Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.
First off today, Joan Solsman at CNet reports that Judge Dale A. Kimball in the District Court of Utah has ruled against TV streaming service Aereo, granting a motion by broadcasters to temporarily shut the service down in the circuit.
Aereo is a service that uses a series of tiny antennas, one per customer, to capture over-the-air broadcast television and stream it to users via the Internet. They’ve argued that their service is no different than what users can do in their own home but broadcasters have sued them in various courts. However, this is the broadcasters’ first win against the company. A defeat in New York is currently being appealed to the Supreme Court with oral argument set to be heard on April 22.
The injunction bars Aereo from operating in 6 states, including two cities it is current in, Denver and Salt Lake City. The judge also denied Aereo’s request to move the case and granted a request to stay any further proceedings until the Supreme Court has a chance to rule.
Next up today, Eriq Gardner at The Hollywood Reporter Esquire reports that director Quentin Tarantino’s case against Gawker has taken a strange turn as the company claims it can’t be sued in the California court because it is based in the Cayman Islands, outside the court’s reach.
Tarantino sued Gawker after the company, on one of its sites, posted a link to a leaked version of a script he was working on, “The Hateful Eight”. Tarantino is suing the company for copyright infringement, saying that they are secondarily liable for providing the link and turning the leak into a major story.
However, Gawker is now saying that the California court has no jurisdiction over the case as the company, Gawker Media, LLC, is registered in the Cayman Islands and that the company doesn’t publish anything directly, it only holds the assets for its subsidiaries. But the move is unlikely to end the case as the motion notes that they are not contesting personal jurisdiction for those involved, just for the company.
Finally today Andy at Torrentfreak writes that the RIAA is asking the court for a summary judgment in its ongoing case against Grooveshark, trying to bring an end to the legal wrangling.
The record labels sued Grooveshark alleging that the music streaming service illegally makes available millions of tracks that they do not have a license for. However, Grooveshark has long claimed to be similar to an audio version of YouTube and claim that it is protected by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
However the RIAA is now alleging that, during the early days of the site, the company required employees to help upload tracks to the service, something that would eliminate their safe harbor protection. The labels also allege that Grooveshark used an early version of the service, which was peer-to-peer based, to obtain many of the initial tracks and that it would deliberately re-upload tracks removed by DMCA takedown notices.
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.