Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.
First off today, Chris Cooke at Complete Music Update reports that the YouTube ripping site YouTube-mp3 has agreed to shut down as part of a settlement with the record labels.
YouTube-mp3 is a site that enables users to rip the audio out of a YouTube video and download it in MP3 format. The tool was a popular way of extracting audio from music videos, thus why the RIAA filed a lawsuit against the site.
YouTube-mp3 had been sued in its home country of Germany over backup copies of songs stored on its server. It agreed to stop that practice but was sued again in California over allegations it facilitated copyright infringement. The court has been informed though that the two sides have reached a settlement. While the full terms aren’t disclosed YouTube-mp3 does accept all allegations of copyright infringement, has said it will pay an undisclosed amount in damages and shutter its doors.
2: VidAngel’s Movie-Editing Methods Are Legal, It Says, and the Utah Company is Asking a Judge to Agreeyeqeysrddrewezuweuyfxyztuszecar
Next up today, Mariah Noble at The Salt Lake Tribune reports that film filtering service VidAngel is going on the offensive and has filed a lawsuit against the movie studios in Utah where it is seeking a declaratory judgment that its new business model is legal.
VidAngel started life as a streaming service that allowed users to “buy” a DVD for $20, stream it via their servers, filter out objectionable content, and then resell it back to VidAngel for $19. However, the company was quickly sued by movie studios, which won an injunction that was upheld on appeal.
However, in its new lawsuit, VidAngel says it stopped using the old system late last year and now lets users filter directly licensed services such as Amazon Video and Netflix. Despite this, VidAngel has refused to stream films owned by the plaintiff in fear of breaching the injunction. As such, VidAngel has filed the new lawsuit in its home state of Utah and is seeking a declaratory judgment that this new service is legal.
Finally today, Forbes reports that a judge has issued a summary judgment in favor of Dr. Phil’s production company, Peteski Productions, against an employee that secretly recorded Dr. Phil ranting behind close doors.
The story involves Leah Rothman, a former employee of Peteski, who recorded the video saying that Dr. Phil was so cruel that it caused her emotional harm. The sued for emotional distress and false imprisonment but Peteski countered by suing for copyright infringement, claiming that Rothman was attempting to sell her recording to the National Enquirer.
The judge has now issued a summary judgment in favor of Peteski on the copyright issue saying that the recording was obtained in bad faith and not for any greater good. As such, according to the judge, her recording and attempted sale of the video was a copyright infringement and further ruled against a fair use argument put forward by Rothman.
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.