Vaneet Sharma and his company, Astro Vastu Solutions, are trafficking in an “illicit” internet streaming television service called Sharma IPTV using Dish Network and Sling TV channels that are retransmitted without authorization to users that purchase the Sharma service, alleged Dish and Sling in a Digital Millennium Copyright Act complaint Friday (docket 3:24-cv-00961) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco. Identifiers that are unique to Dish’s internet transmissions of its channels “were detected when conducting a technical analysis of the corresponding channels” on the Sharma service, said the complaint. The analysis confirmed that channels retransmitted on the service originated from Dish and Sling, it said. Sling’s logo was also "observed on certain channels" retransmitted on the service, “further proof” that the Dish and Sling channels were used to “seed” the service with unauthorized content, it said. Sharma was notified that he must cease providing the service because it infringes Dish’s and Sling’s rights, but he “failed to comply,” said the complaint. Sharma admitted that he won’t stop providing the service because the profits that he receives from the service “are too good to stop,” it said. He told Dish and Sling that if they prosecute a DMCA case against him, he'll simply blame his ex-wife for running the Sharma service under his name, said the complaint.

The five defendants alleged by Dish Network and Sling TV in a Jan. 24 complaint to have sold set-top boxes for two illicit streaming services that capture and retransmit Dish and Sling television programming without authorization deny they violated the anti-trafficking provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act or committed trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, said their answer Thursday (docket 1:24-cv-00340) in U.S. District Court for Northern Georgia in Atlanta. The plaintiffs’ claims are barred because the defendants “had no prior knowledge that a product or mark was being infringed upon,” said their answer. The defendants acquired the rights to sell or distribute the product or services “through a purported wholesaler, vendor or supplier,” it said. The defendants didn’t “knowingly or intentionally use, sell or distribute an infringing product or mark in commerce or have reason to know that any such marks or products were infringing,” it said.

Shopify entered into an agreement with defendant Zachary Lotz that blocks him from offering products, goods or services through the Shopify platform for a year, said their stipulation Wednesday (docket 1:23-cv-01254) in U.S. District Court for Western New York in Buffalo. Lotz also is barred from submitting any notices of alleged copyright infringement containing “misrepresentations” that he owns or controls copyrights that he doesn’t own or control, it said. Shopify sued Lotz Dec. 4 to halt his bogus Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown notices against Shopify merchants through his knowingly false allegations of copyright infrngement (see 2312050006).

Though OpenAI disagrees with the claims in the New York Times Co.’s Dec. 27 copyright infringement lawsuit against Microsoft and OpenAI (see 2312270044), it views the complaint “as an opportunity to clarify our business, our intent, and how we build our technology,” said OpenAI the company Monday in its first public comments about the litigation. Microsoft and OpenAI generative AI tools rely on large-language models that were built by “copying and using” millions of the NYT copyrighted news articles, in violation of the Copyright Act, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and other statutes, alleged the newspaper. But the New York Times Co. isn’t telling “the full story,” said OpenAI. Its discussions with the company “appeared to be progressing constructively” through the parties’ last communication Dec. 19, it said. “The negotiations focused on a high-value partnership around real-time display with attribution in ChatGPT,” in which the NYT “would gain a new way to connect with their existing and new readers, and our users would gain access to their reporting,” it said. OpenAI had explained to the publishing company that, like any single source, “their content didn't meaningfully contribute to the training of our existing models and also wouldn't be sufficiently impactful for future training,” it said. OpenAI learned about the lawsuit by reading about it in the NYT, it said. The litigation “came as a surprise and disappointment to us,” it said.

Two supervisors of a California cocktail lounge showed a Ngannou vs. Gane Ultimate Fighting Championship event without authorization and without paying a licensing fee, alleged a copyright infringement complaint (docket 8:24-cv-00041) filed Monday in U.S. District Court for Central California in Santa Ana. The UFC event, which originated via a satellite uplink, was subsequently retransmitted via encrypted satellite, cable and IPTV streaming, it said. Plaintiff Ultimate Fighting Championship, which owns rights to the Francis Ngannou vs. Cyril Gane event held Jan. 22, 2022, said defendants Dana Turner of Long Beach, California, and Mira Schoenrock of Peoria, Arizona, principals of Squire Cocktails in La Habra, California, received a commercial benefit by not paying the licensing fee to the plaintiff and obtaining the signal to the broadcast by “alternative means.” UFC seeks statutory penalties of up to $30,000, enhanced damages of $150,000 for willful violation of 17 U.S.C. chapter 504 and attorneys’ fees, costs and interest.