Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.
First off today, David Kravets at Wired reports that aFederal judge has ruled against ReDigi, a music service that allows people to “resell” digital tracks they bought legally. Vivendi’s Capitol Records filed suit against the service, saying that it was an infringement and the idea of “first sale”, the right to resell legally-purchased works, did not apply to digital downloads.
The judge agreed with Vivendi, finding that the service was liable for direct, contributory and vicarious infringement. The judge based the ruling on the premise that, when ReDigi goes to resell a digital work, an unlawful copy is made. ReDigi denies this, saying that they ensure the previously-owned copy is destroyed. However, the judge said that the laws of physics go against ReDigi in its effort.
ReDigi did not comment on the ruling and appears to still be in operation as of this writing. The service will likely appeal the decision.
Next up today, Lucas Shaw at The Wrap reports that The Hollywood Reporter has settled its ongoing case against Penske Media Corporation, the parent of Deadline Hollywood and Variety, two rival publications.
Penske accused The Hollywood Reporter of lifting code from its TVline site and sued the publication, along with its parent Prometheus Global Media, in September 2011. Initially, Penske wanted more than $5 million in damages but the two parties have settled on $162,500.
The Hollywood Reporter also issued an apology for the infringement, saying that it was a mistake by an outside consultant and nothing more. Penske has said it will continue to monitor The Hollywood Reporter for future infringements.
Finally today, Eriq Gardner at The Hollywood Reporter Esquire reports that, as the Viacom v. YouTube case heads back to the district court, both sides are arguing about which has the burden of proof in showing whether or not YouTube had actual knowledge of any infringements.
Viacom famously sued YouTube alleging that the site encouraged copyright infringement, in particular in its earlier years. The lower court dismissed the lawsuit, tossing out Viacom’s claim, saying that YouTube was protected under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Viacom appealed and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that ruling, sending the matter back to the lower court.
However, Viacom now admits that it is incapable of providing proof that YouTube had actual knowledge of specific infringements, a requirement for its claims. YouTube argues that should mean the dismissal of the case but Viacom responded saying it is not their burden to prove that as it is an affirmative defense raised by YouTube and, thus, it is YouTube’s burden to prove it.
The judge now has to decide if the case should be again dismissed as a summary judgment or sent to a trial.
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.