Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.
1: Netflix and Jerry Media Are Being Sued – Again – for Copyright Infringement in Connection with Fyre Film
First off today, The Fashion Law reports that Netflix and Jerry Media are facing a second copyright infringement lawsuit over their documentary of the disastrous Fyre music festival.
The complaint was filed by Nicole Pinedo, who claimed that neither Netflix nor Jerry Media had permission to use three of her videos in the film. Pinedo, a filmmaker and the head of a production company, documented the activities of the festival’s founders in the lead up to the disastrous event. This has prompted Pinedo to seek injunctive relief, meaning that the film would be required to either edit out her footage or obtain a license if it is granted.
The film has been controversial due to the participation of Jerry Media, which was heavily involved in the festival and their participation is seen as a conflict of interest. The duo recently settled a separate copyright infringement lawsuit filed by festival attendee Clarissa Cardenas over their use of a video she took on the island. The film is up for several Emmy awards in spite of the controversy (and a rule requiring films be free of copyright infringement issues).
Next up today, Andy at Torrentfreak writes that the closure of Vader, one of the most prominent sites for pirate IPTV services, was due to a legal action by the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE) and the service now must pay some $10 million in damages.
The service shuttered abruptly in May and didn’t offer any explanation as to why. Though ACE was widely suspected, nothing could be confirmed at the time. Now it is known that ACE took legal action against Vader in Canada using a secret court process. That process seems to now be over with ACE obtaining both a permanent injunction and a judgment of $10 million in damages.
In addition to the injunction and the damages, Vader is required to “cede administrative control” over its entire “piracy infrastructure.” However, it is unclear what that means in this circumstance. Nonetheless, ACE applauded the judgment and said it was a major step in protecting the work of the film and television industry.
Finally today, Chris Cooke at Complete Music Update reports that Cox is asking the judge to strike key evidence provided by the record lables in their battle over safe harbors and Cox’s role in the fight against piracy.
Normally, ISPs such as Cox are protected copyright liability by safe harbors from the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. However, the record labels sued alleging that Cox has not complied with the requirements of those safe harbors, namely not disconnecting repeat infringers, and should be held liable for infringements that occurred on its network.
The case is moving toward a likely trial but Cox is asking the court to strike key evidence gathered by MarkMonitor saying that the company has not kept all of the data related to the work and, as such, the evidence is not sufficiently credible. The lawsuit follows a similar case filed by BMG, which the label won but had overturned on a technicality. Before the case could be retried, a settlement was reached.