Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.
First off today, Ben Grubb at The Sydney Morning Herald reports that, though today was meant to be the start date for a new anti-piracy regime in Australia, the new system, which was designed to warn users if their account had been used for copyright infringement, has been delayed over battles of the costs of the system and who should pay for it.
The system, which is separate from the site blocking regime also introduced in the country, was meant to send warnings to consumers, up to 200,000 per year, when their IP address was detected pirating content on file sharing sites. However, ISPs and rightsholders have failed to reach an agreement with ISPs over money. According to ISPs it costs around $27 to identify and warn a pirate while rightsholders say the number is closer to $6, of which they are only willing to pay $3.
Rightsholders warn that, if the system is too expensive, then it will not be used. They point to the similar New Zealand system, which has a price tag of $25 per notice, and has seen very limited use. Negotiations are ongoing but no new start date has been proposed.
Next up today, Mike Heuer at Courthouse News Service reports that the upcoming trial between Oracle and Rimini Street will be just one part that will include liability and damages, rather than broken up into multiple phases.
Oracle is a company that develops various computer software applications and provides services for them. Rimini Street is a company that offers support services for Oracle software but at a greatly reduced rate. Oracle accused Rimini Street of illegally copying and distributing Oracle software to its customers, prompting the lawsuit last year.
A trial is scheduled to begin on Sept. 14 but Rimini Street petitioned to court to have the trial broken up into three phases, first a liability phase and then a damages phase after. As part of that, Rimini wanted evidence related to willful infringement excluded from the liability portion of the trial. Oracle didn’t oppose the multiple phases, but did oppose the exclusion of any evidence. However, the judge has ruled that the separation of the phases is not in the best interest of the trial and it will move forward as one part.
Finally today, The Economic Times is reporting that the Delhi High Court has issued a Rs 10 Lakh ($15,000) judgment against local filmmaker Ram Gopal Varma and his production company over the remake of the 1975 movie Sholay in violation of the copyright holder.
Varma’s film reportedly used the same characters, songs, dialogue and lyrics as the original but did so without permission from the original’s director, Ramesh Sippy, who holds the copyright in it.
The court ruled that Varma’s production was both a violation of Sippy’s copyright and his moral rights, bringing about judgment. The court also restrained them from using any characters from the original film on top of the damages, which were punitive in nature.