Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.
First off today, Joe Mullin at Ars Technica reports that, at the Google/Oracle trial, Oracle called a hostile witness, namely Stefano Mazzocchi, one of the creators of the Apache Harmony program, which played a vital role in helping Google build its Android mobile operating system.
The lawsuit centers around Google’s implementation of Java, the programming language owned by Oracle, in its Android mobile operating system. Google claims that it didn’t copy any of the code of the language, just reused the APIs to ensure compatibility. However, Oracle claims that the use of the APIs is a copyright infringement though Google is currently arguing that it’s a fair use. The case was originally filed in 2010 but the first jury was deadlocked on the issue of fair use. After a series of appeals affirmed the copyrightability of APIs, the matter of fair use is back before a jury a second time.
Mazzocchi was called by Oracle over a series of messages he sent the Apache community claiming that he was concerned about copyright and and the implementation of Java that ended up being used in Android. On cross examination by Google, Mazzocchi said that he is not a lawyer, not an expert on copyright law and was not asked for legal advice.
Next up today, Ernesto at Torrentfreak writes that Cogent, a former hosting company for Megaupload, has warned the courts that half of the hard drives previously used by the file sharing site have become unreadable and may have suffered permanent data loss. This has prompted copyright holders in civil cases against the site to ask for the court to help them secure the data.
Megaupload was shuttered in January 2012 in a joint U.S. and New Zealand police action that both saw the closure of its hosting accounts and the raiding of the site’s owner, Kim Dotcom’s, New Zealand mansion. The United States is seeking to extradite Dotcom but the case has dragged on amid a litany of appeals and delays. That’s also halted civil action by the record labels and movie studios, who are seeking damages for infringement the site enabled.
The courts had previously ordered the hosting companies to preserve the data but, as the case has dragged on, the ravages of time have taken their toll on approximately half of the hard drives, causing them to fail. As a result, copyright holders are now pressing the court to allow them access to the drives so they can backup, preserve and analyze the data, something the courts have been reluctant to grant in the past.
Finally today, Dalson Chen at The Windsor Star reports that a second lawsuit has been filed against David Koonar, the alleged owner of Porn.com, a site that several porn studios believe has been widely trafficking in pirated pornographic videos.
The new lawsuit, filed by the MetArt Network, claims that Porn.com pretends to be a user-generated site but that the actual uploading of infringing videos is done by Koonar and others under his direction. It follows a similar lawsuit by AMA Multimedia that made similar allegations and noted inconsistencies in when and how videos appeared on the site that, they claimed, showed evidence of tampering by site administrators.
MetArt is seeking $150,000 in damages for each video uploaded, the same as AMA Multimedia and, in the new lawsuit, is a co-defendant with several foreign companies and one to twenty “John Does”.
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.