Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.
First off today, Don Jeffrey at Bloomberg Businessweek reports that Aereo has asked a Federal judge to dismiss the copyright infringement lawsuit filed against it by the various TV broadcasters, claiming that the arguments put forth by the networks have no merit and should dismissed without a trial.
Aereo is a TV streaming service that uses a series of tiny antennas, one per customer, to stream and record over-the-air broadcast television and make it available to consumers on multiple devices. Both the lower court and an appeals court refused to grant injunctions against Aereo, prompting Aereo to push for the lawsuit to be dismissed entirely.
The networks, however, have re-appealed the injunction issue “en banc”, sending it back to the same court with the belief that the court ignored a contradictory verdict against a similar company, Aereokiller, in California.
Next up today, Joe Mullin at Ars Technica reports that Prenda Law, the beleaguered copyright “troll” law firm that has made a reputation of attempting to sue BitTorrent users that allegedly pirated adult content, is having a tough time explaining a bizarre signature on some of its documents.
Specifically, the judge in one of the cases now-dropped by Prenda is asking to see the original signature of a “Salt Marsh”, a person (or entity) that signed a certification on behalf of AF Holdings, one of Prenda’s supposed clients. Prenda explained that was the name of an entity owned by Mark Lutz, an official owner of a separate shell company, but Prenda has filed papers saying that it is unable to locate the original, likely in violation of signature preservation rules.
Prenda’s lawsuits, at least in California, came to a halt after it was revealed that at least some of the “clients” Prenda was representing were likely shell companies for the lawyers themselves, a violation of court rules.
Finally today, Dave McNary at Variety reports that Media Rights Capital (MRC) and the PHilip K. Dick Estate have settled their dispute over the recent movie “The Adjustment Bureau”, which was based on a 1954 story by Dick.
According to the estate, MRC had agreed to license the rights to the story for a portion of the revenue of the film. However, MRC claims that it learned the story was actually in the public domain and didn’t have to pay anything. This prompted the Dick estate to sue, first in Federal Court, where the judge dismissed most claims due to lack of jurisdiction, and then in state court over contract and related issues.
However, that lawsuit has now been settled though the terms were not disclosed. In a statement, both sides said that they look forward to working with each other in the future.
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.