@unite4copyright: Google v. Oracle: Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in “Copyright Case of the Decade”

Terrica Carrington at the Copyright Alliance brings us a must-read first rate analysis of oral argument before the Supreme Court in the Google’s appeal of its loss to Oracle in the Federal Circuit. (Full disclosure, I co-wrote an amicus brief supporting Oracle in the case on the fair use question.)

Read the post on the Copyright Alliance blog.

Bear in mind that the now-eight Justices on the Supreme Court will meet today (October 9) to vote on the cases like Google v. Oracle that were argued before the Court on Tuesday and on Wednesday (when the Oracle case was argued). After the vote, the most senior Justice in the majority (or one side in case of a tie) will assign the task of writing the opinion for the majority, and the most senior Justice in the dissent (or the other side in the case of a tie) will do the same among the dissenters. Concurrence opinions assign themselves essentially.

Opinions in the decided cases for the 2020-21 term will probably be released in mid-June 2021.

If confirmed, Judge Amy Coney Barrett will not vote on the Oracle case because the vote will have already occurred before she is seated. That means that there could be a split decision in Oracle which would probably mean that the Federal Circuit ruling below in Oracle’s favor will be affirmed by the tie vote. (There actually were two rulings by the Federal Circuit in Oracle’s favor, so both would likely be binding on Google.)

This would probably bind Google to the $5,000,000,000 payment to Oracle required by the Federal Circuit decision(s), but likely will not be binding precedent in other cases including other cases yet to be brought against Google or otherwise.

If they lose or there is a tie vote, Google will almost certainly engage in their usual lawfare shenanigans to get another bite at the apple. One manifestation of Silicon Valley rage might be to ask for a rehearing on the merits before the Supreme Court if the current vacancy is filled before the ruling is handed down in (presumably) June 2021.

It would be unusual for the Court to grant a rehearing on the merits (as opposed to denying an appeal on a per curium opinion or a writ of certiorari which is the more common rationale for requesting a rehearing). It would be particularly unusual when the case had been fully briefed and argued before the Court as is the case with Oracle.

There is a long line of similarly situated cases where a rehearing was requested after the death or illness of a Justice that created the vacancy–and most were denied. The Court often held the subject case over the Court’s summer recess, holding oral arguments months later which obviously did not happen in Google v. Oracle. (See Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Walker, 327 U.S. 812 (1946), 329 U.S. 1 (1946); MacGregor v. Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co., 329 U.S. 402 (1947); Baltimore & Ohio R.R. v. Kepner, 314 U.S. 44 (1941); Home Ins. Co. v. New York, 122 U.S. 636 (1887) (granting rehearing February 7, 1887), and 134 U.S. 594 (1890) (reargument March 18-19, 1890); Selma, Rome & Dalton R.R. v. United States, 122 U.S. 636 (1887) (granting rehearing March 28, 1887), and 139 U.S. 560 (1891) (reargument March 25-26, 1891).

However, since the Oracle case was fully briefed and argued and then some, requesting a rehearing seems a fruitless exercise, which of course, doesn’t mean Google won’t pull up their big-boy fruitless of the looms and give it the old Silicon Valley try. Granting rehearings on the merits because of a vacancy would not be a good precedent for the Court as there are going to be lots of cases in a procedurally similar situation, and they’ll all want it just as a matter of drill.

Rule 44 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States provides:

Any petition for the rehearing of any judgment or decision of the Court on the merits shall be filed within 25 days after entry of the judgment or decision, unless the Court or a Justice shortens or extends the time. The petitioner shall file 40 copies of the rehearing petition and shall pay the filing fee prescribed by Rule 38(b), except that a petitioner proceeding in forma pauperis under Rule 39, including an inmate of an institution, shall file the number of copies required for a petition by such a person under Rule 12.2. The petition shall state its grounds briefly and distinctly and shall be served as required by Rule 29. The petition shall be presented together with certification of counsel (or of a party unrepresented by counsel) that it is presented in good faith and not for delay; one copy of the certificate shall bear the signature of counsel (or of a party unrepresented by counsel). A copy of the certificate shall follow and be attached to each copy of the petition. A petition for rehearing is not subject to oral argument and will not be granted except by a majority of the Court, at the instance of a Justice who concurred in the judgment or decision.

Koda.dk Press Release: Google removes all Danish music from YouTube

While the negotiations on a new joint Nordic agreement are in full swing, Google have chosen to leverage their total dominance in the market in the strongest way possible. On the evening of Thursday 30 July, Google announced that they will soon remove all Danish music content on YouTube.

Under the auspices of the Nordic alliance of collecting societies, Polaris, negotiations on a joint Nordic agreement on the use of music on YouTube are currently in full swing. The agreement will replace the local agreements of the Norwegian, Finnish and Danish composers and songwriters’ societies, combining them in a single, joint agreement with Google. In the case of Koda, the national agreement for Denmark expired in April, after which it was temporarily extended – as is standard practice in the industry while negotiating a new agreement.

Now, however, Google have issued a new demand: if the agreement is to be temporarily extended, Koda must agree to reduce the payment provided to composers and songwriters for YouTube’s use of music by almost 70% – despite the fact that YouTube’s use of music has increased significantly since Koda entered into its last agreement with Google.

Of course, Koda cannot accept these terms, and Google have now unilaterally decided that Koda’s members cannot have their content shown on YouTube and that their fans and users on YouTube will be unable to listen to Koda members’ music until a new agreement is in place.

Although the parties involved in the negotiations on the new joint agreement are by no means in concord yet, progress has been made in recent weeks, and Koda is puzzled by the extremely aggressive approach taken by Google in the negotiations this time.

Koda’s media director, Kaare Struve, says:

‘Google have always taken an “our way or the highway” approach, but even for Google, this is a low point. Of course, Google know that they can create enormous frustration among our members by denying them access to YouTube – and among the many Danes who use YouTube every day. We can only suppose that by doing so, YouTube hope to be able to push through an agreement, one where they alone dictate all terms’.

Ever since the first agreement was signed in 2013, the level of payments received from YouTube has been significantly lower than the level of payment agreed to by subscription-based services.

Koda’s CEO, Gorm Arildsen, says:

‘It is no secret that our members have been very dissatisfied with the level of payment received for the use of their music on YouTube for many years now. And it’s no secret that we at Koda have actively advocated putting an end to the tech giants’ free-ride approach and underpayment for artistic content in connection with the EU’s new Copyright Directive. The fact that Google now demands that the payments due from them should be reduced by almost 70% in connection with a temporary contract extension seems quite bizarre’.

Media contact
Head of Communications Eva Hein / eh@koda.dk / (+45) 61893233

@halsinger: As the Revolving Door Swings: Big Tech could be forestalling platform regulation in a stealthy way

Through a LinkedIn email, I learned that a recent staffer on the Senate Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee was recruited by Amazon’s public-policy arm this month. I took to Twitter to express my dismay, and quickly learned that another staffer on the Senate Judiciary Committee was recruited by Facebook’s competition policy arm in May 2020.

These two staffers are now working for the tech platforms, and presumably against my ideas, after having heard my ideas in a private setting.

It is important to note right here that I have no beef with these fine folks.

But  I do.

Read the post on The American Prospect.

@viaCristiano: Senate Judiciary vote adds momentum to attack on tech’s legal shield

The Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously voted Thursday to remove liability protections for online businesses that host child porn, advancing a measure that poses the most significant threat in years to the tech industry’s fiercely guarded legal shield.

And a House companion version is coming soon, Senate co-sponsor Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said afterward — indicating that the drive to roll back Silicon Valley’s prized liability safeguards is gaining bipartisan momentum.

Read the post on Politico

@moonalice: Dear Joe Biden: Don’t Listen to Silicon Valley

[Editor Charlie sez: This is an open letter from Roger McNamee, musician, venture capitalist and commentators]

DEAR VICE PRESIDENT Biden,

In this moment when a pandemic, an economic contraction, and protests against racism have combined to trigger national self-reflection, you have an opportunity to lead us forward to a better America, one that comes closer to the nation’s ideals than ever before. I am one of millions of Americans looking to you for new approaches to government and leadership. We are counting on you to reject the old ways that brought us to this point….

Imagine my disappointment last week when The New York Times reported that President Obama had suggested that you work with two members of the Silicon Valley establishment, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt and LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman. I know both men well. They are brilliant and very successful. Their money and expertise may be valuable to your campaign, but I hope you will not turn to them for policy guidance. They were architects of the culture and values that produced the problems….

Read the post on Wired