Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.
First off today, Greg Storh at Bloomberg reports that The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal filed by Deutsche Boerse’s International Securities Exchange LLC against McGraw-Hill Cos., who controls the index options for various stock exchanges in the U.S.
Deutsche Boerse had sought to publish their own index-options market without a license from McGraw Hill but McGraw won an Illinois court ruling barring them from doing so. However, Deutsche Boerse appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, claiming that Federal copyright law barred McGraw’s claims.
However, by refusing to hear the case, the court allows the state court ruling to stand, continuing to grant McGraw Hill exclusive rights to license and market the relevant options.
Next up today, Emma Woollacott at Forbes reports that a group of U.S. ISPs, including Verizon, AT&T, Bright House and Cox, are jointly appealing a District of Columbia ruling that oreded them to turn over subscriber information for some 1,058 IP addresses.
The IP addresses were sued as “John Doe” defendants by AF Holdings, a company based on the island of Nevis that is known for suing suspected pirates of their owned films in a bid to obtain their information and attempt to procure quick settlements.
The ISPs are arguing that there is no way to know if the account holder is the person who actually committed the piracy and this could result in the company obtaining coerced settlements from people who are either unable or unwilling to fight back.
Finally today, Timothy B. Lee at Ars Technica reports that Prenda Law is back to filing motions, this time in Georgia where it is hoping to move forward one of its cases there despite a scathing ruling in California against them. Their logic is that the laws in the two states are different and, to prove that, they point that California allows gay marriage and Georgia does not.
Prenda Law is a now-infamous copyright “troll” organization that became famous for attempting to mass-sue (and procure quick settlements with) those who they accused of pirating pornographic films. However, a judge in California has issued a ruling against them, saying that many of their purported clients were just shell companies for the lawyers themselves, a violation of both the law and attorney ethics.
According to Prenda, that ruling should be ignored in Georgia because California has “different laws”, noting that California recognizes gay marriages and eased rules on immigration. According to Prenda, if the Georgia court accepts the California court ruling, Georgia could be forced to accept other California policies.
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.