Embroidery Software Protection Coalition

Last updated

The Embroidery Software Protection Coalition (ESPC) was a United States embroidery industry trade group. Its primary activity was the investigation and prosecution of alleged acts of copyright infringement. The group drew media attention for its campaign of settlement demands against individual buyers as well as sellers of embroidery patterns and software. It drew further attention with a 2006 defamation suit against two individual Internet critics, in which it attempted to subpoena the identities of every subscriber of the critics' electronic mailing list.

Contents

eBay buyer infringement claims

This ESPC letter accuses an eBay buyer of copyright infringement. ESPC Letterhead-1-.jpg
This ESPC letter accuses an eBay buyer of copyright infringement.

On August 3, 2005, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas approved the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by the ESPC and ESPC member companies against eBay and PayPal, pursuant to a stipulation agreement between the parties.

On September 6, 2005, WNDU-TV reported that the ESPC was mailing settlement demands to individual eBay buyers. [1] According to one such demand letter, dated October 17, 2005, the buyers were identified by personal records provided by eBay and eBay sellers.

The October 17 letter further claimed that buyers, by purchasing and possessing unlicensed copies of embroidery software or patterns, had violated United States copyright law. "By purchasing the counterfeit goods, they're encouraging the pirates to stay out there and put the legitimate businesses out of business," said Carole Faulkner, attorney for the ESPC, in the September 6 WNDU-TV report. A University of Notre Dame law professor disagreed, telling WNDU-TV "copyright laws make it illegal to distribute copies, not buy them". [1]

Defamation suit

As of April 28, 2006, the ESPC claimed to represent seven United States embroidery publishers and distributors. [2] The legitimacy of the ESPC was disputed by critics, who suggested that the ESPC was associated with only one publisher, Great Notions Embroidery Designs. [3]

On June 28, 2006, the ESPC responded to two such critics, against whom the ESPC had previously filed copyright infringement lawsuits, by filing a new lawsuit. In the new lawsuit, the ESPC alleged defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, conspiracy, business disparagement, and tortious interference.

The ESPC subsequently petitioned for a subpoena seeking the identities of every subscriber to the two critics' Internet mailing list. In September 2006, after the Electronic Frontier Foundation intervened on behalf of the anonymous targets of the subpoena, the subpoena was withdrawn. [4]

The referenced critics have, since February 2006, entered an out-of-court settlement with ESPC. Prior out-of-court settlements show that the alleged infringers handed over lists of buyers and individuals to whom the machine embroidery designs were sent.

Related Research Articles

Entertainment law, also referred to as media law, is legal services provided to the entertainment industry. These services in entertainment law overlap with intellectual property law. Intellectual property has many moving parts that include trademarks, copyright, and the "right of publicity". However, the practice of entertainment law often involves questions of employment law, contract law, torts, labor law, bankruptcy law, immigration, securities law, security interests, agency, right of privacy, defamation, advertising, criminal law, tax law, International law, and insurance law.

In a series of legal disputes between SCO Group and Linux vendors and users, SCO alleged that its license agreements with IBM meant that source code IBM wrote and donated to be incorporated into Linux was added in violation of SCO's contractual rights. Members of the Linux community disagreed with SCO's claims; IBM, Novell, and Red Hat filed claims against SCO.

The multinational technology corporation Apple Inc. has been a participant in various legal proceedings and claims since it began operation and, like its competitors and peers, engages in litigation in its normal course of business for a variety of reasons. In particular, Apple is known for and promotes itself as actively and aggressively enforcing its intellectual property interests. From the 1980s to the present, Apple has been plaintiff or defendant in civil actions in the United States and other countries. Some of these actions have determined significant case law for the information technology industry and many have captured the attention of the public and media. Apple's litigation generally involves intellectual property disputes, but the company has also been a party in lawsuits that include antitrust claims, consumer actions, commercial unfair trade practice suits, defamation claims, and corporate espionage, among other matters.

<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.

Arts and media industry trade groups, such as the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) and Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), strongly oppose and attempt to prevent copyright infringement through file sharing. The organizations particularly target the distribution of files via the Internet using peer-to-peer software. Efforts by trade groups to curb such infringement have been unsuccessful with chronic, widespread and rampant infringement continuing largely unabated.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act</span> 1998 U.S. federal law

The Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA) is United States federal law that creates a conditional 'safe harbor' for online service providers (OSP), a group which includes Internet service providers (ISP) and other Internet intermediaries, 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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copyright infringement</span> Illegal usage of copyrighted works

Copyright infringement is the use of works protected by copyright without permission for a usage where such permission is required, thereby infringing certain exclusive rights granted to the copyright holder, such as the right to reproduce, distribute, display or perform the protected work, or to make derivative works. The copyright holder is typically the work's creator, or a publisher or other business to whom copyright has been assigned. Copyright holders routinely invoke legal and technological measures to prevent and penalize copyright infringement.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Recording Industry Association of America</span> Trade organization representing the recording industry in the U.S.

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is a trade organization that represents the music recording industry in the United States. Its members consist of record labels and distributors that the RIAA says "create, manufacture, and/or distribute approximately 85% of all legally sold recorded music in the United States". RIAA is headquartered in Washington, D.C.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is an international non-profit advocacy and legal organization based in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Charles Carreon</span> American trial attorney

Charles Hernan Carreon is an American trial attorney best known for his involvement in a legal dispute between The Oatmeal webcomic and content aggregator FunnyJunk. As of 2012, he represented individuals and companies in matters pertaining to Internet law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Digital Millennium Copyright Act</span> United States copyright law

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.

Notice and take down is a process operated by online hosts in response to court orders or allegations that content is illegal. Content is removed by the host following notice. Notice and take down is widely operated in relation to copyright infringement, as well as for libel and other illegal content. In United States and European Union law, notice and takedown is mandated as part of limited liability, or safe harbour, provisions for online hosts. As a condition for limited liability online hosts must expeditiously remove or disable access to content they host when they are notified of the alleged illegality.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copyright troll</span> Party that enforces copyrights for purposes of making money through litigation

A copyright troll is a party that enforces copyrights it owns for purposes of making money through strategic litigation, in a manner considered unduly aggressive or opportunistic, sometimes without producing or licensing the works it owns for paid distribution. Critics object to the activity because they believe it does not encourage the production of creative works, but instead makes money through the inequities and unintended consequences of high statutory damages provisions in copyright laws intended to encourage creation of such works.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hotfile</span> 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.

Copyright Alert System (CAS) was a voluntary industry effort to educate and penalize internet users who engage in the unauthorized and unlawful distribution of copyrighted works via peer-to-peer file sharing services. The program was operated by the Center for Copyright Information, a consortium consisting of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), and the internet service providers AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon.

Prenda Law, also known as Steele | Hansmeier PLLP and Anti-Piracy Law Group, was a Chicago-based law firm that ostensibly operated by undertaking litigation against copyright infringement. However, it was later characterized by the United States District Court for Central California in a May 2013 ruling as a "porno-trolling collective" whose business model "relie[d] on deception", and which resembled most closely a conspiracy and racketeering enterprise, referring in the judgment to RICO, the U.S. Federal anti-racketeering law. The firm ostensibly dissolved itself in July 2013 shortly after the adverse ruling although onlookers described Alpha Law Firm LLC as its apparent replacement. In 2014, the ABA Journal described the "Prenda Law saga" as having entered "legal folklore".

Rightscorp. Inc is a Los-Angeles based copyright enforcement company, which locates alleged copyright violators and collects money from legal damages as well as out of court settlements on behalf of the copyright holder(s). Rightscorp manages copyrights of videos, music, and video games.

<i>Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1–1,495</i>

Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1–1,495, Civil Action No. 11-1741 (JDB/JMF), was a United States District Court for the District of Columbia case in which the court held that anonymous users of the peer-to-peer file sharing service BitTorrent could not remain anonymous after charges of copyright infringement were brought against them. The court ultimately dismissed the case, but the identities of defendants were publicly exposed.

Google has been involved in multiple lawsuits over issues such as privacy, advertising, intellectual property and various Google services such as Google Books and YouTube. The company's legal department expanded from one to nearly 100 lawyers in the first five years of business, and by 2014 had grown to around 400 lawyers. Google's Chief Legal Officer is Senior Vice President of Corporate Development David Drummond.

Maverickeye UG is a copyright enforcement company that is based in Germany. It detects and retraces copyright infringement using software technology.

References

  1. 1 2 "Embroidery software buyer under investigation" (PDF). WNDU-TV. Mishawaka, IN: Grey Television Group, Inc. 2005-09-06. Retrieved 2019-02-04.
  2. "About the Embroidery Software Protection Coalition". 2006-04-28. Archived from the original on 2006-04-28.
  3. Walsh, Daniel (January 2011). "Might Makes Copyright". Wearables. Advertising Specialty Institute. Retrieved 2019-02-04.
  4. "EFF: Embroidery Software Protection Coalition v. Ebert & Weaver". Electronic Frontier Foundation. 2006-09-14. Archived from the original on 2006-12-09. Retrieved 2006-12-13.