Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.
First off today, J. Clara Chan at TheWrap reports that the social media service Triller has filed a $100 million lawsuit against some 12 streaming sites and 100 unnamed individuals over alleged piracy of the recent Jake Paul fight.
Earlier this month, Triller hosted a pay-per-view event that included a boxing match between Paul and MMA fighter Ben Askren. Though the event was widely considered a success, with an estimated 1.5 million buys, Triller estimates that at least 2 million people viewed it illegally on streaming sites. The $100 million figure represents those estimated 2 million people multiplied by the $50 price tag for the event.
In addition to the streaming sites that hosted the event, the lawsuit also targets 100 “John Doe” defendants that are accused of participating in the infringement.
Next up today, Navjosh at HipHop-N-More writes that a judge is allowing a lawsuit filed by Eminem’s publisher, Eight Mile Style, against both the Harry Fox Agency and Spotify over allegations of unpaid mechanical royalties to continue.
According to the original lawsuit, The Harry Fox Agency wrongfully placed many of Eminem’s tracks, including his biggest hit Lose Yourself, under copyright control. That is an indicator that the agency doesn’t have information to enable them to pay royalties to that artist. Spotify, as well as others, use the Harry Fox Agency to help dispense mechanical royalties but Eight Mile Style claims that this approach was taken to avoid paying all the royalties owed.
Both Spotify and the Harry Fox Agency attempted to get the lawsuit tossed. However, a judge has declined to dismiss the case, setting the stage for a potential trial down the road.
Finally today, Eriq Gardner at The Hollywood Reporter Esquire reports that ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC have united to file a lawsuit against Locast, a service that allows users to stream over-the-air broadcast television via the internet.
Locast does not pay any royalties or licensing fees for capturing and transmitting the signal. However, it claims that it is exempt from doing so under an exemption for a “nonprofit organization, without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage.” However, the networks argue that the service not only fails to qualify for this due to its business model, namely offering a freemium service with paid upgrades, but that Locast alters the transmissions, something barred under the exemption.
Both sides have filed motions to dismiss with the networks accusing the service of simply being “Aereo 2.0” and Locast saying that the court should not confuse commercial activity with being a for-profit organization.