Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.
First off today, Ben Sisario at The New York Times reports that the lawsuit filed by the band Yellowcard against the recently deceased rapper Juice WRLD has been quietly dropped by the band as they are uneager to pursue the case against the rapper’s mother.
The original lawsuit accused Juice WRLD of copying the melody of Yellowcard’s 2006 song Holly Wood Died for his 2017 song Lucid Dreams. However, shortly after the lawsuit was filed, Juice WRLD died of an accidental drug overdose at age 21. The band initially said it would continue the lawsuit, but the case was stayed in February to allow time for the estate to be settled.
However, with the estate settled, they have appointed Juice WRLD’s mother as its personal representative, meaning that Yellowcard would have to continue the case against her. The band, however, decided they would rather withdraw the case though they reserve the option to refile it at another time.
Next up today, Chris Cooke at Complete Music Update reports that the U.S.-based ISP Bright House has filed a counterclaim against the various companies in the music industry alleging that they have been sending questionable copyright notices to them.
Bright House is one of several ISPs being sued by the music industry for allegedly not doing enough to stop piracy on its network. According to the labels and publishers, Bright House did not take strong enough action against suspected infringers and should lose its safe harbor, making it liable for the infringements.
The case is similar to ones filed against both Cox Communications and Charter. In fact, Bright House’s counterclaims are also remarkably like ones filed by Charter back in March. The plaintiffs only recently responded to those allegations, saying they were built upon a “pyramid of conjecture.”
Finally today, Andy Maxwell at Torrentfreak writes that a YouTuber Latonya Finley has filed a lawsuit against YouTube alleging the site is not upholding its obligations under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and is harming creators.
Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that YouTube has failed to specify a DMCA agent and that the site does not restore videos after a counternotice has been filed. This follows an allegedly false DMCA notice the plaintiff had against her channel. Finley claims that YouTube did not provide adequate information to permit her to contact the claimant nor did they restore the video after she filed a counternotice.
The case, however, is unlikely to succeed as YouTube clearly does have and designate a DMCA agent and a previous case ruled that hosts had no obligation to restore content after a counternotice.