Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.
First off today, Andy at Torrentfreak writes that Warner Brothers has been sending notices to suspected file sharers who are not on ISPs involved in the “Six Strikes” system and, in those notices, is demanding a small payment for suspected infringements.
The “six strikes” system is a cooperative effort between many Internet service providers (ISPs) and copyright holders to send out warning letters to suspected infringers and, after four or more warnings, take punitive action against them. However, it does not include all ISPs in the country. Warner has said that they are targeting file sharers not ISPs in the program and sending DMCA notices to those infringers, which demands that, in addition to stopping the infringement, they pay a small $20 fee per item infringed.
The system is being managed through Digital Rights Corp, which attaches the request for settlement to Digital Millennium Copyright Act notices that the ISPs are required to forward on to customers. However, it is unlikely legal action would be taken against a customer who failed to pay.
Next up today, Craig Rosen at Yahoo! Music reports that a 1983 demo of Axl Rose’s pre- Guns N’ Roses band, Rapidfire, has been taken off of YouTube due to a copyright complaint by Rose’s attorney.
The video, which included a part of a demo of the band’s song “Ready to Rumble” was removed from the site due to a claim by “Mark Music & Media Law”, a law firm that represents Rose.
However, the legal issues over the track may not be over as the people behind the release of the track hinted on a Facebook page that they were working on an official release of the song as well as four other demo tracks from the band.
Finally today, Lars Brandle at Billboard reports that Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI) has requested that TMZ retract a story dealing with a lawsuit the organization filed that pits it against a dozen bars and restaurants that it says are playing BMI-represented music without a license.
Among issues BMI had with the story was that it it claimed BMI said it was “entitled” to $150,000 per song infringed, even though that is simply the maximum statutory damages, and that it misrepresents the relationship between BMI and performers, suggesting some big-name performers are part of the litigation when they are not.
BMI handles licenses for public performances, such as those in bars and restaurants, and requires establishments to pay a license to play BMI-licensed music publicly in a commercial setting. Currently, the organization collects over $800 million in licensing fees from some 650,000 businesses.
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.