Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.
First off today, Bams Sadewo at Android Authority writes that the judge in the Google/Oracle case has delivered yet another blow against Oracle, ordering the company to pay Google’s legal fees, totaling some $300,000. Oracle had sued Google alleging that Google’s implementation of JAVA in their Android mobile operating system violated their copyrights and patents. However, a jury dismissed the patent allegations and the judge ruled that the JAVA APIs, the bulk of the copyright claims, were not copyrightable. Though Oracle still has two copyright claims, the maximum damages they can obtain from them is $300,000, which is the amount that Oracle was ordered to pay Google for its legal fees in exchange for allowing Oracle to file third damages brief. Oracle has said it will appeal the judge’s decisions.
Next up today, Steve Schmadeke of the Chicago Tribune reports that the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court ruling dismissing a case against South Park filed by Brownmark Films. The case centered around a South Park episode entitled “Canada on Strike”, which featured a parody of the viral music video “What What in the Butt”. In the South Park version, the song was sung by the character Butters rather than Samwell, the original musician. Brownmark, the copyright holder in the original video, sued saying that they had been financially harmed by the parody but the lower court ruled that it was a clear cut case of fair use and dismissed it without sending it to trial. The Appeals Court upheld that decision, saying that the lower court had all of the needed facts and made the correct decision.
Finally today, Eriq Gardner at The Hollywood Reporter writes that, in a strange move, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals appears to be revisiting the UMG vs. Veoh case following a related ruling in a different circuit. In the Ninth Circuit, the court ruled that video site Veoh was protected by DMCA safe harbor and was not liable for copyright infringement on uploaded videos because they did not have “actual knowledge” of infringement as copyright holders had not filed a DMCA notice naming specific videos. However, the Second Circuit ruling revived the lawsuit between Viacom and YouTube, a largely similar case, by establishing a different set of rules for when a host had such knowledge. The Ninth Circuit is asking for briefs from the parties in the Veoh case to address the Second Circuit ruling and may hold a hearing on it later. If the Ninth Circuit decides to modify its ruling, it could be a major blow to ISPs and hosts, who viewed the Veoh case as an favorable ruling.
That’s it for the three count today. We will be back tomorrow with three more copyright links. If you have a link that you want to suggest a link for the column or have any proposals to make it better. Feel free to leave a comment or send me an email. I hope to hear from you.
Want the Full Story?
Tune in every Wednesday evening at 5 PM ET for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Friday right here on Plagiarism Today.