Fire Alarms Systems

Few years ago, we wrote about how the UCLA professors were prevented from continuing with an existing program in which they were streaming DVDs with the corresponding authorization for students. The request came from the Association of Media and Equipment (AIME). We found that one of the key aspects of "fair use" which is supposed to educational purposes, and it seemed ridiculous that any type of streaming was not a fair use. Upon reflection, UCLA decided to stand up for yourself and put the video online. LOVE sitting on this for eight or nine months, and finally continued, arguing that his contract with UCLA meant that he had waived their rights to fair use, and that even if it was fair use constituted a breach of contract. A year ago, the judge dismissed the application, in particular focusing on the question of whether or not LOVE even had standing and whether, as a state university, UCLA could hide behind claim of sovereign immunity.

LOVE introduced a new (amended) complaint against UCLA ... updated almost lost again, then added some claims. The court was apparently not impressed. Simply dismissed the case again

bias

, which means that you not only refile LOVE. Above all, it has really taken a little longer and the issue of copyright. Firstly, it was not at all impressed with the decision to replead LOVE exactly the same thing for the second time:

In its order dismissing the FAC, the Court rejected the prejudice all claims against the Regents and claims for damages against the individual defendants in their their official, alleging that the individual defendants are immune from jurisdiction under the doctrine of sovereign immunity ... Applicants have literally begged those claimsfrom re-FAC for call .... Because these claims have been dismissed with prejudice, the Court did not discuss it further.

Later, the court passes through a relatively rapid analysis of fair use, focused mainly on the question of whether it would have been obvious to the average person that this use was not fair use. The court considered sufficient ambiguity in the analysis of fair use, thus indicating that there is clearly a case of infringement, so that this allegation was clearly a violation does not LOVE.

Then there are some other interesting points, including a discussion about whether or not streaming is a form of "distribution." Remember we talked about the distibution rights before the law of copyright, noting that even if you read that really says copyright refers only to "material objects", which is a subject Copyright covered "fixed" - and non-transitory digital files. This seems to be a case where the court has noticed this and said with a current, the digital product is not really distributed:



Under the Law on the items distributed must be "material objects" which copies a "fixed". 17 USC  101. New applicants arguments that "the system administrator oven maintains a video copy of the original AVP DVD, while the distribution of copies to end users, copies of which are held in the computer of the user, as the kiln feed reader video remain open "does not change this result. To obtain a copy of which shall be fixed, must be "sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced or communicated for a period longer than a period of transition." 17 USC  101. The "copy" on computer end-user, as alleged, is not fixed.
also have an interesting answer to the DMCA anti-circumvention request in the amended complaint. L One of the main problems that many people have with anti-circumvention clause is that seems to apply in the absence of any real activity reached. means that, under the DMCA, it seems that the simple act of circumventing DRM even for legitimate, non-infringing uses, it is considered contrary to the law. But here the court that since the copy is legal, there is no problem with the circumvention of DRM. This is very interesting : because UCLA had legal access to DVD
Find best price for : --streaming----DMCA----copyright----AIME----DVDs----UCLA--