TikTok hit by US lawsuits over child safety, security fears

WASHINGTON — TikTok was hit Wednesday with a pair of lawsuits from the US state of Indiana, which accused it of making false claims about the Chinese-owned app's safety for children.

The legal salvo came as problems are mounting for TikTok in the United States, with multiple accusations that the extremely popular app is a national security threat and a conduit for spying by China.

"The TikTok app is a malicious and menacing threat unleashed on unsuspecting Indiana consumers by a Chinese company that knows full well the harms it inflicts on users," said Attorney General Todd Rokita in a statement.

The lawsuit said TikTok algorithms served up "abundant content depicting alcohol, tobacco, and drugs; sexual content, nudity, and suggestive themes" to users as young as 13.

The state also sued TikTok for allegedly deceiving customers into believing that "reams of highly sensitive data and personal information" were protected from the Chinese government.

In a statement, a TikTok spokesperson did not comment specifically on the case but said "the safety, privacy and security of our community is our top priority."

"We build youth well-being into our policies, limit features by age, empower parents with tools and resources, and continue to invest in new ways to enjoy content based on age-appropriateness or family comfort," the company said.

TikTok is facing a growing front of opposition in the United States, with several states and the US military banning its use on government devices.

Texas on Wednesday became the latest state to do so, calling for "aggressive action" against TikTok.

The highly popular app is often singled out for its alleged connections to the Beijing government with fears that China is able to use TikTok's data to track and coerce users around the world.

TikTok is currently in negotiations with the US government to resolve national security concerns, hoping to maintain operations in one of its biggest markets.

TikTok said it was "confident that we're on a path...to fully satisfy all reasonable US national security concerns."

The spectacular success of TikTok has seen rival sites such as Meta-owned Instagram or Snapchat struggle to keep up, with once soaring ad revenues taking a hit.

But Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Christopher Wray told lawmakers last month that he is "extremely concerned" about security risks linked to TikTok.

Agence France-Presse 

Judge tosses most of lawsuit by Mariah Carey's brother over singer's memoir

NEW YORK — A New York judge dismissed most of a defamation lawsuit by Mariah Carey's older brother over her 2020 best-selling memoir, though the singer must still face two claims.

In a 29-page decision on Tuesday, Justice Barbara Jaffe of the state Supreme Court in Manhattan said Morgan Carey can sue his sister over passages suggesting he distributed cocaine to "the beautiful people," and implying he might have "been-in-the-system" -- in prison -- for a serious crime.

But the judge dismissed claims over seven other passages from "The Meaning of Mariah Carey," including one discussing a fight between Morgan Carey and the Careys' father that required police intervention.

Jaffe said that while that passage "reasonably conveys a defamatory inference that plaintiff was abusive toward his family," Morgan Carey, who is about a decade older than his sister, failed to show he suffered "special damages" resulting from harm to his reputation.

The judge also dismissed claims against the memoir's publishers, saying it wasn't clear how Mariah Carey's "alleged vindictiveness" showed that they knew the disputed passages were false or had serious doubts they were true.

Lawyers for Morgan Carey and the publishers declined to comment on Wednesday. Lawyers for Mariah Carey did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Mariah Carey's memoir described a dysfunctional poverty-stricken childhood and early career struggles for the 51-year-old singer known for songs including "Vision of Love," "One Sweet Day" and "All I Want for Christmas Is You."

The defendants included the memoir's co-author, the publisher Macmillan and Andy Cohen Books, an imprint named for the television producer and Bravo host.

The case is Carey v Carey et al, New York State Supreme Court, New York County, No. 152192/2021.

Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Mark Porter

-reuters

'Nevermind': Judge dismisses lawsuit by man who was naked baby on Nirvana album

A federal judge in Los Angeles has dismissed a lawsuit by a man who said the grunge rock group Nirvana sexually exploited him by putting a photo of him as a naked, four-month-old baby on the cover of its classic 1991 album "Nevermind."

U.S. District Judge Fernando Olguin on Monday dismissed the lawsuit after the plaintiff Spencer Elden missed a deadline to respond to the defendants' motion to dismiss the case.

Olguin gave Elden until Jan. 13 to file an amended complaint to address alleged problems the defendants identified in his case.

A lawyer for Elden did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Tuesday.

In his lawsuit filed last August, Elden, by then aged 30, claimed he had suffered "lifelong damages" from the album cover, which depicted him swimming naked toward a dollar bill pierced with a fish hook.

Elden sought at least $150,000 in damages from each of several defendants, including Universal Music Group, Nirvana drummer and Foo Fighters frontman Dave Grohl, Nirvana bassist Krist Novoselic, and Courtney Love, the widow of Nirvana lead singer Kurt Cobain who died in 1994.

"Nevermind" is one of the best-selling albums ever, with sales topping 30 million worldwide. It features Nirvana's signature song "Smells Like Teen Spirit."

In seeking a dismissal of Elden's case, the defendants said his claim that the photo amounted to child pornography was "on its face, not serious" under the circumstances.

They cited a 1994 court ruling which said no one could seriously believe a painting by French Impressionist Pierre-Auguste Renoir of a nude woman, or an innocuous family photo of a naked child in a bathtub, violated child pornography laws.

 

The defendants also said Elden could not claim to be a victim after spending three decades "profiting from his celebrity as the self-anointed 'Nirvana Baby.'"

Elden has posed as an adult to recreate the photo, including with "Nevermind" tattooed on his chest. (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Karishma Singh)

-reuters

Can’t shake this: Taylor Swift to face copyright lawsuit

LOS ANGELES  – Pop superstar Taylor Swift must face a lawsuit from songwriters who claim the Grammy-winning singer copied their lyrics in her 2014 hit single “Shake It Off,” a California judge has ruled.

In a decision issued on Thursday, U.S. District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald rejected Swift’s bid to throw out a suit that said she took wording from 2014 song “Playas Gon’ Play” by R&B girl group 3LW.

Fitzgerald said there were “some noticeable differences” between the songs but also “enough objective similarities” that the case should go to a jury trial.

“Although Defendants have made a strong closing argument for a jury, they have not shown that there are no genuine issues of triable fact,” the judge wrote.

A spokeswoman for Swift had no comment on Friday. In 2017, her representatives had called the songwriters’ claim of copyright infringement “ridiculous” and “nothing more than a money grab.”

In “Shake It Off,” Swift sings: “the players gonna play, play, play, play, play, and the haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate.”

“Playas Gon’ Play,” written by Sean Hall and Nathan Butler, included the phrases “players, they gonna play, and haters, they gonna hate.”

Hall and Butler said the combination of playas or players with hatas or haters was unique to its use in their song. The pair are seeking unspecified damages.

Their case had been thrown out in 2018 but the pair appealed and suit was revived.

-reuters

34 women sue Pornhub in sex abuse video, trafficking case

Nearly three dozen women have filed a lawsuit in California against adult video website Pornhub, accusing it and its parent company of knowingly profiting from footage depicting rape and sexual exploitation, including of minors.

Lawyers representing the 34 plaintiffs accuse the online giant -- one of the world's largest adult video websites -- of creating a teeming marketplace for child pornography and "every other form" of nonconsensual sexual content, and want the company to pay damages.

They accuse MindGeek, the controversial adult entertainment empire that runs Pornhub, of being a "classic criminal enterprise" with a business model based on exploiting non-consensual sexual content.

"This is a case about rape, not pornography," the complaint said, describing the website as "likely the largest non-regulatory repository of child pornography in North America and well beyond."

All but one of the plaintiffs, who reside both in the United States and abroad, wished to remain anonymous.

Fourteen said they were minors when they were filmed and should be considered "a victim of child sex trafficking".

Michael Bowe, a lawyer representing the women, told CBS News the court could order MindGeek to pay hundreds of millions to his clients.

Serena Fleites, the only plaintiff to be named, said that in 2014 she learned that "a nude, sexually explicit video" that her boyfriend had coerced her to make when she was only 13 years old had been uploaded to Pornhub without her consent.

The video remained online until the teen, posing as her mother, asked Pornhub to remove it.

Yet the video was not taken down for several weeks, the lawsuit said, and during that time it was downloaded and reuploaded by several different users, with each video requiring a fresh request to remove it.

The plaintiffs' lawyers accuse MindGeek of operating a "gaslighting campaign" online in a bid to discredit the victims, as well as making "threats of physical violence and death" against them.

They are also suing Visa Inc -- one of the world's largest payments processing companies -- for "knowingly" profiting from trafficking in providing merchant services to MindGeek.

Both Visa and Mastercard suspended processing payments for Pornhub in December, after a New York Times article accused the site of hosting illegal content, including child pornography and rape videos.

According to the suit, MindGeek owns more than 100 pornographic sites, including Pornhub, RedTube, Tube8 and YouPorn, and sees some 3.5 billion visits each month.

Montreal-based MindGeek described the suit's accusation that it is running a "criminal enterprise" as "utterly absurd, completely reckless and categorically false," according to US media.

Pornhub, which claims 130 million visitors a day, has denied allegations of trafficking and announced a series of measures to combat illegal content.

Agence France-Presse

Katy Perry, team ordered to pay $2.7 million for copying song

LOS ANGELES, United States — A US gospel rapper whose song was partially copied by Katy Perry was awarded $2.7 million in damages by a federal jury Thursday in the latest high-profile copyright ruling to rock the music industry.

Perry herself was ordered to pay just over $550,000 to Marcus Gray -- who performs as "Flame" -- after the jury found that a beat used in her 2013 song "Dark Horse" constituted copyright infringement.

The ruling followed a weeklong trial in Los Angeles where Perry took the witness stand and said she had never heard of Gray's 2009 rap "Joyful Noise."

Perry's representatives immediately vowed to appeal if the case is not dismissed pending a defense motion.

"The writers of 'Dark Horse' consider this a travesty of justice," attorney Christine Lepera said outside court.


Gray's lawyers had argued for a far higher penalty of around $20 million.

"These defendants made millions and millions of dollars from their infringement of the plaintiffs' song," attorney Michael Kahn told the court.

During the trial, Perry's lawyers said the two songs' underlying beat was "commonplace" and therefore cannot be copyrighted.

But Gray's lawyers said the defendants had "copied an important part" of his song, referring to a 16-second instrumental section.

Perry's label Capitol Records was ordered to pay $1.2 million of the damages. Her producers will also pay toward the sum.

Perry performed a version of "Dark Horse" at the 2015 Super Bowl, while "Joyful Noise" has been viewed more than 3 million times on YouTube.

Gray's team first brought the litigation against Perry in 2014.

The number of copyright lawsuits has been proliferating in recent years in the US.

The case follows a long-running copyright dispute by the family of Motown legend Marvin Gaye who won a nearly $5 million judgment against Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams.

Thicke and Williams were accused by Gaye's estate of copyright infringement for their 2013 hit because of similarities with the late singer's "Got to Give It Up."

The initial judgment against Thicke and Williams sent shockwaves through the songwriting community, which has been accustomed to lawsuits alleging musical similarities but never expected courts to take such claims seriously.

British rock group Led Zeppelin are facing another trial over claims they copied part of "Stairway to Heaven" after a US appeals court last year overturned a 2016 judgment.

source: philstar.com

Alanis Morissette loses millions in burglary: report

LOS ANGELES | Burglars made off with $2 million in jewelry from singer Alanis Morissette’s home in the upscale Los Angeles neighborhood of Brentwood, U.S. media reported Tuesday.

The Canadian-born alternative rock giant was not at home when the thieves struck on Thursday, celebrity news website TMZ said, although police were not immediately able to confirm the report.

The break-in comes less than two weeks after Morissette’s former business manager, who worked for other entertainment and sports figures, admitted embezzling more than $6.5 million from his clients.

Jonathan Schwartz, 48, entered his plea to federal wire and tax fraud charges for failing to disclose the embezzled funds to the Internal Revenue Service.

He is due to be sentenced on May 3, and faces a prison term between four and six years.

He acknowledged that between May 2010 and January 2014, he withdrew about $4.8 million belonging to Morissette without her knowledge or authorization.

Morissette said in a lawsuit filed in Los Angeles last year that she fired Schwartz after growing suspicious when he could not provide timely information on her finances.

The singer was the voice behind a string of energetic rock anthems in the mid-1990s including “You Oughta Know,” “Hand in My Pocket” and “You Learn.”

Her 1995 album “Jagged Little Pill” won the Grammy for Album of the Year, making the then 21-year-old Morissette the youngest winner of the prestigious award until Taylor Swift.

source: interaksyon.com

Amber Heard sues comedian Stanhope for defamation over Johnny Depp

LOS ANGELES | Lawyers for actress Amber Heard filed a defamation lawsuit against comedian Doug Stanhope on Friday after he wrote an article accusing her of blackmailing and manipulating her estranged husband, actor Johnny Depp.

The complaint was filed in Cochise County, Arizona, against Stanhope and 20 unnamed individuals associated with the comedian.

The lawsuit demands a jury trial and says that Heard would donate all proceeds to a battered women’s shelter in Arizona.

Representatives for Stanhope and Depp did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The complaint is in response to a May 29 guest column by Stanhope published on entertainment trade outlet TheWrap.com and headlined “Johnny Depp Is Being Blackmailed by Amber Heard – Here’s How I Know.”

Stanhope, who said he was a friend of Depp’s, wrote that Depp had told him that Heard was leaving him and “threatening to lie about him publicly in any and every possible duplicitous way if he didn’t agree to her terms.”

“Blackmail is what I would imagine other people might put it, including the manner in which he is now being vilified,” Stanhope wrote.

Lawyers for Heard called Stanhope’s comments, detailed in the complaint, “completely false and highly defamatory.”

The lawsuit is the latest step in the increasingly acrimonious split between Heard, 30, and Depp, 52, who had been married for 15 months.

Heard filed for divorce from Depp in Los Angeles last month, citing irreconcilable differences, and obtained a temporary restraining order against the actor.

She said in court papers that Depp had been abusive to her throughout their relationship, culminating in a May 21 argument during which he hurled a cell phone at her face and shattered objects in her apartment.

The documents included photos of the actress with a bruised eye that she said she sustained in the incident. Heard later gave a statement to Los Angeles police in which she accused Depp of domestic violence.

Depp, one of Hollywood’s top stars and box office draws, is currently touring with his band Hollywood Vampires in Europe and is scheduled to perform in Bucharest, Romania, on Monday.

The actor’s 17-year-old daughter from a previous relationship, Lily-Rose Depp, supported her father on Instagram last week, posting a photo captioning her father as “the sweetest most loving person I know.”

source: interaksyon.com

Joan Rivers’ daughter settles malpractice lawsuit in mother’s death

A New York City clinic has settled a malpractice lawsuit filed by the daughter of comedian Joan Rivers for an undisclosed amount over an ill-fated procedure that led to the celebrity’s death, lawyers for the Rivers family said on Thursday.

Rivers, who was 81, suffered a loss of oxygen to her brain on Aug. 28, 2014, as physicians at the Yorkville Endoscopy center in Manhattan inserted instruments to examine her throat and vocal cords. She died a week later at a New York hospital.

Her daughter, Melissa, filed a malpractice suit in January 2015, alleging doctors posed for selfies with their sedated celebrity patient even as her vital signs were plunging.

“In choosing to accept this settlement, I am able to put the legal aspects of my mother’s death behind me and ensure that those culpable for her death have accepted responsibility for their actions quickly and without equivocation,” Melissa Rivers said in a statement released by her lawyers, Ben Rubinowitz and Jeff Bloom.

Reuters could not reach representatives of Yorkville Endoscopy for comment. The New York Times quoted a spokesman as saying, “The parties agreed to settle this case to avoid protracted litigation. We remain committed to providing quality, compassionate health care services.”

The Rivers lawyers said the doctors did not deny responsibility.

Shortly before the lawsuit was filed, a government health agency, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, cited the Yorkville clinic for failing to follow standard protocols during its treatment of Rivers.

Melissa Rivers vowed to work toward ensuring higher safety standards at outpatient surgical clinics.

“We have agreed to keep the terms of the settlement confidential to make certain that the focus of this horrific incident remains on improved patient care and the legacy of Joan Rivers,” the two lawyers said in the statement.

source: interaksyon.com

Wells Fargo admits deception in $1.2 billion US mortgage accord

Wells Fargo & Co (WFC.N) admitted to deceiving the U.S. government into insuring thousands of risky mortgages, as it formally reached a record $1.2 billion settlement of a U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit.

The settlement with Wells Fargo, the largest U.S. mortgage lender and third-largest U.S. bank by assets, was filed on Friday in Manhattan federal court. It also resolves claims against Kurt Lofrano, a former Wells Fargo vice president.

According to the settlement, Wells Fargo "admits, acknowledges, and accepts responsibility" for having from 2001 to 2008 falsely certified that many of its home loans qualified for Federal Housing Administration insurance.

The San Francisco-based lender also admitted to having from 2002 to 2010 failed to file timely reports on several thousand loans that had material defects or were badly underwritten, a process that Lofrano was responsible for supervising.

According to the Justice Department, the shortfalls led to substantial losses for taxpayers when the FHA was forced to pay insurance claims as defective loans soured.

Several lenders, including Bank of America Corp (BAC.N), Citigroup Inc (C.N), Deutsche Bank AG (DBKGn.DE) and JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N), previously settled similar federal lawsuits.

But Wells Fargo held out, and its payment is the largest in FHA history over loan origination violations.
Friday's settlement is a reproach for "years of reckless underwriting" at Wells Fargo, U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara in Manhattan said in a statement.

"While Wells Fargo enjoyed huge profits from its FHA loan business, the government was left holding the bag when the bad loans went bust," Bharara added.

The accord also resolved a probe by federal prosecutors in California of alleged false loan certifications by American Mortgage Network LLC, which Wells Fargo bought in 2009.

No one has been criminally charged in the probes, and the Justice Department reserved the right to pursue criminal charges if it wishes, according to the settlement.

Franklin Codel, president of Wells Fargo Home Lending, in a statement said the settlement "allows us to put the legal process behind us, and to focus our resources and energy on what we do best -- serving the needs of the nation's homeowners."

Lewis Liman, a lawyer for Lofrano, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Wells Fargo on Feb. 3 said the settlement would reduce its previously reported 2015 profit by $134 million, to account for extra legal expenses.

source: interaksyon.com

Taylor Swift files counterclaim in groping lawsuit

DENVER — Taylor Swift filed a counterclaim Wednesday against a former Denver radio host who sued her after he said he lost his job because of false accusations that he inappropriately touched her during a photo session.

David Mueller sued Swift in U.S. District Court in Denver in September, saying he was falsely accused by a member of her security team of grabbing the singer's buttocks backstage at the Pepsi Center on June 2, 2013. Mueller, who denied any inappropriate contact, said he was fired two days later from his job at KYGO radio.

According to Swift's counter argument, Mueller claims that one of his superiors at the radio station committed the alleged assault. But Swift, 25, accuses Mueller solely.

"Mueller's newfound claim that he is the 'wrong guy' and, therefore, his termination from KYGO was unjustified, is specious," Swift's attorneys wrote in the counterclaim. "Ms. Swift knows exactly who committed the assault — it was Mueller."

Attorneys for Swift say in court filings that the singer was "surprised, upset, offended, and alarmed" when Mueller groped her during the pre-concert meet-and-greet. They added that Mueller did not merely brush his hand against Swift while posing for a photograph, but lifted up her skirt.

An attempt to reach Mueller's attorney for comment Wednesday night was unsuccessful.

Swift's publicist, who also could not be reached for comment Wednesday night, released a statement shortly after Mueller sued the singer, saying the radio host's employer was given evidence after the incident and made its own decision to fire him.

Swift, who is asking for a jury trial, says any money she might receive involving the lawsuit will be donated to charitable organizations "dedicated to protecting women from similar acts of sexual assault and personal disregard."

source: philstar.com

UP TO $862 MILLION IN DAMAGES | Apple loses patent lawsuit

NEW YORK — Apple Inc could be facing up to $862 million in damages after a U.S. jury on Tuesday found the iPhone maker used technology owned by the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s licensing arm without permission in chips found in many of its most popular devices.

The jury in Madison, Wisconsin also said the patent, which improves processor efficiency, was valid. The trial will now move on to determine how much Apple owes in damages.

Representatives for the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) and Apple could not immediately be reached for comment.


WARF sued Apple in January 2014 alleging infringement of its 1998 patent for improving chip efficiency.

The jury was considering whether Apple’s A7, A8 and A8X processors, found in the iPhone 5s, 6 and 6 Plus, as well as several versions of the iPad, violate the patent.

Cupertino, California-based Apple denied any infringement and argued the patent is invalid, according to court papers. Apple previously tried to convince the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to review the patent’s validity, but in April the agency rejected the bid.

According to a recent ruling by U.S. District Judge William Conley, who is presiding over the case, Apple could be liable for up to $862.4 million in damages.

He scheduled the trial to proceed in three phases: liability, damages, and finally, whether Apple infringed the patent willfully, which could lead to enhanced penalties.

WARF used the patent to sue Intel Corp in 2008, but the case was settled the following year on the eve of trial.

Last month, WARF launched a second lawsuit against Apple, this time targeting the company’s newest chips, the A9 and A9X, used in the just-released iPhone 6S and 6S Plus, as well as the iPad Pro.

source: interaksyon.com

Bill Cosby accused of three more sexual assaults as deposition looms

LOS ANGELES | Three more women came forward on Wednesday to accuse veteran comedian Bill Cosby of sexually assaulting them decades ago, charges that come a week before Cosby is scheduled to give a sworn deposition in a separate sexual assault lawsuit.

Sharon Van Ert, Pamela Abeyta and Lisa Christie appeared at a Los Angeles news conference and alleged that Cosby assaulted them. They were teary-eyed as they gave their accounts.

The news conference with celebrity attorney Gloria Allred came a week ahead of a deposition that Cosby, 78, has been ordered to give in a lawsuit brought by another Allred client, a woman accusing the comedian of sexually abusing her at the Playboy Mansion in Los Angeles when she was 15 years old.

Allred said she is opposing Cosby’s motion for a protective order to restrict public release of the deposition he is set to give Oct 9. “There should be transparency,” she said. A court is expected to decide the matter ahead of his deposition.

Allred said that while the statute of limitations prevents the three women at Wednesday’s news conference from taking legal action, they wanted to add their voices to the more than 50 women who already have come forward with similar allegations.

Van Ert said she met Cosby when she was a waitress at a Southern California beachside jazz club in 1976. She said Cosby offered to walk her to her car one night and got in with her. She said she blacked out, woke up later alone and suspected Cosby of drugging and assaulting her.

Abeyta said that in 1975, when she was 25 and aspiring to appear in Playboy magazine, she arranged to meet Cosby and was taken to a Las Vegas hotel and given her own bedroom in his penthouse suite. She said she believes her drink was drugged when she attended a show with Cosby and his friends. She awoke later in the comedian’s bed.

Christie said she met Cosby when she was a model and aspiring actress aged 18, and he cast her as an extra on “The Cosby Show.” She said she viewed him as a father figure and maintained a platonic relationship with him for two years, but then he attempted to coerce her into sleeping with him.

Cosby’s lawyers have repeatedly denied any wrongdoing by the 78 year-old entertainer. A representative on Wednesday said Cosby had no comment on the latest allegations.

source: interaksyon.com

Apple cleared in iPod antitrust suit

SAN FRANCISCO — A US jury on Tuesday cleared Apple of abusing its dominant market position in an antitrust case over online music for the iPod.

The class-action antitrust case in California federal court featured dramatic videotaped testimony recorded by Apple co-founder Steve Jobs before he died in 2011.

The $350-million lawsuit accused the tech giant of illegally forcing iPod users to purchase their music on its iTunes service.

The suit said iPod buyers between 2006 and 2009 were blocked from buying music from other vendors, advancing Apple’s dominant position on music downloads.

But the jury ruled otherwise.

“We thank the jury for their service and we applaud their verdict,” Apple said in a statement.

“We created iPod and iTunes to give our customers the world’s best way to listen to music. Every time we’ve updated those products — and every Apple product over the years — we’ve done it to make the user experience even better.”

Jobs’ testimony from a few months before his death in October 2011 was played at the hearing Friday.

In excerpts published by online news site “The Verge,” he said that Apple was “very concerned” about retaliatory measures that could be taken by record companies if songs purchased in iTunes and downloaded to an iPod were then copied onto somebody else’s computer.

“We went to great pains to make sure that people couldn’t hack into our digital rights management system because if they could, we would get nasty emails from the labels threatening us that they were going to yank the license,” Jobs said.

He argued that “lots of hackers” were trying to break into the system, and as a result, Apple had to be constantly “revving the iTunes and iPod software, closing any holes that might be in it, or any problems it might have.”

If these changes meant that competitors became locked out, then they were only “collateral damage,” he said.

Plaintiffs in the class-action suit argued that the repeat changes prevented other online music stores — and potentially less expensive ones at that — from adapting their own systems fast enough for their music to be used on the iPod.

This, they said, meant iPod owners had to make purchases on iTunes.

Apple has remained a powerful player in online music, but in 2009 dropped its “digital rights management” that limited how users could copy or transfer songs.

source: interaksyon.com

Kesha accuses music producer of rape, abuse in dueling lawsuits

LOS ANGELES | Pop singer Kesha and music producer Dr. Luke unleashed dueling lawsuits on Tuesday trading accusations of abuse and extortion as the “Die Young” singer says she wants out of her record contract with the hit-making producer.

Kesha, 27, whose legal name is Kesha Sebert, has accused Dr. Luke in a civil lawsuit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court of sexual, physical, verbal and emotional abuse.

The lawsuit accuses Dr. Luke, whose legal name is Lukasz Gottwald, of forcing Kesha to “take drugs and alcohol in order to take advantage of her sexually while she was intoxicated.”

The 41-year-old producer behind hits for singers such as Katy Perry and Miley Cyrus responded with his own lawsuit in New York state Supreme Court in Manhattan accusing Kesha and her mother, Pebe Sebert, of defamation, breach of contract and contractual interference.

The lawsuit accuses Kesha and her mother of orchestrating a campaign to publish “false and shocking accusations” against Dr. Luke to extort him into letting the singer out of her contract.

“Kesha’s lawsuit is nothing more than a continuation of her bad and offensive acts,” Dr. Luke’s attorney, Christine Lepera said in a statement.

Kesha, who has scored No. 1 U.S. hits “Tik Tok” and “We R Who We R” that Dr. Luke helped write and produce, has been under contract to record for Dr. Luke’s music production company and record label since 2005.

Kesha’s lawsuit accuses Dr. Luke of drugging and raping the singer and threatening her career if she told anyone about it, among other lurid accusations about the producer’s personal life.

“This lawsuit is a wholehearted effort by Kesha to regain control of her music career and her personal freedom after suffering for 10 years as a victim of mental manipulation, emotional abuse and sexual assault at the hands of Dr. Luke,” the singer’s attorney, Mark Geragos, said in a statement.

Geragos said Dr. Luke’s suit “has no basis in fact, the law or reality.”

Kesha’s lawsuit also names Dr. Luke’s companies as defendants. It demands unspecified damages and to void Kesha’s current contracts with Dr. Luke.

It alleges the producer’s insults to Kesha’s appearance caused her to develop bulimia nervosa. She finished a more than two-month treatment for the condition in March.

The lawsuit says physicians at the rehab clinic determined that Kesha continuing to work with Dr. Luke would be “life threatening.”

In addition to Kesha and her mother, Dr. Luke’s lawsuit names the singer’s manager and management company. The lawsuit asks for a jury trial and unspecified damages.

source: interaksyon.com

Judge dismisses wig lawsuit against rapper Nicki Minaj

ATLANTA | A judge has dismissed a $30 million federal lawsuit by a celebrity hair stylist who accused rapper and former “American Idol” judge Nicki Minaj of stealing his designs for the colorful wigs that helped boost her career.

Although the wigs Minaj wore are “unique and distinctive in the ordinary sense of the word,” they were not recognizable by the public as having been designed by Terrence Davidson, the stylist who brought the lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Harold Murphy ruled Thursday.

Davidson, whose celebrity clients include singers Patti LaBelle and Jennifer Hudson, began working for Minaj in 2010 and designed her wigs for high-profile events worldwide, said the suit filed in Atlanta last February.

The rapper also wore Davidson-designed wigs in a music video for the song “Super Bass,” according to the lawsuit. One of Minaj’s best-known wigs is called the “Pink Upper Bun.” When Davidson stopped working for Minaj more than a year ago, the pop star began copying his wig designs and selling them online, he alleged.

Davidson’s representatives claim it is the first-ever intellectual property lawsuit over wigs. They did have an immediate comment Thursday on the suit’s dismissal.

source: interaksyon.com

Federal judge upholds stricter Colorado gun laws

DENVER -- A federal judge upheld gun laws on Thursday introduced by Colorado in the wake of deadly shooting rampages there and in Connecticut, dismissing a lawsuit brought by sheriffs, gun shops, outfitters and shooting ranges.

The two laws, passed in 2013 by Colorado's Democratic-controlled legislature with scant Republican support, banned ammunition magazines that hold more than 15 rounds and required background checks for all private gun sales and transfers.

The bills were introduced in response to a shooting spree in 2012 that killed 12 people at a suburban Denver movie theater, and the slaying later that same year of 20 children and six adults at an elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

But they immediately met resistance from critics, including most of Colorado's elected sheriffs, who said they severely restricted citizens' constitutional right to own and bear arms.

Last year, voters recalled two key Democratic members of the legislature that approved the controversial measures.

After a two-week civil trial, US District Chief Judge Marcia Krieger ruled the lawsuit lacked standing and said no evidence had been produced that showed limiting magazines to 15 rounds seriously diminished the ability to defend oneself.

"Of the many law enforcement officials called to testify, none were able to identify a single instance in which they were involved where a single civilian fired more than 15 shots in self defense," she said in her ruling.

Responding to complaints about expanded background checks, she said there were more than 600 firearms dealers in the state which actively perform private checks, and that it takes an average of less than 15 minutes for a check to be run by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation.

Governor John Hickenlooper, a Democrat who signed the bills into law, was named as the defendant in the lawsuit.

Colorado has seen two of the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history. In addition to the 2012 theater shooting, it was the site of a 1999 massacre at Columbine High School, where two teenagers shot dead a teacher and 12 other students before committing suicide.

But it is also a state where gun ownership is treasured.

Colorado's Attorney General John Suthers, a Republican, said his office never claimed the laws were "good, wise, or sound policy," but that it had fulfilled its responsibility to defend the constitutionality of the state law in question.

source: interaksyon.com

Tom Cruise lawyer dismisses ‘bizarre’ $1 billion lawsuit over ‘Mission Impossible’ film

LOS ANGELES | A lawyer for Tom Cruise poured scorn on a $1 billion lawsuit alleging that filmmakers stole a screenwriter’s work to create a blockbuster “Mission: Impossible” film, calling the legal action “bizarre.”

Timothy Patrick McLanahan claims the 2011 film “Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol” was based on a script he wrote in 1998 called “Head On,” which he tried unsuccessfully to get made in Hollywood.

He pitched it initially to the William Morris Agency, but “I was told… that they could not use the script as a movie,” McLanahan wrote in the lawsuit, filed in December and published this week by celebrity news website Radar Online.

He alleges agents there then passed the screenplay, without his permission, to Creative Artists Agency (CAA), which represents Cruise, leading to a project he claims became the 2011 “Mission: Impossible” movie.

When McLanahan watched the film, “I immediately realized that the scripts for this movie had been illegally written and produced from Head On’s 1998 copywright,” he wrote in the lawsuit, which names Cruise among 13 defendants.

But Cruise’s lawyer Bert Fields dismissed the lawsuit.

“Tom Cruise has never stolen anything from anyone,” he told AFP Wednesday. “This bizarre lawsuit against 13 people… will be quickly dismissed by the court.”

In his legal filing, McLanahan specified why he is seeking $1 billion.

He noted that “Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol” made over $690 million at the box office, some $145 million in DVD and Blu-ray sales, and millions of dollars in film rentals.

“Because the ‘Ghost Protocol’ film generated close to $1 billion, I am asking for this amount in damages,” he wrote in the lawsuit, filed in California on December 17.

source: interaksyon.com

Swatch wins compensation from Tiffany's in contract row

GENEVA - Swiss watchmaker Swatch Group has won a lawsuit against US jewellery group Tiffany & Co over a failed joint venture to jointly design and market luxury watches.

Tiffany was required to pay Swatch 402 million Swiss francs (327 million euros, $449 million) under the ruling by the Netherlands Arbitration Institute, Swatch said in a statement.

The case stemmed from a 2007-2011 cooperation deal that Swatch said Tiffany had systematically obstructed.

Swatch Group had sought 3.8 billion Swiss francs from its erstwhile partner, while Tiffany had counter-sued for 541.9 million Swiss francs from Swatch.

Swatch said the Netherlands Arbitration Institute had rejected Tiffany's counter-suit.

Tiffany chief executive Michael Kowalski said the company was "shocked and extremely disappointed with the decision" and was reviewing its options with its lawyers.

He said the company had "sufficient financial resources" to pay the award, and that its books would reflect the payment as an after-tax charge of $295 million to $305 million in the fourth quarter.

source: interaksyon.com

Weinstein brothers sue Time Warner for $75M over ‘Hobbit’ films

NEW YORK | Movie producers Bob and Harvey Weinstein have sued Time Warner Inc for at least $75 million over its decision to divide the screen adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s book “The Hobbit” into three parts, and refusing to pay them for the second and third films.

In a complaint filed on Tuesday in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan, the Weinstein brothers and Miramax LLC said executives at Warner Brothers and its New Line Cinema unit chose to split “The Hobbit” as a pretext to deprive them of 5 percent of the gross receipts from the last two films.

The Weinsteins said they had in 1998 sold New Line the movie rights to “The Hobbit” and Tolkien’s trilogy “The Lord of the Rings,” after having spent more than $10 million to adapt them. They said New Line had agreed to make payments for the “first motion picture,” but not “remakes,” based on the books.

“This case is about greed and ingratitude,” said the Weinsteins and Miramax, which the brothers founded. “Warner takes this position solely to deprive plaintiffs of their right to share in the revenues from two of the three filmed installments of ‘The Hobbit.’”

Warner Brothers countered that the Weinsteins simply made a business mistake when they sold the film rights to New Line.

Paul McGuire, a Warner Brothers spokesman, said the studio filed for arbitration on November 26 with JAMS Inc, a New York firm once known as Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, to resolve the dispute.

“This is about one of the great blunders in movie history,” McGuire said. “Fifteen years ago Miramax, run by the Weinstein brothers, sold its rights in ‘The Hobbit’ to New Line. No amount of trying to rewrite history can change that fact. They agreed to be paid only on the first motion picture based on ‘The Hobbit.’ And that’s all they’re owed.”

Tuesday’s lawsuit is the latest litigation involving the Weinsteins, who earlier this year battled with Warner Brothers over the title of one of their films, which was eventually called “Lee Daniels’ The Butler.”




The lawsuit over “The Hobbit” was filed three days before the scheduled December 13 worldwide release of director Peter Jackson’s “The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug,” the second of the three planned “Hobbit” films.

The first film, “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey,” was released in 2012 and grossed more than $1 billion worldwide.

David Boies and Motty Shulman, who are partners at Boies, Schiller & Flexner, represent Miramax and the Weinsteins. They were not immediately available on Wednesday for comment.

The case is Miramax LLC et al v. New Line Cinema Corp et al, New York State Supreme Court, New York County, No. 161383/2013.

source: interaksyon.com