Damox's Legal Blog

RIAA Fails To Pay Legal Fees

2007-08-14T16:48:00.000-07:00

As I've mentioned here many times before, the Recording Industry Association of America has been suing people it believes have been downloading and sharing music for nearly a decade. They have received some money from settlements, but also lost nearly every decision made in court. They owe a lot of money in attorneys fees to the defendants who successfully fended off the RIAA legal claims, and the RIAA is not paying that money.

In the case of the RIAA vs Deborah Foster, the defendant was awarded $68,000 in attorney fees by the Court. That money has not been paid by the RIAA, and they have not responded to requests for that money. Ms. Foster has requested a judgment from the Court in the matter.

Plaintiffs are required to pay the attorneys fees awarded by the Court to the defendant. The RIAA has not contested the decision or the amount of the fees, they have just ignored the ruling by the Court.

These facts should be considered by the Court in future cases involving the RIAA versus individuals accused of sharing digital music files. Those defendants would have to pay damages if the Court ruled against them, or a collection agency would take the amount of the damages from them. The RIAA apparently thinks that it is immune from Court decisions against them. Collection agencies should be dispatched immediately to seize assets of the RIAA equal to the amount they owe from Court decisions, and future Court rulings on similar matters should consider that only one side of the case plans on following the letter of the law, and it's not the side with billions of dollars in its pocket.
Recording Industry vs The People

Are American Lawyers More Unhappy Than British?

2007-07-16T21:11:00.000-07:00

Some interesting studies have shown that American lawyers are about as dissatisfied with their profession as any lawyers in any other part of the world. A whopping 40% of American lawyers would like to leave their profession. 25% of British lawyers want to end their legal careers.

What makes American lawyers so unhappy? I think the major factor is the hours. I know lawyers who are at work before 6am, and they might not come home until 7 or 8 at night, sometimes much later. Those hours are beyond long, they're downright vicious. After going through college, several years of law school, and the BAR exam, lawyers end up working hours just as long as their two-jobs-at-once, high school dropout counterpart.

Sure, lawyers tend to make a lot of money. The problem is that they have little time to spend it. Any basic economics class teaches us that there is a delicate balance between wage and free time. At some point, wages cannot be raised enough to cause someone to decrease free time and increase workload. Would you work for $1,000 an hour if you had to work 22 hours a day? Not if you had to do it every day.

Lawyers also face a lot of really boring work. They might spend 8 hours of their day pushing paper, working their way through our bureaucratic legal system. They are the small print writers, putting legalese to paper that no one will ever look at but needs to exist to "protect" their clients.

Perhaps something needs to be done to curb the dissatisfaction among those in the legal profession. Or maybe the world is better off with fewer lawyers. It would be nice if more young people pursued a medical profession, because I'm not getting any younger.
Law Blog - WSJ.com : British Lawyers are Unhappy, Too

Courts Becoming Busy With Blog Lawsuits

2007-03-30T20:01:00.000-07:00

It turns out you can't say whatever you want on the internet. Bloggers are finding that out the hard way, as more and more of them are being sued for defamation, among other things.

Although bloggers are not given the same rights as journalists in most states, they are still subject to laws regarding libel. The perceived anonymity of the internet makes it more likely that the average joe will run afoul of laws that they might not even know exist.
Courts Becoming Busy With Blog Lawsuits | WebProNews

NFL fumbles DMCA takedown battle, could face sanctions

2007-03-22T18:36:00.000-07:00

A law professor is making an example of the NFL and show her students how content owners are exaggerating their own rights. Wendy Seltzer recently posted a clip of the copyright message the NFL aired during the Super Bowl telecast. The NFL responded with a DMCA takedown notice through YouTube, where the video was hosted. The professor responded with a counter-notice, and the video reappeared on the site.

The NFL then made a mistake they will likely regret. Instead of responding to the counter-claim with court proceedings, they ignored it completely and sent another takedown notice for the same clip. This is considered a known misrepresentation that the clip was infringing, as stated in DMCA section 512(f)(1). The NFL could be held liable for legal fees incurred along with damages to the alleged infringer.

By the way, Wendy works for the EFF. In other words, she is not going to just let this issue be dropped. The NFL tried using its lawyers to control its content, and now they are going to face a tough legal face because of it.
NFL fumbles DMCA takedown battle, could face sanctions

State Bar Says Nifong Skirted System in Handling of Duke Lacrosse Case :: WRAL.com

2007-03-19T15:54:00.000-07:00

The former prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse case is in the battle of his legal career, and it's against the North Carolina State Bar. Recently released documents revealed that the Bar believes Nifong skirted the system and twisted words in an attempt to make it appear that he acted appropriately in the Duke case.

At the center of the allegations against Nifong is the way he released information to the public and to the defense. He did not reveal that DNA tests came back negative for what most people would consider an extraordinarily long time, and even when he did he was deceitful. He released the results to the defense in the form of 2,000 pages of raw test results, without any summary result telling them what it all meant. They had to hire their own experts to interpret the results that the prosecution already had. That's not just skirting the law, that's acting like an ass because a case is not going your way.

Nifong should be tossed from the NC bar, and the law school that approved him for the bar should be investigated. First year law students are writing 100 page papers detailing the ways Nifong acted unethically. I'm sure some pre-laws are doing independent research on the topic just to kiss up to some teacher. That's how obvious this whole thing is, and Nifong thought he could pull it off in front of a national audience.
State Bar Says Nifong Skirted System in Handling of Duke Lacrosse Case :: WRAL.com

Novel Writer Ripped Off By Film Company

2007-02-08T15:48:00.000-08:00

Granada Media, a film production company based in London, signed a contract with Peter S. Beagle, writer of "The Last Unicorn," to make films based on the novel. Now that they have sold over 600,000 DVDs and made several cable and satellite deals, they've decided not to pay Beagle what he is owed.

Beagle is not a young, and he's not a rich man. I'm sure Granada Media knows this, and they know that he can't put up much of a legal fight on his own. He's currently spending much of his money taking care of his 100-year-old mother. What this poor man needs is a few competent lawyers who will take a look at his case and put up some sort of a legal fight against Granada Media. Big companies should not be able to take advantage of a poor, creative person like this.

Technorati Tags: lawyer, copyright, contract

Keith Urban Sues Artist Of Same Name Over Website Domain

2007-02-07T19:33:00.000-08:00

Keith Urban, the Australian country singer who defines mediocre, has sued Keith Urban, an artist who happens to own the domain name keithurban.com. The musician, who was born "Keith Urbahn", has little chance in this case. He would have to prove that the artist is intentionally trying to deceive his visitors into thinking his is the more famous man with his name. At this point, he's just using his site to sell kitsch artwork.

What I really like about this lawsuit is that the country star will end up paying lots of money in legal fees and will probably walk away without his precious website. In the end, he'll probably offer way more money for the website than it's worth, thinking he's the next Jesus and his website is the place everybody wants to visit. I wonder if they get internet access in drug rehab.

Technorati Tags: domain, lawsuit, cybersquatting

Court Approves Class-Action Suit Against Wal-Mart

2007-02-06T21:08:00.000-08:00

Wal-Mart will be facing the biggest sexual discrimination lawsuit in history following a judgment from a federal appeals court in San Francisco that rejected an attempt to block the case from moving forward.

At least 1.5 million current and former female employees of Wal-Mart would be eligible to participate in the class action lawsuit. Even a settlement of $1,000 per worker would cost the giant retailer $1.5 billion. The case involves discrimination in pay and promotions.
Court Approves Class-Action Suit Against Wal-Mart - New York Times

New York Teen Fights Back Against RIAA

2007-01-31T15:39:00.000-08:00

The record industry has been blanketing file-sharers across the country with lawsuits that can only be described as pseudo-legal. A teen who was just 11 when he was first accused has decided to join the growing ranks of people who have fought back.

Robert Santangelo is suing the recording industry for legal fees, and for damaging his reputation. I think he we be successful, and I hope many more people follow his lead. RIAA lawsuits should be the easiest thing to fight. I think new lawyers who have just passed the BAR should defend RIAA lawsuits as practice before going to work for a legal firm, because they'd gain a lot of confidence in their legal skills.

The RIAA lawsuits typically evolve like this: RIAA pays a third party to collect log files of IP addresses of computers that are sharing files with names that appear to indicate they are copyrighted. They use this list to find the internet service provider, who they bully into giving them the name of the user associated with the IP number. They send out a subpoena to that person, saying they have evidence they were sharing illegally. The person is usually given the option to make a cash settlement, or fight their case in court. Since lawyers are expensive, many people just settle.

Here's how lawyers should attack these cases: point out that the RIAA has collected all the evidence in the case. The police are typically not involved in any way, nor are any state or federal agencies. They have the log files with the IP addresses. Be sure to note that anyone can make a log file like this. It would be like bringing in a slip of paper that says "I am guilty - Mr. X" and claiming it's a signed confession. Also question how the RIAA obtained the name of the user. They know what they are legally not allowed to do to get a name, and they have crossed that line in the past. If they realize they can't answer that question without admitting to a crime, they'll drop the case.

Finally, make them prove that the file in question is indeed copyrighted and the RIAA is representing the owner of that copyright. Just saying "we could see that this file was on your computer" is not enough. Make them play the song. If they did not download the full file from your computer, and good lawyer should be able to convince a court that there is not sufficient proof. What if I like to rename all my band's songs to look like Nickelback songs because I don't want anyone who uses my computer to accidentally play them and find out how terrible my band is? I think you get my drift. File names can be "spoofed" to make them look like other files. Make the RIAA prove the file that was being shared on the plaintiffs computer was indeed a copyrighted song file.

The chances the RIAA has passed all these legal tests on any given lawsuit are quite slim. That's why everybody who has tried fighting them has won.

Technorati Tags: lawsuit, riaa

Apple Lawsuit Against Blogger Backfires

2007-01-29T21:38:00.000-08:00

A lawsuit filed by Apple last year against a blogger who exposed a future Apple product could not have gone worse for the computer company. Not only was it bad publicity for them, but the lawsuit was thrown out and Apple is now going to foot the bill for the defendants legal fees multiplied by 2.2. That multiple is apparently a common practice in California law for such cases.

The lawsuit was against Apple Inside, a blog that carries news about Apple products, particularly those that have not been officially announced yet. One product announcement apparently upset Apple enough that they sued, claiming the blogger was not protected under the first amendment because he had revealed a trade secret. I'm not sure exactly how that blogger was able to obtain a trade secret like a future product, but apparently he's very good. Maybe he just happened to call up and talk to the right secretary.

This lawsuit might scare other big companies away from attempting to bully the blogosphere. I can see where cases of libel would warrant a lawsuit, but claiming your trade secret was leaked by a blog says more about how poor your company is at keeping secrets than anything else.

Technorati Tags: apple, lawsuit

Microsoft Copies BlueJ, Patents It

2007-01-27T11:40:00.000-08:00

I've been doing a lot of research into technology patents today, and I came across this very recent news item about Microsoft and a competing educational programming tool called BlueJ.

BlueJ is a free educational IDE for teaching object-oriented programming and Java. It competes directly with Microsoft Visual Studio, although VS costs hundreds of dollars. The problem with VS is that it locks users into a Windows developing platform. C# and Visual Basic Microsoft's way of making sure the bright minds of today are making products for Microsoft tomorrow. BlueJ doesn't care what programming platform developers use, because they don't have any financial interest in that decision.

BlueJ's developers have complained of late that Microsoft has been taking features that have been in BlueJ for a long time, putting them in Visual Studio, and claiming them as new features without giving any credit to BlueJ. What's worse, Microsoft has begun patenting the features that it blatantly ripped off BlueJ. Since BlueJ gives away their product and does not have billions of dollars to spend, they would have a tough time defending themselves in a patent fight with Microsoft, which has shown its ability to spend hundreds of millons of dollars on top-notch teams of lawyers.

BlueJ clearly has a prior art claim on Microsoft's latest patents, but they will have a hard time presenting this to the U.S. Patent Office with Microsoft's lawyers trying to stop them every step of the way. What recourse do the BlueJ developers have?

Technorati Tags: microsoft, bluej, patent, law

Blackboard Could Lose Patents Due To Prior Art

2007-01-27T10:37:00.000-08:00

Blackboard, the educational software company, could be losing its patent in "internet-based educational support system and methods" (U.S. 6988138) after another company filed a claim for a re-examination. Desire2Learn, a competing software maker, claims they have a patent that covers the same type of software. Prior art might also be a factor in this re-examination challenge.

I've always wondered why the patent office gave out so many patents to companies that did nothing more than take an existing product/service and add the words "internet-based" to it. That really doesn't make it any different than the original. My guess is that people in the patent office work too many hours to use the internet, so they have no idea what it really is.

Law in the Former Confederacy

2007-01-24T17:30:00.000-08:00

Justice is blind, except in the south. A teen in Georgia was sentenced to 10 years - without parole, for receiving a "Lewinsky" from a younger teen. The boy, who was 17 years old at the time of the crime, is now 20. The girl was 15 when SHE initiated the act.

Because this happened in the south, you can almost figure out that the boy is black and the girl, referred to as the victim, even though she has admitted all along that it was consensual and she initiated, is white. The sentencing drew national criticism, leading to a legislative measure to fix the crime definitions that made sex between a 17-year-old and 15-year-old a misdemeanor, but oral between two teens of those respective ages a felony. The law was changed, but for reasons that are just baffling it was not applied retroactively, which means Genarlow Wilson still rots away in prison to this day. Wilson had been a top football prospect looking at schools like Brown or the Citadel before the bizarre arrest and prosecution.

I encourage all you lawyers and law students to write about this incident, and do as much as possible to embarrass similar prosecution in other parts of the country, including those DNA reversals in Dallas County, Texas. It's the least you can do.

Technorati Tags: law, georgia, idiocy, ignorance

City Knocks Down Man's House, Steals The Bricks

2007-01-13T17:26:00.000-08:00

A Missouri resident is considering legal action after he came home recently to find that the city had torn down his home. Over the following days, the city hauled away the valuable red bricks from the rubble of his home.

It's no surprise that the city in question here is East St. Louis, already widely regarded as the scummiest hellhole in America, according to Time Magazine's Scummiest Hellhole in America annual list. The city is poor, but I had no idea that they were this poor.

The man's name is Lewis Hill, and he could really use a good lawyer. I realize few lawyers would actually reside in East St. Louis, but if there are any in the area I'm sure Mr. Hill would appreciate your help.
Belleville News-Democrat | 01/13/2007 | East St. Louis man finds his home demolished

Cisco Sues Apple Over Use of IPhone Name

2007-01-11T04:14:00.000-08:00

The new Apple iPhone isn't making everyone happy. Or maybe it is. You see, Apple and Cisco were on the verge of a deal which would have had Cisco handing over their iPhone trademark. Then, for reasons that cannot be explained, Steve Jobs made an announcement introducing Apple's new product.

The Jobs announcement meant one thing for Cisco, or so I believe: we can make much more money off of this name. With the Apple iPhone name public, but the iPhone name not secure with Apple, it only made sense that Cisco would increase their price for the name. Now they are just suing Apple, forcing the company to either settle for big bucks or change the name that millions of people are expecting their new cell phone/pda/iPod device to be called. Or they could hire some big-name lawyers and take their chances in court, but then they'd risk having to pay a huge judgment.
BREITBART.COM - Cisco Sues Apple Over Use of IPhone Name

Signing Statements Are Not Legal, Mr. President

2007-01-04T16:14:00.000-08:00

It's no wonder Harriet Miers, the White House legal counsel who resigned today, was rejected by both Democrats and Republicans after President Bush tried to nominate her for the Supreme Court. Aside from being a bumpkin lawyer mostly handling cases of DUI (for which Mr. Bush kept her constantly employed), she's the same lawyer who has done nothing to stop the president from doing something very illegal right in front of everyone, including TV cameras.

President Bush has refined a practice virtually unknown to other presidents, except Ronald Reagan, who shouldn't count because he was an idiot and a war criminal. It's something known as a signing statement, and only someone with the mind of a 5-year-old could think is legal. When the president signs a bill into law, he will attach a statement which basically says "I'm not going to enforce this." It has no legal basis, as it's a contradiction of what the signature on the bill implies. If the president doesn't support a bill, he shouldn't sign it.

The most recent use of the signing statement came with a postal reform bill. The bill extends a law prohibiting the government from opening a person's mail without a warrant. In a signing statement attached to the bill, President Bush proclaimed that the President had the authority to allow the opening of private mail without a warrant. No such exception was included in the bill. There could be no more blatant violation of the Constitution. The president is making exceptions and complete changes to laws without any oversight from Congress. Does our system of checks and balances not apply to George W. Bush?

ABC News: Bush: Government Can Open Your Mail

Police Raids Lead To 4th Amendment Dispute

2006-12-31T13:37:00.000-08:00

Police officers are allowed to make alcohol inspections of bars and other establishments that serve alcohol, but a pool hall in Manassas Park is charging that police are using this loophole to raid businesses and search for evidence unrelated to an alcohol inspection.

Searching a private business would usually require a search warrant obtained from a judge or grand jury. In places like Manassas Park and Buffalo, New York, police are starting programs that allow them to perform warrantless searches by making it appear that they are for a different purpose. In Buffalo, Operation Clean Sweep was created to send officials to bad neighborhoods on good will missions, including handing out smoke alarms and checking for building and fire code violations. People started to question the operation when it led to a high number of drug charges against residents who had not been investigated prior to the operation.

Let's get back to the Manassas Park case. The bar owner who had his establishment raided filed a civil rights suit against the city, claiming the 70+ police officers in ski masks who entered his bar while pumping shot guns were not there for a routine alcohol inspection. His bar was torn apart, and his customers were handcuffed. A federal circuit court ruled that there was no 4th Amendment violation and dismissed the suit. Good thing we cleared the courts of all those activist judges.
Reason Magazine - Hit & Run > Regulating Around the Fourth Amendment

Man Wins Lawsuit Against Dell... Kiosk?

2006-12-12T17:45:00.000-08:00

A man was having problems with his Dell computer. He contacted customer service. Anyone who has contacted their customer service can probably figure out how that ended. Eventually he sent the computer back to have Dell look at it. Dell lost it. The replacement offer was not adequate. The man decided to sue, but in a very creative way.

Most people who file a lawsuit against a big company will have the suit sent to the company headquarters. Dell had already shown this man that their internal communications system was a mess, so he decided to attack them where they were weakest: the mall kiosk. Just as he probably expected, the kiosk received the lawsuit and failed the notify company headquarters. When the man went to court, Dell never showed up. A $3,000 judgment was awarded in his favor. This obviously got Dell's attention, and they made him a settlement offer with the promise they wouldn't appeal.

The damage done to Dell has been made much worse now that the story is out in the news. Who knows what this will cost them in lost sales. One thing is for sure: they are going to increase communications with their many kiosks.
Techdirt: Secret To Suing Dell: Focus On A Kiosk, Not Headquarters

Couple Fights Jaywalking Ticket

2006-11-24T11:30:00.000-08:00

A couple cited for jaywalking in Missouri have decided to fight back in a unique way. They have been photographing city officials and police officers jaywalking, creating a huge collection of offical misdeeds.

This may not create a valid argument in court, because "everyone else is doing it" is not a plea option for the defense, but it has certainly caused the city more embarassment than they could have gained from the citation revenue.
News-Leader.com | Sarah Overstreet

Craigslist Not Liable In Discrimination Case

2006-11-21T19:56:00.000-08:00

A U.S. District Court judge in Chicago has ruled that Craigslist is not liable for housing ads that violate the 1968 Fair Housing Act.

The ads in question are clearly discriminatory in nature, with wording like "no blacks" in their description. Craigslist, the judge ruled, is not considered a publisher in the same way as a newspaper. They are protected thanks to a provision of the 1996 Communications Decency Act.

What this case really comes down to is that Craigslist does not post the ads. A user sends the ad to Craigslist, and it is automatically posted. This differs from a newspaper, which would have to read a classified ad submission and then enter it into their classified ad section.
Judge rules for Craigslist in discriminatory housing ads case

Free Open Source Software Is Not Illegal

2006-11-12T11:30:00.000-08:00

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh District made a decision last week that few noticed, but could have a huge impact on the future of open source software.

Companies like IBM, Red Hat, and Novell have created an alliance called the Free Software Foundation, and together they create open source software that is often offered to customers for free. They make money from selling equipment (IBM) and customer support and training. Competitors have compared this practice to dumping a product in order to wipe out the competition, which could constitute an antitrust violation.

The court disagreed with that assertion, claiming that people still pay for quality software even when comparable but imperfect substitutes are available for free. I'm not sure I entirely agree with that reasoning, but I do agree with the court's decision, as it validates the whole concept of the open source industry.
Open source earns legal victory | News.blog | CNET News.com

A Lesson In Patent Application Writing

2006-11-02T16:05:00.000-08:00

I found a funny story about a lawyer who apparently was fed up with writing bogus technical claims for his clients patent applications. He threw in this gem:
"9. The method of providing user interface displays in an image forming apparatus which is really a bogus claim included amongst real claims, and which should be removed before filing; wherein the claim is included to determine if the inventor actually read the claims and the inventor should instruct the attorneys to remove the claim."
I guess there's a lesson for everyone out there applying for a patent with the help of a lawyer: review what they write before it is submitted. Too many people just give a write up of their idea and expect the lawyer to be able to turn it into legalese. The lawyers objective is to make the patent claim as broad as possible, so that client will be able to sue anyone who does something even remotely similar (try Googling "amazon one-click patent" for more on this). The problem comes when the lawyer does not understand the idea enough to make truthful claims for the patent application.
Techdirt: Why You Don't Want Lawyers With Senses Of Humor Writing Your Patent Applications

Defendant doesn't want RIAA let off the hook

2006-10-26T15:50:00.000-07:00

I know lots of young law students are very interested in the cases the RIAA is bringing against file-sharers. They are using (or possibly abusing) the law in a way that is unique by using lawsuits to police those who might be infringing on the copyrighted material they broadly represent.

An interesting aspect to these cases is created when the RIAA decides to drop a lawsuit. They do this often, for several different reasons. Sometimes they realize they got the wrong guy. They hire specialists to find the IP addresses of infringers, and then the internet service provider may or may not supply the name of the person that IP address belongs to, depending on how hard the RIAA lawyers lean on them. Sometimes the specialists or the ISPs mess something up along the way. Other times they are sure they have the right person, but that person just happens to be a 95-year-old woman who doesn't even own a TV, let alone a computer. Perhaps the most amusing reason they will drop a case comes when a defendant hires a high-powered attorney.

Marilyn Barringer-Thompson is one such high-powered attorney, and she's a copyright lawsuit specialist to boot. She doesn't get the opportunity to defeat the RIAA in court, because they drop cases when they see her coming. She answers to RIAA lawsuits quickly, and with counterclaims. The RIAA is put in a bad position by this. If a case is dismissed with prejudice, not only does the defendant win, but the RIAA has to pay for the attorney fees.

If the RIAA will "cut and run" (I'm stealing phrases from the president, and I'm sorry) so easily at the sight of any powerful attorney, how strong can their cases be in the first place?
Defendant doesn't want RIAA let off the hook

The Dot-Com Lawsuits

2006-10-13T17:48:00.000-07:00

Here's a great resource for anyone study libel and copyright laws along with various other corners of the legal code that relate to the world wide web. Ever since the dawn of the internet, there have been people fighting over their share of it, and what is and isn't allowed to go on it.

It seems the internet is not the open range many people once thought it was, although many of the plaintiffs in these lawsuits eventually dismissed the cases - or lost them and had to pay costs. It's an interesting look at how people have used the valuable "invisible property" that is the internet in ways that the legal code could have never anticipated.
LINK

Does YouTube Make Google a Copyright-Infringement Target?

2006-10-11T15:45:00.000-07:00

A lot of people, including myself, have questioned whether Google's buyout of YouTube opens up the search giant to copyright infringement lawsuits. Although there is certainly a strong possibility that Google will get sued, it's not clear whether or not they will lose.

Both YouTube members who upload copyrighted material and Google could be held liable for copyright infringement, but the law is vague on what actions Google must make to avoid breaking the law. YouTube users are the ones uploading the videos, and they are supposed to follow the guidelines which they agreed to when they signed up. That includes only uploading videos that they own distribution rights to or videos in the public domain. Google/YouTube just hosts these videos. Under provisions in the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a host must remove content as soon as it's notified that it infringes on copyrights. YouTube already does that, so while there are literally millions of infringing videos on YouTube, there should be close to zero videos that YouTube has been notifed are infringing.

Many copyright owners have no problem with their content being uploaded on to YouTube. It promotes their material for free, and can lead to greater revenue in the future. For that reason, I would expect many of those copyright owners to remain silent about infringement of their work and even join in themselves, perhaps releasing new music videos and other content on YouTube before selling their "better" goods somewhere else, perhaps with an ad for their paid content (be it a CD, a movie, or anything else) within the YouTube video.
Law Blog » Does YouTube Make Google a Copyright-Infringement Target?