England's Football Association Premier League Ltd. and independent music publisher Bourne Co., are hitting Google and YouTube with a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging massive copyright infringement and encouraging other content owners whose videos have appeared on YouTube to join the suit.

"Defendants are pursuing a deliberate strategy of engaging in, permitting, encouraging and facilitating massive copyright infringement on the YouTube Web site," the lawsuit states.

The complaint, filed Friday in New York federal court, alleges that YouTube has purposely refused to remove copyrighted works from its site or employ "readily available technology" to prevent the infringement. Google, which bought the site in November for $1.65 billion, encourages YouTube to continue allowing copyrighted works to be posted by users, the lawsuit claims.

A spokesman for Google could not be immediately reached for comment.

The plaintiffs allege that YouTube and Google are able to identify copyrighted material and remove it as well as employ a filter system to prevent posting of infringing material but have failed to do so.
Advertisement
 
"From what I understand, YouTube will provide filtering to parties who are willing to license their content to YouTube on terms that are acceptable to YouTube," said the plaintiffs' lead attorney, William Hart of Proskauer Rose in New York. "YouTube is not offering filtering to content across the board. Although they say it's coming to larger copyright owners, they already acknowledge they have this technology for a preferred group, but they're not doing that, and should, for other copyright owners."

The Premier League is the most popular division of English soccer and is viewed in 204 countries. According to the complaint, several infringing clips have been posted almost immediately after games, including April matches between Manchester United and Everton and Middlesbrough and Tottenham.

Bourne claims its musical works are frequently posted on the site, including Jimmy Durante singing "Inka Dinka Doo" and Diana Krall singing "Let's Fall in Love." Many of Bourne's compositions allegedly were still posted at the time of the lawsuit's filing.

Hart said YouTube has taken more than seven days to take down infringing material even though the Digital Millennium Copyright Act requires an expeditious removal.

"If they're told this particular work is infringing, they take it down," he said. "Then, if someone reposts it, we're starting all over again. Once someone tries to post it again, it should be filtered out rather than going over the whole exercise again."

In the case of the Premier League, Hart said it has become a full-time job for someone at the organization to send notices to YouTube on a daily basis.

The proposed class action, he said, includes "any copyright owner who has not given any authorization for their content to appear" on YouTube. A Web site has been established, www.youtubeclassaction.com, to recruit potential members of the suit.

Hart believes that the case most likely will be consolidated with the recent lawsuit filed against YouTube and Google by Viacom. A separate infringement case against YouTube brought by photojournalist Robert Tur is pending in California.

In the Viacom case, filed in March in New York federal court, the media conglomerate is seeking more than $1 billion in damages and has identified more than 100,000 copyrighted clips posted without permission.

In an answer filed Monday, Google cites the safe harbor provisions in the DMCA as a defense.

"By seeking to make carriers and hosting providers liable for Internet communications, Viacom's complaint threatens the way hundreds of millions of people legitimately exchange information, news, entertainment and political and artistic expression," the defendants said in the response. "Google and YouTube respect the importance of intellectual property rights and not only comply with their safe harbor obligations under the DMCA but go well above and beyond what the law requires."

Google is making a similar argument in the Tur case.

In a statement released after Google's answer was filed, Viacom said: "This response ignores the most important fact of the suit, which is that YouTube does not qualify for safe harbor protection under the DMCA. It is obvious that YouTube has knowledge of infringing material on their site, and they are profiting from it."

Also under the terms of the settlement, the firm will establish a process through which women financial advisers who believe they were historically disadvantaged because of their gender may submit monetary claims to a Special Master jointly appointed by the parties.

A $46 million pool has been established to pay such claims and related costs.

"We are firmly committed to the initiatives we will be undertaking to attract and retain women financial advisors and help them be as successful as possible, and pleased to resolve a legal matter stemming from the past. Our goal – across the organization – is to be the employer-of-choice for talented women," said Caroline Gundeck, head of the GWMG Office of Diversity.

The Massachusetts Bankers Association said Tuesday it is filing a class action lawsuit against TJX Companies Inc. after thieves stole data from at least 45.7 million credit and debit cards used at the retailer's stores over 17 months.

The association said it will seek to recover damages in the tens of million of dollars.

The Connecticut Bankers Association, the Maine Association of Community Banks and individual banks will be co-plaintiffs, the association said.

The Massachusetts Bankers Association said it is filing the lawsuit to "protect customer privacy and data security for customer accounts."

The TJX data breach was discovered Dec. 18 and investigators have since been looking for evidence of who hacked into the store's electronic network. TJX uncovered the breach after seeing "suspicious software" on its computer systems. The theft is believed to be the biggest breach of customer records in the United States.

The association said there have been "dramatic costs" to financial institutions to protect consumers as a result. Banks had to re-issue debit cards to customers, which can cost up to $25 per card, the association said. Banks also typically cover any fraudulent charges by replacing money in customers' accounts.

"Protecting consumers is our number one priority," said Lindsey Pinkham, senior vice president of the Connecticut Bankers Association. "However, retail data breaches are getting larger and more frequent and we cannot continue to absorb the costs."

The association said the lawsuit also will seek to prove that TJX was responsible for "negligent misrepresentation," since it said it was safeguarding and disposing of cardholder data.

TJX said it could not comment on pending litigation.

Microsoft Corp. agreed Wednesday to pay Iowans up to $180 million to settle a class-action lawsuit that claimed the company had a monopoly that cost the state's citizens millions of dollars extra for software products.

The $179.95 million settlement means individuals in Iowa who bought certain Microsoft products separately or preinstalled on computers between May 18, 1994, and June 30, 2006, will be eligible for cash. Government agencies and companies with multiple copies purchased between July 1, 2002, and June 30, 2006, can seek vouchers that will enable them to buy computer equipment and software. The amount that can be claimed will depend on which product and how many copies were purchased.

For each copy of Microsoft Windows or MS-DOS, customers can claim $16. Microsoft Excel is worth $25 a copy and Microsoft Office, $29 a copy.

For Word, Works and Home Essential software, consumers can claim $10 a copy, according to the agreement.

No proof of purchase will be required for online claims of up to $100 or for mail claims of up to $200. Claimants will be required to sign a legal document saying their claim is accurate. Lying can bring a charge of perjury.

Notification will be sent to the estimated 1 million class members on April 25, the date when they can begin claiming money. The claim period ends Dec. 14.

A Reno woman has filed a federal lawsuit against the manufacturer of recalled pet food. She claimsIams brand food killed her 20-year-old cat, "Patches."

Marion Streczyn seeks unspecified damages from Ontario, Canada-based Menu Foods in the suit filed last week in U.S. District Court in Reno. A Menu Foods spokesman says the company has no comment.

The company, which makes "cuts and gravy style" dog and cat food sold under nearly 100 store labels and major brands, recalled 60 million containers in mid-March after cats fell sick and died during routine company taste tests.

The recall has since expanded to include earlier dates and other brands, and at least six pet food companies have recalled products made with imported Chinese wheat gluten tainted with an industrial chemical.

Streczyn's attorney Brian O'Mara says the suit joins a growing number of others filed around the country against the pet food maker and is believed to be the first in Nevada.

It raises claims of negligence, product liability and breach of implied and express warranty. It further argues that the company received "unjust enrichment" by selling the tainted pet food.

Recent FDA tests found a toxic chemical in some menu products were related to at least 16 pet deaths around the country.

The O'Mara law firm is looking for pet owners affected by the dangerous pet food to join the lawsuit.

Merck pulled Vioxx from the market in September 2004 after a study showed that it could double the risk of heart attack or stroke if taken for more than 18 months. The price of Merck stock jumped by almost 10% following news of the class action dismissal.