Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.
First off today, Barney Dixon at IPPro reports that Rimini Street has been ordered to pay $73.9 million to Oracle and has been hit with an injunction that bars further infringement.
Rimini Street is a third-party support company that provides support for Oracle databases at a cost that’s less than what Oracle provides. However, Oracle accused Rimini Street of illegally copying their software and sued them for copyright infringement.
The court agreed and has not hit Rimini Street with the damages and an injunction that restricts Rimini Street’s access to Oracle’s website and prevents Rimini Street from distributing Oracle software. Though the amount of damages is less than the $250 million Oracle wanted, Oracle hailed the judgment but Rimini Street has repeatedly said that it will appeal and that it has already altered its practices to bring it into compliance with the law.
Next up today, Andy at Torrentfreak writes that that the Open Rights Group is warning UK MPs that the Digital Economy Bill, as written, could permit simple file sharers to face sentences of up to 10 years in prison.
The bill, which is designed to make the criminal sentences for commercial copyright infringement online parallel to the tougher sentences for physical media, is supposed to only target large-scale and commercial copyright infringers.
However, according to the Open Rights Group, the current language of the bill, which is making its way through the House of Commons, permits severe criminal sanctions against simple file sharers, not just those engaged in commercial piracy. However, the MPs the group spoke with seemed skeptical of the issue.
Finally today, All Africa reports that American musician Chris Brown has removed an image from his social media that was allegedly used without permission from the photographer.
The image, a black and white photo taken while he was performing in Mombasa, was shared on Brown’s social media. However, photographer Michael Khateli complained about the use of the image, it disappeared from his online presence.
The photographer further accused brown of removing a watermark he had placed on the image before sharing it. It is unclear if the photographer is planning to take any additional action.
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.