal nature of the DMCA, as referenced in Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. as well as OPG v. Diebold . Ozimal's motion to dismiss on this count is granted. [6]

Further developments

Litigation continued into 2012, with several changes of attorney. [7] Meanwhile, Second Life has backed away from the dispute, stating, "We no longer have a horse in that race or a bunny in that pot." [4] . The court dismissed Ozimals copyright infringement claim because "Ozimals lacked standing to sue on the copyright in issue", and also dismissed Amaretto's requests for declaration that Ozimals' actions were copyright misuse and that its horses were not infringements, on the grounds of lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In July 2013 the final legal claims, relating to Amaretto's allegations that an Ozimals blog posting had defamed Amaretto, were also dismissed, ending the court proceedings.

Significance


Legal blogger Eric Goldman’s take on the case was, “I generally like furry critters, but I'm beginning to hate the virtual horses and virtual bunnies for their deleterious effect on Internet law.” [9]

See also

Related Research Articles

An affirmative defense to a civil lawsuit or criminal charge is a fact or set of facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor which, if proven by the defendant, defeats or mitigates the legal consequences of the defendant's otherwise unlawful conduct. In civil lawsuits, affirmative defenses include the statute of limitations, the statute of frauds, waiver, and other affirmative defenses such as, in the United States, those listed in Rule 8 (c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In criminal prosecutions, examples of affirmative defenses are self defense, insanity, and the statute of limitations.

<i>Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Inc.</i>

Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Inc., 337 F. Supp. 2d 1195, was a lawsuit involving an archive of Diebold's internal company e-mails and Diebold's contested copyright claims over them. The Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Stanford Cyberlaw Clinic provided pro bono legal support for the non-profit ISP and the Swarthmore College students, respectively.

Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act

The Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA) is United States federal law that creates a conditional 'safe harbor' for online service providers (OSP) by shielding them for their own acts of direct copyright infringement as well as shielding them from potential secondary liability for the infringing acts of others. OCILLA was passed as a part of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and is sometimes referred to as the "Safe Harbor" provision or as "DMCA 512" because it added Section 512 to Title 17 of the United States Code. By exempting Internet intermediaries from copyright infringement liability provided they follow certain rules, OCILLA attempts to strike a balance between the competing interests of copyright owners and digital users.

Digital Millennium Copyright Act Copyright law in the United States of America

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a 1998 United States copyright law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet. Passed on October 12, 1998, by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended Title 17 of the United States Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of the providers of online services for copyright infringement by their users.

Greenberg & Lieberman

Greenberg & Lieberman is a national and international law firm based in Washington, D.C. Established in 1996 by Michael Greenberg and Stevan Lieberman, the firm is known for its expertise in the technology-law areas of intellectual property, trademark infringements, domain names, virtual worlds, and software and is among the 16 most influential entities in the field of domain names. A "boutique law firm", Greenberg & Lieberman credited for being among the first in the world to begin generating a significant revenue and client base via online virtual worlds such as Second Life. Greenberg & Lieberman are also noted for their involvement with media law and military law.

<i>MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.</i>

MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc and Vivendi Games, Inc., 629 F.3d 928, is a case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. At the district court level, MDY had been found liable under theories of copyright and tort law for selling software that contributed to the breach of Blizzard's End User License Agreement (EULA) and Terms of Use (ToU) governing the World of Warcraft video game software.
The court's ruling was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which reversed the district court in part, upheld in part, and remanded for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals ruled that for a software licensee's violation of a contract to constitute copyright infringement, there must be a nexus between the license condition and the licensor’s exclusive rights of copyright. However, the court also ruled, contrary to Chamberlain v. Skylink, that a finding of circumvention under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act does not require a nexus between circumvention and actual copyright infringement.

<i>Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.</i>

Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 801 F.3d 1126, is a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, affirming the ruling in 2008 of the US District Court for the Northern District of California, holding that copyright holders must consider fair use in good faith before issuing a takedown notice for content posted on the Internet.

<i>Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc.</i> Lawsuit brought by Facebook in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc. is a lawsuit brought by Facebook in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that Power Ventures Inc., a third-party platform, collected user information from Facebook and displayed it on their own website. Facebook claimed violations of the CAN-SPAM Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ("CFAA"), and the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act. According to Facebook, Power Ventures Inc. made copies of Facebook's website during the process of extracting user information. Facebook argued that this process causes both direct and indirect copyright infringement. In addition, Facebook alleged this process constitutes a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"). Finally, Facebook also asserted claims of both state and federal trademark infringement, as well as a claim under California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").

Hotfile File hosting website

Hotfile was a one-click file hosting website founded by Hotfile Corp in 2006 in Panama City, Panama. On December 4, 2013, Hotfile ceased all operations, the same day as signing a $4 million settlement with the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA); the settlement had previously been misreported as $80 million.

<i>Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC</i>

Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC, 715 F. Supp. 2d 481, is a United States district court case in which the Southern District of New York held that Lime Group LLC, the defendant, induced copyright infringement with its peer-to-peer file sharing software, LimeWire. The court issued a permanent injunction to shut it down. The lawsuit is a part of a larger campaign against piracy by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).

<i>Capitol Records, Inc. v. MP3Tunes, LLC</i> US legal case

Capitol Records, Inc. v. MP3tunes, LLC is a 2011 case from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York concerning copyright infringement and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). In the case, EMI Music Group and fourteen other record companies claimed copyright infringement against MP3tunes, which provides online music storage lockers, and MP3tunes's founder, Michael Robertson. In a decision that has ramifications for the future of online locker services, the court held that MP3tunes qualifies for safe harbor protection under the DMCA. However, the court found MP3tunes to still be liable for contributory copyright infringement in this case due to its failure to remove infringing songs after receiving takedown notices. The court also held that Robertson is liable for songs he personally copied from unauthorized websites.

<i>Flava Works Inc. v. Gunter</i> 2012 US decision on copyright infringement

Flava Works, Inc v. Gunter, 689 F.3d 754, is a decision by the United States Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, authored by Judge Richard Posner, which held that Marques Gunter, the sole proprietor of the site myVidster.com, a social bookmarking website that enables its users to share videos posted elsewhere online through embedded frames, was not liable for its users' sharing and embedding of copyrighted videos. The court of appeals reversed the decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, which had granted a preliminary injunction against myVidster, citing sufficient knowledge of infringement on Gunter's part, while denying safe harbor defense under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The Court held that Gunter was not directly liable because the copyrighted content was not stored on myVidster's servers, and was not contributorily liable because there was no evidence that conduct by myVidster increased the amount of infringement.

<i>Smith v. Summit Entertainment LLC</i>

Smith v. Summit Entertainment LLC, No. 3:11-cv-00348, was a case heard by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, in which professional singer Matthew Smith, known as Matt Heart, sued Summit Entertainment. Smith asserted seven causes of action for Summit Entertainment's wrongful use of copyright takedown notice on the website YouTube, among which three were dismissed and four were ruled in Smith's favor. The case is noteworthy given that copyright 17 U.S.C. § 512 claims are hard to win, and the plaintiff's success was due to the combination of his persuasive story and convincing additional claims which complemented § 512.

Michael Greenberg is an American lawyer, regarded as a legal expert in intellectual property law and patent law. He is a partner of the Washington, D.C.-based law firm, Greenberg & Lieberman, with Stevan Lieberman, established in 1996. As part of the firm, Greenberg has been involved in hundreds of UDRP or trademark infringement disputes and is a well-regarded and experienced litigator, with particular expertise in patent infringement cases.

<i>Ouellette v. Viacom International Inc.</i>

Ouellette v. Viacom, No. 9:10-cv-00133; 2011 WL 1882780, found the safe harbor provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) did not create liability for service providers that take down non-infringing works. This case limited the claims that can be filed against service providers by establishing immunity for service providers' takedown of fair use material, at least from grounds under the DMCA. The court left open whether another "independent basis of liability" could serve as legal grounds for an inappropriate takedown. Thus, service providers can rest easier knowing that they do not have to do a fair use analysis of content suspected of infringing copyright.

<i>Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Fung</i>

Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Fung 710 F.3d 1020 No. 10-55946, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case in which seven film studios including Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., Disney and Twentieth Century Fox sued Gary Fung, the owner of isoHunt Web Technologies, Inc., for contributory infringement of their copyrighted works. The panel affirmed in part and vacated in part the decision of United States District Court for the Central District of California that the services and websites offered by isoHunt Web Technologies allowed third parties to download infringing copies of Columbia's works. Ultimately, Fung had "red flag knowledge" of the infringing activity on his systems, and therefore IsoHunt was held ineligible for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act § 512(c) safe harbor.

<i>Wolk v. Kodak Imaging Network, Inc.</i>

Wolk v. Kodak Imaging Network, Inc., 840 F. Supp. 2d 724, was a United States district court case in which the visual artist Sheila Wolk brought suit against Kodak Imaging Network, Inc., Eastman Kodak Company, and Photobucket.com, Inc. for copyright infringement. Users uploaded Wolk's work to Photobucket, a user-generated content provider, which had a revenue sharing agreement with Kodak that permitted users to use Kodak Gallery to commercially print (photofinish) images from Photobucket's site—including unauthorized copies of Wolk's artwork.

Stevan H. Lieberman is an American lawyer, regarded as a legal expert in intellectual property law and patent law. He is a partner of the Washington, D.C.-based law firm, Greenberg & Lieberman, with Michael Greenberg, established in 1996. As part of the firm, Lieberman has been involved in hundreds of UDRP or trademark infringement disputes, and he is considered a pioneer in the technology-law areas of virtual worlds, domain names and software, cited by CNN as "among the virtual world's earning elite." Among the first lawyers in the world to begin generating a significant revenue and client base via online virtual worlds such as Second Life; he is the co-founder and CEO of two virtual reality websites.

<i>Warner Bros. Inc. v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.</i> 1983 US lawsuit brought before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Warner Bros. Inc. v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., 720 F.2d 231, the case of Superman v. The Greatest American Hero, is the third case in a Second Circuit trilogy of 20th century copyright infringement cases in which the proprietors of Superman copyrights sued other companies for publishing fictional exploits of a cape-wearing superhero. Although the plaintiffs were successful in the first two cases, Superman v. Wonderman and Superman v. Captain Marvel, they were completely unsuccessful in Superman v. The Greatest American Hero. The court held that "as a matter of law. .. 'The Greatest American Hero' is not sufficiently similar to the fictional character Superman, the hero of comic books, television, and more recently films, so that claims of copyright infringement and unfair competition may be dismissed without consideration by a jury."

YouTube copyright strike Website policy action

A YouTube copyright strike is a copyright policing practice used by YouTube for the purpose of managing copyright infringement and complying with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is the basis for the design of the YouTube copyright strike system. For YouTube to retain DMCA safe harbor protection, it must respond to copyright infringement claims with a notice and take down process. YouTube's own practice is to issue a "YouTube copyright strike" on the user accused of copyright infringement. When a YouTube user gets hit with a copyright strike, they will be required to watch a warning video about the rules of copyright and take trivia questions about the danger of copyright. When a YouTube user has three copyright strikes, YouTube terminates that user's YouTube channel, removes all of their videos from that user's YouTube channel, and prohibits that user from creating another YouTube channel.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Amaretto Ranch Breedables, LLC v. Ozimals, Inc., No.3:10-cv-05696, 29(N.D. Cal.Dec. 21, 2010).
  2. 1 2 "Plaintiff obtains restraining order stopping Second City from taking down its virtual animals pursuant to takedown notice". The Computer & Internet Lawyer. 28 (3): 25. March 2011.
  3. 1 2 3 4 Kwong, Justin (2012). "UPDATE: Virtual Horse Case, Amaretto Ranch v. Ozimals".
  4. 1 2 Scheck, Justin (2011). "You Can Lead a Virtual Horse to Water, But You Might Get Sued Along the Way". The Wall Street Journal.
  5. 1 2 Amaretto Ranch Breedables, LLC v. Ozimals, Inc., No.3:10-cv-05696 , 80(N.D. Cal.Apr. 22, 2011).
  6. 1 2 3 4 Amaretto Ranch Breedables, LLC v. Ozimals, Inc., No.3:10-cv-05696 , 104(N.D. Cal.July 8, 2010).
  7. ↑ Justia.com (2011). "Amaretto Ranch Breedables, LLC v. Ozimals, Inc".
  8. ↑ Goldman, Eric (2011). "Second Life Gets Out of Dispute Between Virtual Bunnies & Virtual Horses". Technology & Marketing Law Blog. Retrieved 17 October 2012.
  9. 1 2 Goldman, Eric (2011). "17 USC 512(f) Preempts State Law Claims Over Bogus Copyright Takedown Notices--Amaretto v. Ozimals". Technology & Marketing Law Blog. Retrieved 17 October 2012.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.