Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.
First off today, Ted Johnson at Variety reports that Nu Image and Millennium Films, the companies behind the film Survivor, have sued 16 individuals who they claim pirated the film via BitTorrent using Popcorn Time.
Popcorn Time has drawn a great deal of attention for its user interface, which makes pirating films much easier than traditional BitTorrent clients. In the lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court in Portland, Oregon, the plaintiffs dub Popcorn Time as “software that is specifically designed for committing theft.”
The lawsuit hopes to have local ISPs provide the identities of the suspected infringers, who are currently only named by their IP address. The lawsuit also says they seek to resolve the cases for $750 in damages, the minimum allowed under copyright law.
Next up today, Allie Coyne at ITNews reports that Dallas Buyers Club LLC, the rightsholders to the film of the same name, have opted not to appeal an Australian court’s ruling limiting their access to information about suspected infringers, instead, they are hoping to rework their damage request to make it more appealing to the judge.
Dallas Buyers Club LLC filed a lawsuit in Australia seeking to identify some 4,700 suspected pirates of the film. Initially, the judge granted them the right to obtain the information but withheld it unless they agreed only to pursue damages equal to the cost of an actual copy and the actual costs of locating them. The judge gave the company 14 days to appeal that ruling but the time frame has now elapsed.
According to Dallas Buyers Club LLC, rather than file an appeal, they are hoping to revamp their damage request in hopes that the judge will agree with a new plan instead. They do not have a time frame for resubmitting the request.
Finally today, Eamonn Forde at The Guardian reports that, starting yesterday, EMI Production Music began a six-month amnesty period for uncleared samples from its catalog, making it possible for those who used samples without permission to obtain the rights without fear of legal reprisal.
EMI holds a very prominent catalog of music, much of it that it holds both master and publishing rights, which means it can provide one-stop clearance. However, many of the samples of EMI music were not cleared properly, which had led to various lawsuits.
However, for those who come forward in the next six months, EMI says it will provide a license at current market rates but not demand any back royalties, no matter how long the uncleared sample had been used. EMI is hoping that this will encourage more consistent licensing of samples from its library moving forward.
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.