Google-owned YouTube has paid out more than $2 billion to content owners who since 2007 claimed copyright violations via the website's Content ID software, Google said Wednesday in a report on its anti-piracy actions. Content owners can use Content ID both to claim copyright infringement and seek monetary compensation for claimed content. Google's report came amid an ongoing campaign led by Azoff MSG Entertainment CEO Irving Azoff seeking a revamp the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to rein in Google and others (see 1606200047). "The music industry chooses to monetize more than 95% of their claims, opting to leave the content up on the platform -- half of the music industry's YouTube revenue comes from fan content claimed via Content ID,” said Google lawyer Katie Oyama in a blog post. “Thanks to Content ID, YouTube is also the only platform that gives partners an automated way to directly monetize background/incidental use and covers.”

The Copyright Royalty Board finalized approval of a settlement between the top three performing rights organizations and The Harry Fox Agency on distribution of 2012 and 2013 Digital Audio Recording Technology (DART) Musical Works Fund royalties. Harry Fox and the PROs -- the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, Broadcast Music Inc. and the Society of European Stage Authors and Composers -- jointly sought distribution of 95 percent of the 2012 and 2013 DART Musical Works Fund royalties (see 1605170059). CRB's OK took effect Monday, the board said in Tuesday's Federal Register.

The Internet Association hailed a recent U.K. Intellectual Property Office report on online copyright infringement, saying in a blog post Friday the report shows “internet piracy has dropped to record lows with the rise of internet companies that offer streaming services such as Spotify and Netflix.” The U.K. IPO report said the “meteoric rise” of streaming services “may be having a chilling effect on illegal copyright infringement according to new research.” Fifty-two percent of U.K.-based internet users reported using streaming services to consume online content, with 44 percent of all users indicating they're consuming “exclusively legal” content. Five percent of users reported exclusively consuming illegally obtained content.

Apple wants to register the trademark “Night Shift” for a class of “computer software for controlling computer and mobile device display screens,” the company said in a June 28 application (serial number 87086665) filed at the Patent and Trademark Office. Apple filed a similar application (number 69112) with Jamaican trademark authorities in January, PTO records show. Apple doesn't intend to rely on Section 44(e) of the trademark law on foreign trademark ownership as a basis for registering the same trademark in the U.S., “but wishes only to assert a valid claim of priority,” said the application, signed by Apple Director-Legal Thomas La Perle. “The application should not be suspended to await the submission of the foreign registration,” it said. Apple representatives didn’t comment Wednesday.

U.S. District Court in Boston entered a final judgment Friday in favor of Akamai in the company’s long-running patent infringement lawsuit against Limelight Networks, awarding Akamai $51 million damages. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in August that Limelight was liable for direct infringement of an Akamai-owned content delivery system patent (see 1508140059). The Federal Circuit’s 2015 en banc ruling, which remanded the case to the Boston district court, reversed an earlier circuit court decision from the same year. The Supreme Court ruled against the Federal Circuit in 2014 in Limelight v. Akamai (see report in the June 3, 2014, issue). The $51 million damages award announced Friday includes the initial $45.5 million damages a jury awarded Akamai in 2008 and $5.4 interest on the award, District Judge Rya Zobel said in the judgment (in Pacer). “We are extremely pleased after ten years of litigation to have a final judgment entered in Akamai's favor that recognizes Limelight's infringement and the harm it caused," said Akamai General Counsel Aaron Ahola in a statement. "We will continue to vigorously protect our intellectual property to maximize shareholder value." Limelight didn’t comment.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals punted a decision Wednesday on an appeal of a 2015 U.S. District Court ruling in Miami saying no specific Florida law allows for the pre-1972 sound recording royalties sought by the owners of The Turtles' “Happy Together” and the rest of the band's music. The 11th Circuit referred Flo & Eddie's lawsuit against Sirius XM to the Supreme Court of Florida, saying the case “presented issues that have not been addressed” by the state court, “we believe the issues are appropriate for resolution by Florida’s highest court and defer our decision in this case pending” a state Supreme Court decision. Circuit Judge Lanier Anderson said a 1943 Supreme Court of Florida decision involving magician Charles Hoffman's lawsuit against fellow magician Maurice Glazer for infringing one of Hoffman's magic tricks "indicates that there is at least a significant argument that Florida common law may recognize a common law property right in sound recordings," but isn't definitive absent a state Supreme Court ruling. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals similarly deferred a decision in April on its review of Flo & Eddie's lawsuit against Sirius XM in New York until the New York Court of Appeals rules on whether New York state law recognizes a public performance right for pre-1972 sound recordings and the scope of the state's law (see 1604130063).

MPAA Senior Vice President-Government and Regulatory Affairs Neil Fried took issue with Internet Association CEO Michael Beckerman's Medium opinion piece last week that warned against legislative proposals that would revamp the existing safe harbor provisions and notice-and-takedown framework in Digital Millennium Copyright Act Section 512 (see 1606230029). The current DMCA language places too much of the burden for identifying copyright infringement on content creators while putting little onus on online service providers like YouTube, Fried said in a blog post. “Congress did not intend the DMCA to create a relentless game of Whac-A-Mole,” he said. “But that's what we're left with, because technology companies are not truly collaborating.” The best way for Beckerman to accomplish his goal of forestalling legislative changes to DMCA is for tech firms “to work together with creators, rather than just offering more of the same,” Fried said Sunday. He said MPAA's Where to Watch search engine directs viewers to fully legal online sources for movies and TV shows “since other search engines continue to direct audiences to unlawful sites.” If tech firms “would engage voluntarily and collaboratively with the creative community on solutions that work for everyone, we might be able to meet Congress's objectives for the DMCA without having to change the law,” Fried said. IA didn't comment.

Warner Bros. Entertainment joined HEVC Advance as both an H.265 licensor and licensee, the patent pool said in a Monday announcement. Warner becomes the second new member, after MediaTek last fall, to join HEVC Advance since its 2015 inception (see 1509230066). It's the first since founding member Technicolor bolted the group in early February because it disagreed with the HEVC Advance royalty structure and because it decided it wanted to license its H.265 patent portfolio on its own (see 1602040042). Having Warner’s backing will help eliminate H.265 intellectual property “barriers and greatly accelerate UHD adoption,” said HEVC Advance CEO Pete Moller in a statement.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia erred in its decision to throw out a class action lawsuit against Viacom and Google, which was accused of illegally collecting personal information of children 13 years and younger (see 1606270047), said Electronic Privacy Information Center President Marc Rotenberg, whose group filed an amicus brief with the plaintiffs. It "could not be more wrong about the Video Privacy Protection Act," he emailed. "The text of the Act and the legislative history makes clear that Congress intended a broad interpretation. The court showed a stunning lack of understanding about the nature of Internet advertising, the role of search engines, and the significance of persistent identifiers ('cookies'). ... The discussion of [personally identifiable information] is entirely incoherent." The 3rd Circuit opinion said IP addresses, browser and operating system settings, unique device identifiers, and other pieces of data didn't qualify as personal information. In a blog post Monday, EPIC said the 3rd Circuit's opinion contradicted a 1st Circuit decision in April that said "unique Android ID and GPS coordinates constituted PII" under the Video Privacy Protection Act -- setting up a possible Supreme Court review.

The Computer and Communications Industry Association told the Copyright Office Thursday it supports the office’s NPRM that would significantly reduce the fee for online service providers to designate agents to receive notifications of claimed infringement under Digital Millennium Copyright Act Section 512, but raised concerns about the NPRM’s agent renewal requirements. The CO sought comment last month on the plan, which would lower the fee to $6 per designation in anticipation of a switch from using paper forms to designate those agents to an online filing system. The designation fee framework currently includes an initial $105 fee and an additional $35 fee for each of up to 10 alternate designated agents (see 1605250055). Comments were due after our deadline Friday. Lowering the agent designation fee “in most circumstances would be a beneficial idea,” but the NPRM “also suggests an unwise recurring formality for intermediaries relying on the Section 512 safe harbor,” CCIA commented. A footnote in the NPRM says the CO “contemplates requiring electronic re-registration of all currently designed agents once the Office’s proposed digital database is released,” CCIA said. “It also suggests that online services would be required to subsequently renew such designations every three years.” The industry group said it believes such a rule “would be inconsistent with Section 512, would have negative implications for continued investment in the Internet industry, and would be ultimately unnecessary.”