Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.
First off today, Ernesto Van der Sar at Torrentfreak writes that the RIAA has secured a default victory against a pair of YouTube ripping sites and is asking the court for some $82 million in damages from the sites’ owner.
The RIAA filed the lawsuit against the pair of sites alleging that they enabled and encouraged piracy by allowing people to download music from YouTube. Initially, the owner of the sites fought back, believing that the sites were legal. However, he later refused to comply with discovery demands and simply backed out of the court process, prompting the judge to award a default victory to the RIAA.
With that victory in hand, the RIAA has requested a total of $80.9 million in damages. In addition to that, the RIAA is asking for a permanent injunction against the sites wants to take control of their respective domains.
Next up today, Jasmine Simpkins at Hip Hollywood reports that musicians Brandon Cooper and Timothy Valentine have filed a lawsuit against both Chris Brown and Drake alleging that their song No Guidance is an infringement of their earlier song I Love Your Dress.
Cooper, who goes by the stage name Mr. Cooper, and Valentine, AKA Drum’n Skillz, allege that No Guidance copies several elements from their earlier work. Those elements include regularly repeated lyrics that are shared by the two songs.
No Guidance debuted in July 2019 and is a Chris Brown song that has Drake as the featured artist. Neither side has commented on the lawsuit.
Finally today, Blake Brittain at Reuters reports that the estate of Dr. Seuss has settled a long-running dispute with the creators behind a Dr. Seuss/Star Trek mashup comic after one of the comic’s creators was diagnosed with cancer.
The case had been going on for five years and centered around a comic book entitled Oh, the Places You’ll Boldly Go! According to the estate, the book infringed the copyright of the Dr. Seuss work Oh, the Places You’ll Go, but the defendants argued that the book was a parody and a fair use.
The 9th Circuit had previously ruled that the book was not a fair use due to a lack of transformation. This overturned a lower court decision that had found it was. However, before the case could go back to the lower court, both sides have agreed to settle the dispute following a cancer diagnosis of one of the defendants, bringing an end to the case.