Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.
First off today, Eriq Gardner at The Hollywood Reporter Esquire reports that Google has been handed a legal defeat in Canada, one that could have drastic implications for how the search engine removes content for intellectual property reasons.
The case centered around a company named Equustek Solutions Inc., which sought to gave Google remove URLs for a trademark-infringing competitor. Equustek won the right, but Google only removed the links in its Google.ca search engine, not its main (.com) one or other countries. Equustek then pressed the courts to force Google to remove the links in all of its search engines.
Realizing the importance of the case, the International Federation of Film Producers Associations and the International Federation of thePhonographic Industry intervened in the case and, with the permission of the appeals court, presented their own arguments. The judge has now ruled in the case, saying that the 25-year injunction barring Google from displaying the links not only applies to Google.ca, but to all Google properties, saying it is not outside the boundaries of the court to do so. According to the court, an order limiting the injunction to Google.ca would not be effective and needed to apply worldwide to have the desired impact.
Next up today, Andrew Albanese at Publishers Weekly reports that the proposal to separate the U.S. Copyright Office from the Library of Congress, which it is currently a branch of, is meeting with mixed reactions as as the American Association of Publishers supports the draft but the Internet Association, an organization representing companies like Amazing, Facebook and Google, say that other changes are needed first.
The proposal was made by House Representatives Judy Chu and Tom Marino, who published a draft of the Copyright Office for the Digital Economy (CODE) Act. The act would pull the Copyright Office out of the Library of Congress, giving it its own offices, budget and executive director. The bill aims to help modernize the Copyright Office by giving it more control over its own destiny.
However, the Internet Association claims that “wholesale changes” are needed to the copyright office first before spinning it off. However, the AAP supports the proposal as does the Authors Guild and other creator-representing organizations.
Finally today, Peter Vincent at the Sydney Morning Herald reports that Beyonce Knowwles has been sued over alleged copyright infringement by a musician that claims Beyonce’s XO is based on his song XOXO.
The lawsuit was filed by singer Ahmad Lane, who claims that he sent a copy of the song to Beyonce’s background singer Crissy Collins. However, Beyonce’s team has hit back against the lawsuit saying that there are no audible similarities between the two songs and, other than the similar titles, no obvious overlap at all.
The lawsuit is demanding $7.11 million in damages but Beyonce is asking that the lawsuit be dismissed before reaching 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.