Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.
First off today, KYBN Radio writes that country music musician Dwight Yoakam has filed a lawsuit seeking to reclaim the copyrights in many of his earlier works, however, Warner Music has hit back saying that at least some of the requests were not filed timely.
Yoakam filed the lawsuit back in February claiming that Warner Music Group was refusing to honor his notices of copyright termination for his earlier songs. He also filed and amended complaint that added much of his catalog. However, according to Warner Music, Yoakam’s notices arrived six days late and thought not be honored. The reply further states that it is way too early to start discussing notices filed for later works.
In addition, Warner Music Group is asking the court to dismiss all claims against it, saying that it is not the party at issue. Instead, Yoakam should be targeting the company’s subsidiaries, Rhino and Warner Records. Yoakam, for his part, says that the company is simply refusing to recognize their lawful copyright termination and are demanding that the court not only rule that the rights to the earlier works should be restored to him, but that that Warner Music should pay up to $1 million in damages for denying the original notices.
Next up today, Xinmei Shen at the South China Morning Post reports that the Chinese Communist Party’s Publicity Department, which functions as the propaganda department for the Chinese government, has emerged victorious in a legal battle against the tech company Tencent Holdings with the court ordering Tencent to pay 30,420 yuan ($4,700) each for three violations.
According to the lawsuit, Tencent posted several movies on their video streaming platform without authorization and the department originally wanted some 50,000 yuan ($7,700) for each of the infringements. The court found in favor of the plaintiffs in three of the four cases and ordered Tencent to pay the damages.
In the final of the four original cases, the court found that the department had transferred the rights to one of the movies to a third party that then licensed it to Tencent. As such, that display was completely legal and not subject to damages.
Finally today, Andy Maxwell at Torrentfreak writes that Maria Schneiders’ class action lawsuit against YouTube still has not named a single allegedly infringing video on YouTube but claims that they cannot provide that information without access to Content ID, bringing us back to the original intentt of the lawsuit.
Schneider originally teamed up with an anti-piracy company to file the lawsuit alleging that YouTube unfairly restricts access to its Content ID system. Schneider has repeatedly claimed that there is widespread infringement taking place on YouTube but has not identified a single infringing video. This has led to YouTube saying that she needs to clarify her claims and specify the infringements she is talking about.
Schneider, for her part, says she did identify some 75 such infringements to YouTube back in March but that it is not her responsibility to identify all infringements and, even if it were, she can’t do so without access to Content ID. These cross motions are part of YouTube’s effort to set a case schedule and Schneider’s team opposing it.